The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

I know exactly what you mean.

That first mission that teaches you the move feels glitchy.
What I did once was just move closer to the guy, and just tap the Human Shield button once. That worked, but when I replayed the mission, it didn't.

The trick to it is just getting close enough to the enemy and tapping Human Shield once. It takes some getting used to, the distance you have to be (and you have to do it in Low Profile). Eventually, you'll get more used to it and start pulling it off. It's just that for that one mission, the freaking tutorial for it, it doesn't seem to co operate.

The way I Full Synched that mission was I just jumped repeatedly whenever a firing line was on me, and then when I got near the second firing line (the one near the big gate), I just went to the right, along the wall whenever they were about to fire. Just don't give them line of sight (they won't move to get you).

Essentially I just ran past everything and killed the guy I was supposed to kill (he's out of the gate, to the left a little, if I'm remembering the whole mission correctly.

I hope this doesn't happen to me, the human shield is one of those new things that I'm very curious about, mechanically.

Here's a question for DAZ and anyone else who's played the game: How do you deal with individuals who fire at you with a pistol in combat? Other than using a ranged weapon, that is.

They get the yellow triangle and take aim. You press or and nothing happens. You can either run around trying to avoid it or you can take a swing at them. If you swing, their pistol magically changes to a sword and they block your hit. BUT, this one time (at band camp) Connor instead did a killing animation: he jumped and stabbed them in the face with his sword, Ezio style. Obviously that prevented the firing and was cool.

So how did I do it? I've only ever done it the one time, and believe me, I've been trying every time since then. I doubt it's a health thing because New York is full of the tougher guys and I've fought so bloody many that it would have had to happen again if it was that simple. Almost makes me think it's a button combination or something.

This brings me to the topic of attack avoidance. This game just doesn't have it. Why does make you do an 'opening attack'? In the grand scheme of things, that is a pretty weak and lackluster move. You simply don't need to create an opening like that because within the next one second somebody is going to attack you and you'll have your counter chance anyhow. should be a short tuck-and-roll, like when the brutes swing their heavy weapons and you press . Even if they put a 2-second cooldown on the move, that's fine. Just give us some way of avoiding the gunshots, particularly the individuals with pistols since we can't do the human shield move in that situation. Furthermore, when we can roll (even if it's the dodging of the heavies), we should at least be allowed to choose the direction we roll. But nope, doesn't matter what direction we press the stick, Connor always rolls in a set direction. Half the time it doesn't roll him out of the attack range and he's nailed on the back swing. Way to go, Ubi devs.

The combat certainly has its moments and it is still fun, but it could have been so much more. The Arkham games (from which this was inspired) still have a more solid fighting system. With a few tweaks, this one could have been better.

Third concern: what's with the parrying? You press and hold to parry attacks, but...what's the point? Is there something I haven't caught onto? I'm not seeing any reason to ever do this. Every chance you can parry you could instead opt to counter, which always deals at least some damage to the enemy (unless you choose the wrong follow-up). If there's some situation where it does anything other than waste time, I'd love to know about it. As it stands now, it's merely a way to take your eyes off the screen during combat and not die. Personally, I'd rather just pause the game.

You don't have to Hold [Empty Hand] to Parry, just tap it and don't press anything else. Its purpose is only to not attempt a counter move on an enemy that you're not sure against. (Not sure what kind of counter to do.)

I have not experienced the Gun into Sword glitch you spoke of, I usually Break Defense the gunman as soon as he does it. I hope Ubi reads these boards and patches some of these issues which I can only assume happen on the 360 version.

I haven't really used Dodge in previous Assassin's Creed games so I didn't have much of an issue with its lack of presence. However, I understand how that might feel crappy to someone who did use Dodge. The way I would get around this issue is by first understanding that the Combo system in this game is much different, similar to other Multi-Directional Combat video games;

Attacking in the direction of another enemy will move Connor that way and allow him to not only hit the enemy and damage their health bar, but also build up a Combo chain until eventually the final hit in the Chain that he lands on another enemy - even if he's never hit them before - will animate as a Kill.

So just attack in multiple directions, try not to focus on one enemy if you feel as if you might need to dodge. The new combat system (where you actually hitstun enemies) allows you to interrupt attack processes in the AI. I found that incredibly helpful.

When a single person is just holding out a pistol, you can still Human Shield a nearby enemy, you just have to try to stay near Melee enemies and not kill them if you suspect them about to shoot you.

Maybe you're not aware of the parry then. Parrying is different than countering – with parrying, you hold and you will simply parry away all incoming attacks, the way that the tougher enemies do when you swing at them. You have to hold the button down to parry. If you tap it, you start the counter animation with the time slowdown.

It's not a bug per se, it's just the way the game works. Brotherhood and Revelations had similar types of things. You try to attack a tougher opponent and they'll block it with their weapon, no matter what animation they were doing before. You can't score a hit by interrupting their animations, but they can do it to you.

I'll have to try the guard break when they're aiming with the pistol. I seem to recall it wasn't much different, but I'll take another look.

I just went and tried it and that's not how it works for me. If you change targets, the type of attack you do depends on the new target's current health. Just moments ago I got a guy down to one hit away from a finisher and then turned and attacked another and he simply deflected my attack as usual.

My experience is that it's basically a tweaked version of AC1's combo system. If you attack repeatedly by jamming on the button, your hits do a little damage and you'll be whittling away forever. If you time your presses at the moment your blade connects with them, you can take down even the toughest guys in just a couple of successive hits.

This stuff is best seen when up against a group of those taller sword-wielding guys who stand up straight and counter your counters. If you have no wimpy guys to begin a kill chain with, then you're forced to disarm and follow up with a combo. If you combo right, they go down in about three attacks. If your timing is off (or you just jam on the button) you'll be hacking away all day long.

This has never worked for me. I've ended up resorting to simply attacking the guy with the pistol to make him block, interrupting his aiming. I'll try the guard break thing.

Thank you very much for telling me about the Parry. That actually helps me a lot, because I didn't like the time slow-down thing and I was mostly using that whenever I wanted to block attacks without Countering.

When do you actually use it? Every enemy is susceptible to at least one of the four counter types, so I just go for counters. Have you found situations where it's more beneficial to parry instead?

If I'm low on health and I need a little time to see what I should do next, or if I'm not sure what kind of counter I should hit an enemy with. I don't use it much anymore because after a single playthrough on full Notoriety (which you gain incredibly quickly here) I've discovered and learned which enemies are susceptible to which counters. I'm gonna start playing again using only the Parry and no Counter. I think that's a bit cooler/more challenging.

I got the xbox version of the game today and played through sequence 3. A good stopping point as it's the first time your forced out of the animus.

I had ZERO trouble with the human shield and that mission. I had to restart the mission a few times, and every single time the human shield move worked perfectly on the first wave. To be honest, because of the way I approached the rest of the mission, I didn't have to guard against firing lines again, so I can't verify that it works in combat. I can say that it worked perfectly in the tutorial mission for it, every time I tried.

I'm glad it worked out for you.

I think I was experiencing a bug. I've read that some people are unable to get the counter tutorial to work without reloading the mission a few times first, yet I had no issue with it. I imagine its all part of the same issue.

That said, I can still only seem to do the human shield sometimes in real combat. I suspect that there are very specific conditions in which the brutes and swordsmen are able to be used as shields. It's easier with regular soldiers, but they're rather uncommon in the latter half of the game.

Let me know your experiences with doing the human shield as you play through the game.

I just finished Seq 3... I will attempt some human shields later. I'm hoping it's a little bug for some people and not a systematic thing... as frustrating as it is.

