The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes https://twitter.com/AshrafAIsmail/status/361139833336373248

no more stupid ass notoriety system of ripping posters off walls.

https://twitter.com/AshrafAIsmail/status/360895695282122754

Sorry bout that. Yup, they had them in AC3, but now it's a four pistol system and two of said holsters are on the chest. Said chest holsters have been missing in all gameplay footage we've seen so far. As to how hard it is to do something like that, probably not as easy as it sounds, as with almost everything in games.

Oh, and I've got word from Darby that the official forums have a ton of spoilers so I'll just continue not visiting them.

I'll send you a message and say why it's screwing up.

Well I was gonna switch to PS3 because Xbox Live is another bill I don't wanna pay. And Ubisoft has been implying (let's face it, straight up telling us) that AC4 is best on the Playstation consoles, PS4 most notably.

I'm not expecting anything though! I'd feel bad, because I didn't mean to get this reaction, yet grateful to receive this.

graphics ARE better on the PS consoles vs xbox... all of ubisoft's demos for the AC games have been done on PS for a reason...

Um, actually the PS3 versions of AC games have always had the worst performance (screen-tears and framerate drops) and no real visual difference.

The reason you should consider PS AC4 is because of the bonus aveline content. Other than that, it's a multiplatform launch game. Things aren't going to be very different, if at all.

And if you have an article in mind about a quote saying "AC4 will be better on PS4", I've already read it, and that quote was extremely misconstrued.

AC uses Playstation for demos and appears at sony press conferences and has exclusive playstation content because they have a contract with Playstation for such things, just like Call of Duty has with Xbox.

But hey, if you want free multi then PS3 is obviously the way to go!

That's very true. The only drawback of switching to PS3 is that I won't have as many THB multiplayer friends to play with as I do Xbox. But without Xbox Live payments, it wouldn't make a difference.

If you expected it, it wouldn't have happened.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-assassins-creed-3-face-off

- Assassin's Creed 3 on 360 vs. PS3.

I know, I know, it doesn't really matter and you guys are talking about something else, but I had the link to the pertinent info, so no harm done.

"This is why you're wrong and this is why I'm always right because my opinion is more important...but I'm not here to judge!"

I was saying why I wanted to switch to PS3 (and PS4 when I get more money) with valid, opinionated reasons. No one said there was any article quoting Ubisoft stating that Playstation was ultimately better. It's more of the majority of game developers had said that the PS4 tech was better to work with all-around than Xbox One's. I've learned that if your work makes you happy, you put out a better product.

Playing on my Xbox last night, it couldn't handle crowded streets very well. The framerate dropped significantly and made my eyes hurt. And don't get me started on the graphical pop ups or the glitchy fighting. But of course, that's my opinion on why I prefer one console. Neither is necessarily superior, because superiority is relative. I'm going for personal convenience.

I just posted a link to an actual hard-data test that showed the ps3 suffered MORE in crowds in the cities.

All previous AC games have been documented to have worse performance on the PS3. I am right, there. But if your goal is merely free multiplayer, then you'll be fine on the PS3. No problem.

And yup, the PS4 is going to be great, and a bit more powerful than the One, but you should really temper your expectations in regards to how different a multiplatform launch title is going to work out, as launch is when devs are just learning the new hardware, and have to play it safe to avoid screwing everything up. I've never said anything about the PS4 version being worse. It's almost certainly not going to be, since unlike the PS3, it's really easy for devs to work with, and very similar to modern high end PCs.

But you weren't going to get an Xbox One anyway, and I already knew you weren't. It doesn't matter if both next-gen versions are pretty much the same, cause you'll only be playing one, so why are you bothered by my informed guess they will be?

And I just told you my experience just a night ago about how the Xbox 360 was struggling to keep up with all of that. Even a double counter-kill made the console louder. They're the same graphics-wise to me, but Sony appeals to me more with its policies and features. You seem to be on a quest to turn everyone on this site around to Micro$oft and I'm just pointing that out. If I mention that I'm switching, then I've decided. I don't need any "hard-data tests" to show your opinion. So let it be.

"Hard data opinion" is quite oxymoronic.

As I said, whatever your experience with crowds on x360, you can expect worse on ps3, though only slightly in AC3, at least.

I literally don't care what console you buy. Buy the one that has the games and features you want.

You then say that you're switching because of policies.

That's perfectly understandable, and if you didn't discount my acknowledgement of said reasons to switch as supposed "cover for my relentless M$ agenda", you'd already know that I have no problem with that.

Bottom line: Assassin's Creed games up to this moment have always performed slightly or majorly worse on the ps3 vs 360, and launch games don't ever reflect the entirety of what a system is capable of, especially if they're tethered to providing comparable last-gen experiences at the same time.