Exactly. I'd rather it be an issue with my game/system or just gross incompetence, rather than something the entire player base has to suffer with.

Yeah. To be honest... I only entered open combat once running around Boston not in a mission in 3 sequences... and that was only 4 guards (quickly dispatched without weapons)... so I haven't had much opportunity to attempt the maneuver.

You'll have ample opportunity later.

I'll keep you updated... but so far, human shield is working.

Also, the bow is working for me in combat and in hunting just fine. I find that for larger deer it doesn't always kill, but for smaller ones and small animals, it's fine. Killing people has been one-shot-kills, and I'm able to use it after a counter as well to kill certain enemies (that animation is sick too!)

I'll keep you updated on both of these as I progress in the game and the enemies get harder to kill.

-----

I HAVE noticed the cursor setting itself randomly on the map though. I'm not sure if I'm doing it on accident when I go to the map or not... I'll be more rigorous in looking at it in the future.

Thanks!

I can get human shield to work pretty consistently off the weakest guard type, but they become a lot more rare in the latter half of the game so you don't have much opportunity. The devs also thought it would be a good idea to give them the attack command priority, so 9 times out of 10 it's them that attack first in a mixed group. Unless you simply parry them away to save them for last, you'll go through them right away and then have a much tougher time human-shielding with the tougher enemies. I hate that you have to either save the annoying ones for last or take your chances with being shot. Not ideal game design right there...

The bow works in counters for me, so that's all good. I can use it outside of countering while in open combat, but it's risky because it takes much longer to fire than when used as a counter. And that's fine. My main concern is that it doesn't one-shot kill the tougher enemies outside of combat. I'm sorry, but a bow that size, carefully aimed and fired, would penetrate any human being. I don't care if they have a backpack.

No, it's definitely a bug. And it should be an easy one to fix, if they choose to do so.

I agree. And to be fair, a bow that sized carefully aimed and fired would kill a bear too... just gotta shoot it in the eye. haha

Sorry, I couldn't find the correct post to put these in (maybe It was the bug thread), but I'm glad you found it anyway, haha.

Also, my experience has still been with the lower enemies, as I have yet to finish Sequence 5

Asaic, I'm starting to think you just have a bad copy of the game or something. I haven't had any problems with human shield, bow in combat, etc. The only times I've had any of these problems is with the human shield, but that's only because they were too far away.

My only gripe right now is you can't lower your hood after the final sequence. But that's not really gameplay...

I believe the bow-in-combat thing was related to the bug where starting missions zeroes out some of your ammo counts. I can get it working now, though it's of limited use because I'd rather save the ammo. Looting and shopping is a pain in the ass.

Can you successfully human shield using the tougher enemies (the ones you can't counter attack)? If so, do you have to damage them first? I've only been able to do it a couple times with the tougher guys and I'm pretty sure they were damaged by the time I tried to grab them. It works all the time with the regular enemies, but I find they're always the first to be killed off and come in far fewer numbers compared to the tougher enemies in the latter half of the game, so they're never really there when you need the fodder.

Can't you just loot the body once dispatching of all enemies and get your arrow back? That's what I do.

Yes, I've been able to get every enemy type as a shield. As long as you're close enough to them and the yellow triangles are lit up above the shooters' heads, you're able to tap the button and hold them.

Also, I forgot about the ammunition glitch. I've gotten it too, but never during the story. Only after I beat the game when I enter a new city. It only takes away my arrows, though.

Seriously? That makes the fighting shorter and the time spent looting longer. Looting is BO-RING, and most of the time you have to loot a bunch of them before one gives you some arrows. I don't have the patience for that.

That definitely differs for me, and I've tested it extensively. With the peons it's decent, but not with the others. Pressing the button (tapping once, tapping repeatedly or holding) does nothing the majority of the time when toe-to-toe with them and the yellow triangles of doom are all alight.

EDIT: I'm messing around in the frontier now and human shield is working almost 100% of the time here against all guard types. It wasn't working well in the cities. I'm baffled.

I've had it take away various combinations of things all throughout the story. The arrows always go, and the bait and snares are frequently removed as well. Trip mines the odd time. I don't think it ever took away cartridges though.

Joey, you can put your hood up/down by switching back and forth from Connor's Assassin Robes to any other outfit end game. That works for me.

Just tried this and it didn't work. I went from Ezio's robes back to Connor's, then the Prisoner outfit back to Connor's. Still nothing.

No you don't. Just loot the guy you shot with an arrow. If the guy has an arrow sticking out of him, and you loot his body, you take your arrow back. Same as skinning animals you shot with an arrow. You get your arrow back.

The first time I did it Niandra and I laughed so hard.
"Okay okay, Hare Meat, Hare Pelt, Ar- HE TOOK HIS ARROW BACK!?"

The arrow despawns after a short time. You can still get it back from looting, but you can't tell who it was most of the time because there are usually over a dozen corpses on the ground. It's not worth taking the time to look.

Besides, if I'm going to use arrows in battle, you can bet your ass I'm going to use more than just one.

This has probably been resolved in the huge list of comments above, but I'm just gong to pop in and say that human shielding has always worked fine for me, and I don't really miss having a dodge move. IF you want to avoid damage, not kill anyone, and run, then just counter, throw, and get out of there. Also there are plenty of enemies that require the "break defense" button.

As I said, I bet these issues are already cleared up with you guys but I just read a bit and wanted to note these things.

There IS a dodge move, though, guys.

Ahahaha, oh my goodness. The worst part of this game is really its refusal to explain itself. All AC games have had that problem to some extent but this one is so big and so different. How do you do the dodge?

When the big guys are swinging their axes with the yellow triangle above their heads, press B or Circle and you dodge any way you want. I think this may be the same when being shot at at close range, but I haven't tried it.

Ohh, I thought you meant a dedicated dodge command. I knew about that. When you really think about it though, a dodge is somewhat superfluous. The combat is complex enough.

Haha, if only it were that simple. Only the basic enemy soldiers can be thrown, as I recall. Maybe the dagger guys too, but that's it. The others counter you if you try to throw them.

Even if you do get a throw off, you have to be able to successfully knock down all guys within melee range of you if you plan to run away unscathed, otherwise you get hit in the back once or twice while making that initial attempt to run away.

What should happen when you try to run away is that the nearest guys should be automatically kicked/shoved as you're taking off. This wouldn't be able to be used in combat because it would be part of the escape/running that takes you out of combat mode, so there's no balancing issues to worry about. Escaping in general should be faster and smoother, since we really should be running and hiding rather than making a huge bloodbath in the streets. What ever happened to following the creed, the very namesake of this series? The first game was the only one that really took that seriously, the rest have more or less spit in its face.

Require? I've almost 100%-ed the game and haven't seen a single enemy that requires it. In fact, the toughest enemies in the game punish you for using it, even when disarmed.


Regarding dodge, it would have opened up combat more and given more options. As it is, there's usually just one and only one way to deal with each enemy archetype. That gets awfully boring after a while. It needs more options to keep the combat looking and feeling fresh and interesting. Again I'll refer to the Batman: Arkham series as a great example.

The heavy guards with axes need the break defense button to kill them with a melee weapon.

(TL;DR at end)

I personally think there's a ton of variety, and I think you're missing the point of each enemy having one strategy that works best. You're supposed to be doing a mental rock-paper-scissors in your head every time a different type of enemy attacks.

"What ever happened to following the creed, the very namesake of this series? The first game was the only one that really took that seriously, the rest have more or less spit in its face."

Altair's codex very explicitly says that the creed is contradictory and that in some situations it's up to the judgement of the individual. He also says that the Assassins need to evolve to match their enemy. I don't get when people reference the brotherhood of AC1 as a perfect example of what the Assassins should be, when it was led by a Templar and Altair himself made huge changes.

I think this game does a great job of encouraging stealth, but it's NOT REQUIRED most of the time. This isn't an accident. They want players to choose how they play.

And isn't it enough that the combat is far more challenging?

I usually run from fights because I know more guards will come and sometimes I've died in a fight. (I hate to do this again but) By contrast in AC1 I had no problem killing people and I knew few guards would turn up, so the only reason I ran from fights was because I hated the combat.

Assassin's Creed is about the Assassin order through history, and through history it has changed. We saw a totally different kind of order in AC2 than before, and the Colonial american order had been decimated except for one man in AC3.

People are different, have different personalities and ways of getting things done. Many of Connor's full synch and actual mission requirements show him as refusing to kill innocents, and wanting to minimize bloodshed, as well as be a ghost.

The creed doesn't need to be repeated over and over again. It's ALWAYS there in spirit, just like the new Amazing Spider-man movie avoids saying that "with great power" line but gets the same point across, as well as more complex ones.

The crux of the AC narrative can not rest on "ah, there's that saying again, those assassins sure are wise". AC1 was specifically about the creed, the sequels are specifically explorations of NEW themes, with the original one a strong core of the spirit.

Looking at all they added to stealth, with improved blending and corner cover and whistling and that assassin recruit disguise abillity, AND the moving low profile assassination, among others, I can't believe anyone would look at this game and think providing the sense of being a blade in the crowd is not a priority.

As for not compromising the brotherhood, Achillies warns Connor against revealing their existence to the wrong people and Connor almost makes the mistake of doing it anyways.

And finally, staying your blade from the hands of an innocent. Once again, you desynch after three civillian kills. However, you can't kill them with normal weapons unless you specifically target them, and children are un-killable. There is a plot thread with Connor disapproving of another character's killing of those they extract information from, and those people aren't exactly innocent.

Connor goes above and beyond what the creed requires, in so many ways. None of the games after AC1 spit in the face of anything. I find it funny that people find killing your target in a visible way or mentioning that the order exists (though not its true goals) to be a compromising thing, since Altair does both of those things in his story. In fact, in his time Assassins were a commonly known group, and most of their assassinations were meant to be public displays. The point of being stealthy is to do so because it helps you reach your target. If you can better reach your target by spooking one of his guards and causing him to lead him towards the target, then you should go for it.

This was a rant. But I like all the AC games' stories, though AC1's is my second least favorite. And I don't really feel as though it's a crime that none of them focus heavily on the exact same themes or concepts.

I also think that using something like the creed all the time works very well for an order of warrior-monk-assassins from syria, but makes less sense for someone hundreds of years later in italy to be using. The Assassins obviously bring the flavour of their own background, time period, and area of the world into that particular sect of the order. The purpose of the order is to get things done, not cling to tradition.

EDIT:
TL;DR is the creed is still there in spirit, though the order has changed.

Calvar's entire comment is what I love about the Assassin's Creed series. I want to go home and replay them all in a row right now.
In fact, I'm actually done work in 2 minutes. Woo.

Those are all really good points, Calvar, and an interesting read as well. Thank you.

Only if you attack first. Just counter them instead, like every other enemy in the game.

Really, there's very little challenge to the game, even when running around New York post-story with full notoriety. Each enemy is vulnerable to a specific type of counter and then you have to avoid firing squads with human shield and occasionally grenades. The only time I ever desynchronize during combat is when I'm not paying enough attention or the rare occasion where you get two or three firing squads firing back-to-back with nobody to use as a human shield.

I was really hopeful from the early feedback that AC3 would finally be difficult and that running away would be the safer course of action most of the time. But sadly that just isn't the case. It's actually riskier to run away since guards can keep up with you (and some can outrun you) and they can shoot you from big distances and are around just about every corner. It's tough to hide without being seen since there are so many of them everywhere. It also doesn't help that half the time you try to make a tight turn while running and it makes you run up a wall instead.

I don't have time to read the rest of your post right now Calvar, but I'm looking forward to reading it when I get home from work tonight.

Dude. If you hate the combat, then you certainly cannot know what a real AC1 fan likes about an AC game, so you don't need to speculate about it. People are different. It's not a theoretical question. It's a question of personal relationship with the gameplay.

That cannot be true. I remember when I played some ACII, there's even a run away move in that game. Legs button plus movement stick, and you disengage and start running in one move, or something like that.

Running away is the central move in the original concept. Disengage, break line of sight, hide. It must work in ACIII too. Otherwise it's not AC. It surely must work.

Edit: On second thought, he does kill everyone in melée range before he starts running in the original trailer. So the phrase "original concept" may be a bit misplaced here, but anyway, 99% of what I do when I play the game is walk around the city, provoke fight, run, reengage, run, reengage, run and hide. And not getting hit is the primary goal in all that. So that's gonna be the primary test of ACIII for me. Even more important than the game of moving around the city completely second-tenet.

Hehe, massive post incoming.

That's just it though, there's only one way to deal with each type, and there are really only three types. How brutally basic is that?? It was far too simplified for my liking. I prefer something you have to think and respond to changing situations, rather than "okay, it's a basic guy so I counter attack" or "it's a tougher guy so I counter disarm and then combo". Having hard-coded archetypes who can't adjust to the current situation is just too simple. The same guys go down to the same attacks every time. It's nothing but a matter of hitting the right button for the right guy. Strip away the awesome graphics and animations and it's not much more complicated than a rat hitting a feeder bar when the light turns on.

As I always do, I defer the need for further explanation by recommending the Batman: Arkham games, especially the second one. Holy robust combat mechanics, Batman!

I could just be remembering it wrong but I don't think it was nearly as blatant as you're putting it. Al Mualim was following a creed set forth not by himself but by the originators of the entire Assassin order. Sure he turned out to be a Templar at the end, but he was still making his disciples follow the creed. The creed didn't really say anything about morality, it was merely about behavior. And it was a very solid creed; it did its job and furthered the ability for Assassins to continue doing their job in the future.

The details were never laid out, and those are what Altair sought to clarify. Certain things like the use of poison were later accepted as it was felt that the order had to adapt to changing times and changing tactics of its enemies as honor became less and less commonplace. But the actual creed itself was never in question. It saves lives and reduces the impact on the lives of bystanders. Nobody, not even the Templars would think that's a bad thing.

At first, yes. It had the highest learning curve of all the games, I'd say. But that's mostly because this game does the worst job of explaining the nuances of combat to the player. There's a lot you need to figure out on your own (or from reading forums/watching videos). But once you have the system down, combat becomes a breeze. Even the biggest fights are pretty easy and you will only get overwhelmed from firing squads with some back-to-back shooting where you don't have enough time to grab a second human shield. Or those annoying grenades combined with a follow-up squad shooting. Otherwise it's Easy Street.

But the main point behind the whole thing always remained intact. The Assassins fought for justice and freedom, and they did it with tact. How does killing 14 guards in the middle of the street uphold any of that? Just because a couple guards had the wrong idea about you doesn't mean that the order would find it acceptable to kill them. Especially not when that would just prompt many many more to come and you'd just keep killing them all. Seriously, do you believe that even a modern highly-evolved version of the creed would be the least bit accepting of that? I don't buy that for one second.

Technically, guards are innocents. They may generally be assholes, but they're just men doing their jobs. They're not attacking you because you're an Assassin, they're attacking you because you did something illegal and you refused to accept arrest, or because there are posters up saying that you're a mass murdered and need to be stopped at all costs. The only reason we can attack them unprovoked is because these games would be boring to a lot of people if all you could do is walk around and climb on buildings. It would be like the Grand Theft Auto games without the ability to smash cars and kill people. If you want to get 'real', no version of the creed would allow (never mind encourage) you running around killing guards. They should only be killed when there is absolutely no other choice. We know that Connor feels that way, as seen in numerous cutscenes.

It just would have been nice if for once an AC game encouraged you to avoid killing and possibly penalized you for doing so. The notoriety system is hardly any sort of deterrent since it's so slow to build and so easy to get rid of. And it makes little difference since the combat is so easy once you learn it.

My perfect vision of a sequel would have you desynchronized for killing two or three guards unprovoked and would make the combat completely impossible if you were up against more than two enemies at once. Running away would be easier because they couldn't do parkour nor keep up with you in a straight out sprint, but then from that point on (for at least the next in-game 'day'), you would be more notorious in that small area of town. It would highly encourage stealth and thinking before acting, and would give you a greater feeling of tension and excitement, all while being more realistic.

You're just furthering my argument. Killing guards by the dozens would never be acceptable to anyone's version of the creed. So why is it so encouraged? The combat system was overhauled to be more fun and make it even easier for you to dispatch guards by the dozen. Yet the climbing hasn't improved (I'd say it's slightly worse off with the "safe free-running") and now rooftops are far less convenient to move around on in a hurry. There are guards frickin' everywhere making hiding and escaping more of a pain than ever before, and the mechanics we do have don't work well (look at the massive list of bugs to see what I mean). It doesn't feel at all like this game encourages stealth. That part of the game just feels...broken. Instead, you can totally Rambo your way in there and kill hundreds of men, only to be followed with cutscenes where your character abhors senseless violence. Choosing the way you want to play is great, but this game clearly encourages fighting over fleeing. Start a fight and then try to run away and hide, then tell me I'm wrong.

Perhaps some perspective is in order. It might seem to some like AC3 is "the cat's meow" when it comes to stealth games. But if you've played games with good stealth mechanics, AC3 feels like a broken mess. A great example of a game that did it right a long time ago is Tenchu Z. The graphics were terrible, the game was buggy and the open combat was embarrassing, but the stealth was fantastic. It was downright thrilling! And that's from 2006. In more modern examples, the recent Batman games weren't even huge on stealth, yet when you wanted to remain unseen, you remained unseen. If you were discovered, it felt like it really was you being dumb rather than the game mechanics being too limited or cumbersome. And my absolute favorite new example of the epitome of good stealth mechanics is the recent Mark of the Ninja. Yes it's a 2D game, but it's done stealth better than any 3D game ever has, and that's saying a lot. MotN is just amazing. When you get spotted, it's always your fault. The controls and mechanics are so solid you could break a skull with them. The game is so much fun it should be illegal. And coming from that over to AC3, AC3 feels like it totally misses the mark in terms of stealth.

The original AC was pretty unique in the way it handled and encouraged stealth, but that was 2007. The subsequent games in the series haven't shown what should be five years of advancement in that area. The proof is in the quality of the stealth mechanics in other games available today. Ironically enough, games likely inspired by the original Assassin's Creed back in 2007.

To whom did Altair reveal the existence of the order? The only people he ever spoke to (who didn't die a moment later) were Robert de Sable, Al Mualim and then other Assassins. He bullied town criers and killed various side targets for people, but he never once revealed who he was or his affiliation.

And once again I ask, how is that supported by encouraging open combat and leaving a massive body count? The main point is that the killing should be minimal and staying out of sight should be priority #1, yet the game makes it far easier to just brawl it out and create massacres fit for the history books than it is to avoid combat and run and hide when you're discovered.

The way AC3 works is that pressing and holding High Profile with a direction on the analog stick will take you out of combat and allow you to run. You no longer hold High Profile to fight in AC3.

The problem lies in the way the enemies behave when you attempt to flee. The developers clearly wanted to discourage running away in AC3.

When you try to run away, the AI is set to automatically strike at you. During combat, attacks will normally come in approximately once every two seconds, on average. But even if you parry a blow and immediately try to run, there will always be an immediate follow-up attack. And these attacks always land, even if you're now several meters away from the attacker.

This back attack stuns you, making you basically stop in place for a moment. An individual enemy can only do one attack every so-many seconds, so you'll be able to get away if there was only the one in melee range. But if there were two or more, you'll take at least one more hit during the stun from the first hit. You'll get away eventually, but you'll often take one, two or three hits first. This can desync you if you already had low health.

Once you're on the run, you're still susceptible to being shot and the furthest enemies will often try to fire on you at this point if they are equipped with muskets (the 'jagers' don't seem to use their pistols at this point). So it's in your best interest to break line-of-sight (LOS) as soon as possible to avoid the firing squad (which will likely desync you given the damage you suffered from the back-attacks).

Then once you've got enough of a lead and you don't have anyone shooting at you, all you need to do is break LOS and hide, right? Not so easy – enemies that you move into LOS with as you turn corners almost instantly know that you're to be killed on sight (did they have frickin' cell phones or something??). So then you're back in LOS with enemies and cannot hide. At max notoriety, they appear in greater numbers and with more frequency, so you're encountering them on almost every corner. There's rarely a place to hide in back alleys (which blows my mind), so you either run in a straight line down an alley and into a courtyard-type area and try to get to that well/haystack way out in the middle without being seen (good luck) or you have to get back out on the street and keep taking corners to break LOS until you eventually find a hiding spot right near a corner you just rounded. The problem with that is when you come barreling around a corner, most of the civilian AI freaks out and disperses, so blending isn't as easy as in previous games.

To top it all off, most enemies can keep up with you in a chase. They can do all the fancy parkour shit and they can match your speed. The dagger-wielding ones can actually outrun you, catching up to you and slashing you in the back. Then the others catch up and get a hit in while you're stunned, as when you first attempted to flee.

Rooftops are more realistic now so that you can't really navigate them as quickly and smoothly as past games, and most streets are too wide now for you to make it across, and you don't get all the clotheslines and stuff that you used to have to cross wider streets. On top of that, just about every square block has a sniper nest up on the rooftops where anywhere from one to four soldiers with muskets hang out, and they will shoot you when they see you running around up there. It's tough to break LOS from them, and getting hit from a single gunshot often knocks you off the roof. Combine with two stories' worth of falling damage and you'll often desync from that.

It's a whole different ballgame now. It's very clear that AC3 was designed to discourage fleeing. And that really irks me because Assassin's should never be having huge brawls in the middle of the street in broad daylight. Add to that the fact that AC3's ancestor protagonist really seems to dislike killing when it's not necessary. Yes, he understands that certain people cannot be reasoned with, but I don't buy for one minute that Connor would ever condone killing guards by the dozens for no reason other than to avoid being captured. He would always run and hide. Sadly, the game makes it very difficult to do that. And even when you can, the technical issues are so glaring that it hardly looks impressive.

Since AC1 I've been wishing for every new AC game to make the combat much more difficult and discourage fighting and encourage fleeing. It just fits the story better. Fits the characters, the theme, you name it. You can bet your ass that some hooded figure killing dozens of armed guards in the middle of a city square would have made some serious headlines in the annals of history. The Assassins as a group were supposed to be largely hidden. That's the entire point of these games having stealth elements. Yet more and more, each new AC game is encouraging us to be brawlers and cause some of the bloodiest street fights history has ever seen.

AC1 wasn't like that. Yes, you could stay and fight it out, but the combat didn't have much to it back then. You could combo or counter. Or throw. It didn't have the attention and complexity that the climbing and crowd pushing/shoving had for the time. Clearly the combat wasn't meant to be the way to deal with most situations in that game. But it's become more and more glorified in each successive game, and now it's clearly the way they intend for you to deal with situations. Despite the addition of the peaking-around-corners thing and the "mobile" hiding spots, I found AC3 to be the least stealthy of all the AC games.

It really makes me shake my head at the direction these games have taken. I didn't even look at any videos or read any info on AC3 until this September, and then I really got my hopes up when I did, only to have them totally squashed. Sure, the game is still fun, but it's nowhere near what it could have been. We keep getting further and further away from my view of what makes for a good Assassin's Creed game. These are basically becoming what I would call "historical brawlers".

AC1 changed my life, helping to shape what I currently look for in video games, but sadly each subsequent AC game has had less and less of an impact on me. They're good games, yes, but far from the amazing games they could have been. And still could be, if Ubisoft would go back to the series' roots and see what makes an Assassin an assassin and not just Rambo with a hood.

I loved the opening movie to AC1. He got in unnoticed, did the deed and got the hell out. It was damned exciting. Some of the gameplay in AC1 really captured that, especially with the contrast of a very slow and stealthy lead up, an assassination and then running for your mother f'ing life. Nothing in any of the sequels has quite captured that excitement. To me, that's far more fun and exciting than even the best fighting mechanics. And that's exactly what's been lost in this series.

Awesome read Asaic, thank you.

I hope I will be able to work out a play-style I'll enjoy, I can't wait to see how well I can hide if I know the environment well.

"And once again I ask, how is that supported by encouraging open combat and leaving a massive body count? The main point is that the killing should be minimal and staying out of sight should be priority #1, yet the game makes it far easier to just brawl it out and create massacres fit for the history books than it is to avoid combat and run and hide when you're discovered."

Ohhhh, you're mixing up story and gameplay.

Gameplay has been changed to accommodate for CHOICE, I'm not arguing that. You can fight, or be stealthy. Pick and choose. People were most definitely able to kill everyone in AC1. And the prevalence of those people has been reflected in their making combat more fleshed out and accessible.

I liked the combat in this game, because I had access to all the tools from a very early point, but combat only started to get easier as I actually learned the system and got used to it, so that by the end of the game I felt like I had really mastered my skills.

But did that mean that I just fought non-stop? No. I played as stealthily as I could. This game has far more attentive AI, which makes stealth more difficult, but also more rewarding. There are plenty of ways to get that AC1 experience of killing a target and then running: if you find yourself killing every guard you come across it's because you CHOOSE to. You had that choice in AC1, but you'd never have taken it either because fighting is tedious in that game, because you enjoyed roleplaying an assassin, (which you can still use as a motivator here) or because when you were playing that game you felt no need to prove how much less enjoyable that game was than a game you remembered.

I found that the ridiculous amount of tools Connor had were useful, rather than feeling cheap, since the enemies were a lot more difficult to ghost past and actually ended up killing me a few times. (which often inspired me to run from fights.)

Story-wise, you're just not getting it. When your only goal is to kill one person, you can be stealthy. But when you're trying to, say, protect those throwing the boston tea party, you're going to have to be seen. The goals and activities of Assassins have diversified since AC1.

Most of Connor's full sync objectives involve his minimizing of soldier murder, not being seen, killing his target without being seen, and various other stealthy activites.

There are times when Connor directly confronts people. Sometimes it's because he's reckless, or because he wants to make an impression, but ALWAYS it's because he is a HUMAN, not a collection of mantras. He isn't perfect. He was trained by a master who actively discouraged him from doing anything.

Do you know why the writers haven't made every single AC story's moral and main core focus about following the creed? Because that is repetitive and creatively limiting. Please, if you're talking about gameplay then continue talking about gameplay, don't mix it in with story. The story is different, and that's GOOD. Creative stagnation is a big problem in most game series'.

As for gameplay, my final thoughts are: yes, it doesn't force you into being stealthy as much as AC1 does. But it makes combat more difficult, and stealth more rewarding and skillful. It emphasizes CHOICE between the two approaches (outside of scripted story events, which are that way to make elements of the story feel less "gamey"). And that's the best you could hope for from a game in a series that has already been moving in a different direction than AC1 for three whole games.

I really don't understand what you expected. It puzzles me.

Being able to choose whether to kill or not is also a speedrunner's paradise. I'm going to be streaming AC3 on New Year's Eve at my girlfriend's house, but I have to beat it in under 10 hours. I've got time to practice, let's hope I succeed.

Damn, look at all those sparks fly. It's time I jumped in this as well...

Similar to most religions/ideologies, most people have different takes on such matters. Why should it not apply to the Creed? Mario was probably trained in stealth as well, and he was a pretty competent free-runner. However, he preferred open-armed conflict. Times were changing in Italia.

I'm gonna have to side with Calvar with this one. Choice is emphasis in today's video-games than ever before - not just the AC franchise. Many side objectives do limit your kills. When I infiltrated that fort as Haytham, it was really hard not going around shanking every guard I see.

However, I do agree with Asaic's argument on how combat is basically a cakewalk. The 1st few tutorials are simple enough, but once you don those white robes, the difficulty increases. That's mostly due to the fact that they DON'T EVEN TELL YOU HOW TO DEFEAT THEM! Coming to Batman: Arkman series, every guard type had a weakness. If he's holding a gun, throw a batarang when you hear that clicking sound. If he's carrying a stun stick, attack from behind. If he's holding a shield, attack from above. If he's armored, unleash a beatdown.

It's a mystery why Ubisoft didn't implement a hardcore mode this part. And don't give me some excuse like "How are they gonna work it in the story?". My answer: It's a video-game. It could just as easily been in the main freakin' menu. Some feature's could have been:

-fall damage from realistic height
-guns that can take a good 1/3 of your health.
-musket volleys that automatically take 8/10 of your health
-heath that regains 1/10 block every 1 minute
-harder counter windows
-SMARTER FREAKIN' AI

You do realize that if you're making several levels of difficulty, you have to rebalance every part of the game to work for that, right? IT's OK in an FPS where there are limited factors to increase, but in something as diverse as AC it's different.

As to the arkham asylum guard weakness thing, I've heard this a lot and I'm confused as to how people missed the whole system where certain guards have to be taken out in certain ways. Some guards can even take two bullets or arrows. And yes, the tools will work on any guard, but they're a consumable resource. That's the least efficient way to use them, so I generally don't.

Their missions statement with combat from a LONG time ago was that they wanted a good player who didn't mess up to get through a big fight without losing much health, smoothly taking hostages and kill chaining. They wanted that to be possible, but more difficult than before. Assassin's Creed 1 was less fast-paced combat-wise, but there was also less risk. I understand that the last few people in this thread are looking for a return to the philosophy of that system, which is slow-paced combat necessitating running, but that's just not the direction Assassin's Creed has gone.

Fast-paced combat that can make you look really cool and kill a lot of people if you choose to engage in it and are skilled at using it.

That's the way it is.

Again, I don't get these renewed complaints when the base enemies can actually kill you if you're not paying attention. Go play AC2 or Brotherhood and stand in a group of level 1 guards. see how long it takes them to kill you without you fighting back. Firing lines do decent damage, and normal hits from noob guards do as well.

I can kill the normal guards easily because they require no variation, but against multiple types I need to pay attention or I often find myself having to run. Especially if Hessians are involved. And Hessians have killed me at the exact moment I turn to run, multiple times.

I agree that the game does a crappy job of teaching you how it works, but I found learning on my own to be one of the things that I liked about this game, and something that added to it, as I saw the Connor I controlled learning how to suck less at fighting as his years wore on.

I don't think the game has no faults, but a higher base difficulty level would be unacceptable with the level of tutorialization there is.

Even after I knew how the system worked, learning how to use it perfectly took a while, and a few close calls.

Your suggestion for health that comes back 1/10 every minute is ridiculous in my opinon. No offence meant, I'm literally just laughing. It's very obvious that we want to play very different types of games and I am genuinely sorry that the AC franchise has moved away from being more of your type to something more accessible.

Here's hoping for difficulty settings in the next one, I'm always up for optional ridiculousness (and less complaining on these forums)

This was never about choice. A video game by definition is choice. Take away choice and it's just a movie. We already have plenty of those. That's not the issue here.

Story and gameplay are both important, but for a game to be good, they have to work together, not against each other. I'm sorry Calvar, but I disagree that they are completely separate entities. If you're playing a game where you're repeatedly encouraged to be a mass murderer but your character is a pacifist in every story scene, that's a big problem. That's not choice, that's inconsistency. And poor game design. Story and gameplay should go together hand-in-hand. They should never contradict each other.

In AC3 we are given a choice some of the time. Often missions essentially force you into one aspect or another, usually via scripting. Battles begin without you initiating them, or they demand stealth because you instantly fail if you're discovered even once. That isn't choice.

In times where either method is acceptable, going with stealth is always the more difficult option. Not because of reasonable challenge but because of the limitations of the gameplay system. Most of the free-running mechanics were simply ported over to AC3 from previous games with little or no changes. The whole "safe" free-running thing is not very different, code-wise. Take AC2/ACB/ACR, add a few extra checks and you've got AC3. The only place they put real effort into advancing is the combat. And it's clear they favor that method.

I don't blame them though. They put a lot of effort into it. It is almost completely overhauled from previous games. So it makes sense that they encourage you to play it and enjoy it. But I weep for the stealth mechanics, as they really haven't improved from previous games where they were already somewhat weak. And the little improvement we did get wasn't enough to surpass the gameplay issues we have. One step forward, one step back. No real progress.

It's not that we want AC1's combat back. Nobody said that. It's just that AC1's combat wasn't nearly as fun or thrilling, whereas the chase was. It encouraged you to flee more than to fight. AC3 is the exact opposite, often penalizing you for taking the non-violent approach and making the violent method the quick-and-easy method.

As I've outlined in detail in previous posts, the stealth systems in this game need some serious tweaking. I've also mentioned that if a person has played other stealth games recently, they would see what the AC series is sadly lacking as it's failed to keep up with the changing times. Playing other stealth games really puts it into perspective – AC3 just isn't making the cut.

The ideas are there but the gameplay isn't. I'll list a few of the things that stick out like sore thumbs after experiencing much better versions of those mechanics in other games.

When you walk near a corner, you might stick to it when not wanting to or walk around the corner when wanting to stick to it. There should be a button press involved and it shouldn't move you completely out of it (and often into line-of-sight) by a mere touch of the stick. I would simply have made it a click of the left analog stick to press up against the wall. As a toggle, not a hold. At this point, moving would shimmy left or right along the wall and pressing up would slide around the corner forward. Your targets won't always be stationary, so more maneuverability would be very handy. Other games have this, AC3 doesn't.

After you do a corner kill, you step right out into the open. WTF? As if there's ever just one guard. Most of the time this gets you seen. Bad design, plain and simple.

You can't one-shot kill many enemies with arrows. Arrows are your stealth ranged attack, yet most of the time they're pretty ineffective. You can't aim for specific body parts, like the head. If you're taking the time to do that, you should be allowed the one-hit kill no matter who the enemy is. You can't aim like that in combat, so it's not a balance issue. When we had the crossbow in the last two games, the only time targets didn't die from a single hit is when they were in open combat with you and they were a higher rank. In AC3, only the basic guards die in one hit from the bow. Yet it's a one-hit kill as a counter move. Puzzling. This really takes a lot of fun out of the game, even compared to earlier games in this very series. The throwing knives in AC1 and the crossbow in ACB were great ways to quickly dispatch somebody who was about to blow your cover. The bow in AC3 just isn't anywhere near as effective in that regard. Half the time it just triggers open combat, especially in missions. The usefulness of the bow is just so limited compared to what we've had in earlier games in the series.

Enemies can keep up with you on foot, whether it's sprinting straight down an open street or doing the fanciest of parkour moves. If stealth and hiding is supposed to be an option, why is it so difficult if you've accidentally triggered open combat? Once triggered, you're almost committed to it. Trying to get away gives them free hits on you with their magical 3-meter weapon reach and there are guards with ESP around nearly every corner. Citizens scatter when you're sprinting near them, so hiding is that much more difficult. Alleys don't offer hiding spots and the backyard areas are far too open for you to make it to that one hiding spot way out in the middle before a guard is close enough to regain line-of-sight. They keep up with you amazingly well for men of the time period, and their buddies know you're coming before you get there.

Think about it – even as little as 50 years ago, military men weren't nearly as fit as today's athletes. Hell, athletes 50 years ago can't hold a candle to their modern day counterparts. To be able to move and free-run like the Assassins in these games do, they would have to be running and climbing and working out for hours and hours every single day. You can't possibly tell me that the average military man of the late 1700's would have any chance in hell of keeping up. And forget about parkour. Today's military men, police officers and even professional athletes can't even do it very well. Those who do parkour can tell you how amazingly difficult it is and how much practice and dedication it takes. If Connor's parkour skills are a 10, these guys should be a 2. Yet they're easily 10's, and the dagger wielders are faster than Connor. That is very poor design. The challenge shouldn't be in breaking line-of-sight, the challenge should be in successfully hiding and escaping the search zone. There's no way Connor would ever be captured when trying to escape on the open streets. He'd evade these guys as easily as a professional hockey player could keep the puck away from a five-year old.

But the gameplay doesn't represent this. And it easily could if they would have fixed the mechanics. For starters, reduce the sprinting speed of the guards to reasonable levels. Connor should always be faster. Second, bring back the stumbling when running into people. The guy who's being chased is at a natural disadvantage by obstacles like people and anything else that can be knocked over. Taking the time to shove people or tables or whatever out of the way results in a slight distance gain from the chasing party. Typically the way is cleared by the runner and the chasers have less obstacles to deal with. Next, remove the guards' ability to climb and free-run. They all have guns! In real life they would just shoot at the guy attempting to climb the wall to get away. The guards on the street should follow along at street level as best they can. Do we all remember the intro video to AC1? That's exactly what I'm taking about. Simply being up on a rooftop doesn't guarantee safety, and you still have to get where you're going. At most it buys you time, and it pretty much guarantees you'll be surrounded. If you jump down at any point, you'd be shot and killed. I sure as hell wouldn't be clamoring to get up onto the rooftops in that situation.

I already commented on the corner kills. Connor shouldn't be stepping out, stabbing them in clear view, then dragging them to the corner. He should be reaching out and pulling them past the corner and stabbing them as he pulls them towards himself, then shoving them further off to the side and resume leaning against the wall. There are always multiple guards coming, so it makes little sense to hide around a corner only to openly kill and put the body at the very edge of the corner. It feels very amateurish. Furthermore, I would have made it more like the counter – when a guy comes up on your corner, you yank him in and then have options as to how to proceed. Stab him with , throw him to bowl over his comrades with , grab him as a mobile human shield using your pistol with , or slam his head into the wall to knock him out (non-lethal "kill") with . A lot of these ideas I'm getting from Ubisoft's own Splinter Cell games.

I admit that I really do like the mobile assassinations. This is something I've been requesting since AC2. I also like that if you're trailing a moving group, you can slowly take them out one at a time this way. The problem lies mainly with stable groups. Back in AC1, guards weren't omnipotent. They didn't immediately notice a kill and instantly know you're the culprit. Real life doesn't work that way either. If you're standing in a crowd and suddenly a guy slumps over, you'll look. At first you won't know what happened. Is he sick? Did he have a heart attack? What the hell happened? Then you start looking around at the crowd as more and more people notice and begin to move back away from the body. You see some guy walking away a little faster than the others. Is it him? Maybe, but you don't know that for sure. You haven't had a chance to analyze the entire crowd, not with people constantly shifting all around you and people beginning to panic. So maybe you decide to stride out after that one suspicious guy. You wouldn't initiate open combat because you don't know. This should be a yellow arrow. If the guard in this situation catches up to the player, he should grab you and turn you around to look at your face. That doesn't happen in these games at all, they simply begin open combat upon reaching you. They should require a moment to look you over and you now have options – attack him (no stealth kill option), drop a smoke bomb and run for it, throw some money and break away when he gets overwhelmed by the people, shove him away and run for it, or a number of other things you might think of. Guards shouldn't instantly see a dead body and know that you are the killer. AC1 more or less worked that way, so why don't these supposedly 'more advanced' AC games work that way? Challenge? There are better ways to create challenge than blatant irrationality. No, guards should need a moment for things to sink in, then have to process the situation and environment before acting. This is where I hold up the picket sign that says, "No more ESP!"

Let's look at the same idea from a different perspective. You're a guard standing around at your post, bored as all hell. You're looking off into the distance when you hear a bit of commotion. You turn and see some guy sprinting down the street. Do you instantly go red alert and attack him? Of course not. You would look and try to figure out what's going on. You'd see him for a moment before you turned and saw some of your fellow guards coming up in pursuit. Well shit, they're chasing this guy, okay, I have to go help! It takes several seconds for all this to happen. You're not omnipotent, you're not aware of the guy before he even comes around the corner. Yet the guards in AC3 immediately go red arrows the very moment you make line-of-sight with them if you're already in open combat with other guards, even if you haven't hurt a fly and are just trying to run away and hide. Again I'll refer to AC1. If you were in open combat and broke line-of-sight, other guards wouldn't immediately attack you when you walk into their field of vision. Hell, there were plenty of times where I was killing guys and just around a corner the guards mere meters away were moving up to examine dead bodies. "Who did this?!" I remember that line so well, and it always made me smirk. When I wanted a big herd of guards to chase me in AC1, I basically had to run into their groups and shove them over to get each new group's attention to build up the number of chasers. In AC3, once you're in open combat, every guard in the city joins in the moment they see you, even if they realistically shouldn't have a clue what's going on. It's just not fun that way. And it's far from realistic. I'll take fun over realism any day, but having both are better and having neither is just ridiculous. This case is the latter.

As I said, there are better ways to add challenge. It's a no-brainer that Connor would always be able to escape in an open-city chase. But what are the lasting effects? The notoriety system we have is horrible. It's like something out of 90's gaming. Once again, look at AC1. It's normal everyday life in the city. The guards are at ease. No reason to panic, these are peaceful times. Then something serious happens. Well shit, we've been slacking, time to start being more diligent in our guard duties. They're now more alert. You can't just do whatever you want in front of these guys now, and tearing down posters isn't going to do jack shit. These guys are determined not to let that happen again. But it does because you're an Assassin, and a damned good one at that. Now these guys are pissed. Two deaths under their watch. No more of that will be tolerated. It's time for martial law. Everyone is eyed suspiciously and it takes some serious effort to get past these guys. Avoiding them altogether is the best option, if that's possible.

AC3's notoriety system could have been like that. It didn't necessarily have to be story-based like AC1's was, but it should still work in a similar manner. If you initiate open combat or leave dead bodies lying around in an area, guards in that area should be on higher alert for the next while. You should be required to complete a mission or wait until the in-game day/night system switches from day to night or vice versa – basically, waiting for a shift change. Then and only then should you be able to walk that area without being eyed suspiciously. It would be easy to have the three levels of notoriety in this revised system, or reduce it to two or get creative and make four or more. There's a lot of room for improvement here and it would be both more realistic and more fun. "Man, I don't want to head back to the southeast end again tonight, those guys are out looking for me."

I'd really like to see more risk and reward. Currently you can survive numerous gunshots and multiple slashings/stabbings. Notoriety is easy to remove and it's a pain in the ass to get away from guards once they've decided they want to get you. Instead, I would reverse that. It's easy to get away in a chase, but they'll search very persistently all throughout that area for quite a while and you can't remove notoriety any time you want. You can't just sit in one hiding spot or you'll get discovered sooner or later.

Combat currently has very little risk and far too much reward. Other than when a mission specifically does not allow for it, combat is always the easiest and most effective solution by far. I would have it where a single gunshot would put you into the red danger zone (though with less intrusive graphical effects) and a subsequent hit of any sort would desynchronize you. A firing squad shooting you is instant desync. Maybe two or three slashings/stabbings would put in you the red with any follow-up hit (even a punch) desyncing you. And you don't get out of the red until you get out of open combat (ie: you successfully hide). This would seriously discourage open fighting, and make open fighting far more challenging and exciting if you choose to partake in it. And it's highly unlikely you'd be able to last in open combat for very long no matter how good you are. Plus points for both fun and realism.

Next we make it easier to run away and to hide. Running down an open street would allow you to gain lots of distance on your pursuers, but they can shoot at you so that's generally a bad idea (remember how easily you die now). Duck into an alley and break line-of-sight. Even if you come across new guards, they don't know you from Adam so they would ignore you as long as you weren't shoving people over or doing anything otherwise illegal. However, if you give the pursuing guards enough time to catch up, they'll yell to the other guards who will then start looking for you. You have time to get into a blend or a hiding spot, but it should never be a guarantee. They should be looking for you and you should need to keep moving, much like that one assassination in AC2 during the carnival where you have to keep moving from blend group to blend group while approaching the target on the docked ship. If you stay in one spot, you'll be found out. You need to make your way out of their search area (give it a good square block or so) before you can truly be safe and regenerate any lost health. But if you go back into that area within the next few minutes, it should put you back into yellow alert and you should need to blend your way through the area, or just avoid it altogether.

Next we remove the rooftop guards. That's just plain silly. I can't imagine they actually posted guards on rooftops in that time period. For the most part, people in that age have never seen a man climb a building without a ladder, and they've certainly never seen a man jumping between buildings over alleyways. There is absolutely no reason to post guards up there. So get rid of them. The buildings are already difficult enough to navigate. The days of rooftop cruise control in AC1 are long gone, and that's one thing I'm happy about. The rooftops are no longer a highway to get from A to B faster, they're more of a way to circumvent guard patrols or get out of sight momentarily. Rooftops are difficult to navigate now and won't get you very far before you have to hit street level to continue on your path, so they're already balanced. The guards are completely redundant now. If you're trying to escape pursuing guards and you can round a corner and climb up quickly enough to get out of sight, then they should never find you (though they should continue looking). If they see you going up, they should shoot at you. If you manage to make it to the roof without being shot, they should surround the building and wait for a chance to shoot you if you pop your head out. You're sort of trapped up there now. If you wait long enough, one or two should attempt to climb, but without any of the speed and finesse that you have. It should take time and they should have a chance of falling mid-climb. These guys don't exactly climb buildings for a living. How many people do you know who could just climb the face of a house at will? One or two might attempt it, but it'll be slow and risky. All that does is add a bit of realism and give you some incentive to get moving. You'll never lose them if you just hang out on the same rooftop when they know you're up there. They won't just give up and walk away. And if you run for it along the rooftops, they'll follow at ground level. You'll basically have to completely cut line-of-sight somehow and dive into a haystack or an open window and pop out the other side before they can run around the building.

Getting away and hiding should be fairly easy. Staying hidden should be challenging. And re-entering that area within the next few minutes should put you right back at risk because they haven't stopped searching yet. Then after the search is called off, the guards in that area should be on alert and investigate you on sight until the shift change. Or hell, make it a 24-hour thing (in-game time, of course). And the crowd should always be a part of it. The more they know you as a threat, the more they'll point you out and avoid you, much the way they currently do when you've had open combat in front of them. But this way won't require open combat because they'll remember you for a while. That's real notoriety.

Now picture all these mechanics in action. Let's say you want to do a kill-free playthrough. You can go up to a group guarding an entrance to a sensitive area and get their attention, then run away. They'll give chase. You hang a quick left into an alley and climb onto the roof of the single-story building and duck out of sight as they run down the alley searching for you. You jump down and make your way back to the now-unguarded entrance and waltz right through. No need to use underlings and it was a lot more fun. No ESP guards around every corner to make this a pain in the ass. You hear nearby citizens make remarks such as, "Isn't that the guy the guards just chased out of here a minute ago?"

Now let's say you want to get through that entrance in a more violent manner instead. You walk up and attack the guards. The commotion and the killing has caught the attention of another guard group and they begin to line up their muskets to gun you down. You grab the last guard and use him as a human-shield to absorb the fire and then run down the firing squad. You take them out and are now surrounded by corpses. You step away carefully as other guards begin to show up on the scene, drawn from a block away by the sound of gunfire. They see the bodies and begin to investigate. If you stick around, they're going to notice you and open combat will eventually begin again, only this time there are more of them (drawn by the sound of gunfire) and are more spread out, investigating the various bodies. If they decide to start shooting at you, a human shield isn't going to cut it. You'd best remain undetected while trying to make it into that entrance. They're now looking for any suspicious actions, so you have to move quickly and very carefully. And even once you're out of there, that'll be a hotzone for the next 24 hours or so, so you'd best be careful when coming back out after.

Man, I could go on all night. There are so many video games out there with great ideas. I just wish the AC series would borrow more of them. The combat went in the right direction with its inspiration from the Arkham games. Taken a little bit further and flavored with some real challenge, it could have been amazing. There are a lot of stealth games they could have taken inspiration from (including some in-house games) that could have really upscaled that aspect of the gameplay, adding both fun and challenge. Then put it all together with some realistic balance and this game could have been game of the decade.

I've always focused more on what could be rather than what is. I'm a harsh critic, but that's because when I do something, I give it my all. Just look at the ridiculous length of this post. I'm a perfectionist and I demand the same in others, particularly when they're providing something I'm spending my money on. I see so much untapped potential in AC3 (and the series as a whole). It just hurts when a new game comes out and it doesn't live up to expectations. Especially when other games have...

The way I usually play AC1 is the moment I get hit the objective changes to breaking off and hiding.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGWzRnNJXAY#t=24s

Because combat is so easy otherwise, that there would be no incentive to flee and hide. And if I can't break off without getting hit again, then I consider the whole mission failed, and I go find some new objective.

This way of playing has come to be so natural for me, that I'm sure that will be my first approach to AC3 as well.

I find disengaging from combat without getting hit often more difficult than killing all enemies without getting hit in AC1.

Perhaps we do have different opinions on how the AC franchise should have been, but people are different. It's cool if we disagree on things.

I don't mind the fast-paced combat. It suits the Revolutionary times just perfect. What I am trying to say is that there should be a greater risk getting into combat, ie, more damaged received from falls, guns, slashes, and your health not regenerating at cheetah speed. The bars above enemy heads should fill up faster, and their views of vision should slightly increase. This shouldn't be complex programming, nor does it completely overhauel the mechanics of the game. Just multiply the damaged input guards dish out. This'll force the players to avoid combat regularly until they've mastered it (and considering the lack of tutorials, this means a lot of trial-and-error).

TL;DR

Your method of play sounds similar to mine, though probably for different reasons.

(The following is not aimed specifically at you, al-Assas, but rather as an open commentary.)

I tend to play games like I'm trying to emulate an awesome summer blockbuster movie. The main character is pretty awesome and typically wins while looking cool. IMO, if you go into a fight and you look like an amateur, you've lost, regardless of whether or not you walk out alive. It's a video game, you have 10 times the health of the bad guys, so you should outlast enemies. But if you look like a complete buffoon while doing it, then who cares if you 'won'? My philosophy is that you have to do it stylishly and look like you know what you're doing, otherwise you didn't really win.

I like staying true to characters. When guys like Altair and Ezio are supposed to be super badass fighters, I feel like I'm failing to live up to that if I take hits in combat. So to me that's a failure. That's part of why I liked the addition of full sync objectives in these games, so that you can stay as true to the character as possible.

What irks me, though, is how difficult the full sync objectives are becoming, and most of the time it's not because you don't know how to do it or can't achieve it, but because some bug or lame gameplay limitation is making it far more difficult than it should be. So in AC3 I've been leaving out the full sync requirements. If I can't do it on the first attempt, I don't try again. Which makes me sad, because that's not how I like to play. But it's too frustrating otherwise.

It seems that more and more these days, 'difficulty' in games is about giving you unfair restrictions or giving your enemies unfair advantages. That's not real difficulty, in my opinion. Real difficulty is a fair challenge where you're not given a handicap, but you're challenged to do the very best you can do within a realistic set of rules and boundaries. Do anything less than your best and you've failed the challenge. Giving your opponents unfair advantages just to prevent a game from being too easy is poor game design, IMO.

I see so many posts on forums all over saying that games are too easy and that they need to be more difficult. But when these people win in these games, they do it by the skin of their teeth after numerous attempts. IMO, if you didn't do it your first try and make it look good, you failed. If you sit there and keep retrying, you'll either figure out patterns to exploit (boo!) or you'll simply get lucky. To me, that's not winning. Persistence does not equal skill. If you beat a super hard game because you retried 84 times and eventually won doesn't mean you're good, it means you suck. And have no life. Yet people brag about their skills or complain that a game is too easy, despite how many attempts they made and how poorly they did when they barely completed that boss or stage.

What drew me in to this AC community many years ago was Stab and Ian's videos. These guys didn't suck. Their gameplay looked awesome and stayed true to the characters. To me, that's pure win. I'd rather watch somebody owning an easy game with major style than barely scraping by in a 'difficult' game.

The example I love to use to put the concept of difficulty into perspective is Street Fighter. Or any fighting game, really. Would you rather go up against an opponent who kinda sucks but has superhuman reflexes, twice your health and deals more damage than you, or go up against a guy who's really good and has to follow all the same rules you're following? I'll take door #2 every time. Unfortunately, many game designers either don't have the time, don't have the talent, or are just too lazy to program in some really good and realistic AI, and instead fall back on giving the AI cheap advantages just to give you a 'challenge'. That's not a challenge to me. Passing the bar exam with a high grade is a challenge; passing the bar exam with a minimum passing score while writing with your off-hand is just stupid.

Much like honor, I think that people's modern interpretation of 'difficulty' or 'challenge' is pretty skewed. But to each their own, I guess.

Okay, rant over. Man, I'm getting so bored waiting for the PC version of AC3...