Full stop.

If you really feel like not believing totally reliable frame-rate and performance data from multiple highly regarded expert sources, then that's fine, and if you simply don't care, then maybe consider not replying rather than taking my routine fact-checking personally.

Simply posting the specs of the instruments needed for good performance/graphics (as I understand it)...

CPU
360: 3.2 GHz processor, 3 dual core (6 total), 77 GFlops max
PS3: 3.2 GHz processor, 7 single core, 320 GFlops max

GPU
360: 512 MB GDDR3 RAM (shared w/ system RAM), 21.6 GBps bandwidth
PS3: 256 MB GDDR 3RAM (dedicated, additional 224 MB can be shared w/ system RAM), 22.4 GBps bandwidth

System RAM
360: 512 MB GDDR3 RAM (shared with GPU), 700 MHz, 22.4 Gbps bandwidth
PS3: 256 MB XDR RAM (dedicated), 3.2 GHz, 25.6 Gbps bandwidth

Simply based on specs, PS3 SHOULD be better than the 360. Whether one system has more bugs than the other, I don't know. When developing a demo, you use the better system because you can at least work out all the bugs in that demo, and you want it to look the best. There's a reason big companies go PS3 over 360 for their demos... it LOOKs better.

The only games that LOOK better on 360 are Halo, Gears of War and Forza Motorsport

The thing is, the reason PS3 games weren't the huge leap ahead that everyone thought they were going to be was because of the way it was designed. It's far harder to develop for, and far harder to get maximum potential. A game system is always different than the straight up sum of its parts would lead you to believe.

PS3 exclusives and Xbox exclusives alike generally look better, because those devs learn more about how to use the system more efficiently, though the PS3 is harder to do that for. (but is definitely capable of more)

That's... that's not even close to the way things work. Since the 360 is both easier to develop for and has slightly lower specs, most multiplatform games, including the AC series are developed on the xbox and simultaneously ported over to the ps3. That's why the xbox version is generally the better performing one.

And you're totally wrong if you think all "big companies" demo their games on PS3. Call of Duty shows their games at the e3 xbox press conference usually, and just like with assassin's creed, it's because of contracts that they have for early access to map packs on xbox. If it was because playstation products were infallible, then AC4 wouldn't have crashed on stage. (that was an early build on a PS4 devkit, so it's understandable)

I used to think that all PS3 games looked better without actually seeing any proof but actually looking into any tests and comparisons people have done, you'll find that the PS3 version of the game is usually the one that has the most problems. Few multiplatform games show an increase in either visual quality or performance in the PS3 version.

And again, this isn't a subjective thing. If a game has more high definition textures or faster loading, that's not just my opinion.
I just gave you an example with that Assassin's Creed 3 digital foundry summary.

In the case of the PS4, however, the reason all the devs are so impressed is that Sony has been RESPONDING to criticism of the PS3's system, and has been working with devs to improve the experience.

See, my point in that comment was to say that console wars are kind of out of place on this site, and that you shouldn't be defending your preference on a thread titled "Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag". Cheese said the PS3 has been used for Ubisoft's demos because it looks nicer and I agreed with him. We moved on to the topic. So let's do that, please.

Ahem...

I wanna plunder some booty.

I'm not defending my console preference. I'm stating a literal fact that AC games have been proven to have things like, for example, the better texture filtering and shadows in AC3's 360 version. No opinion. No console war. It's just literally true that AC games look an insignificant amount better and perform a little better on 360. data is not subjective.

Stop making me repeat myself and you'll stop having to write posts about how annoyed you are with me repeating myself. Once again, if you would like to not believe the sources I provided, then that's your prerogative, and since you know I believe said sources, you already know that I don't think you or Double are correct in your assessment of AC version differences. That's not the end of the world, is it?

And I really really really really don't care what entertainment system you buy, as long as you have fun with it. stating facts is not an advocacy one way or the other.

I didn't wanna type it again so I quoted it.

And once again, it doesn't apply to the things expressed in my post at all.

If you actually agreed with me about the matter being closed, you wouldn't have replied at all.

As I said before, let's stay on topic.

EDIT: Yes, I saw your original comment before you deleted most of it. Don't take this so personally, man. We're all good here.

Again with more edits...

I attempted a closing more than once. So that's on you, kind sir.

I still want my booty...

EDIT: Sorry to anyone that actually reads through all of these. You're a trooper.

Why of course, Joey, though console specs are certainly not off-topic when speaking about a Next Gen launch title.

I guess we don't really talk in-depth about specs or the PR/negotiation side of Assassin's Creed here, but that's alright, since it's also good to focus on gameplay.

Still, I enjoy talking about that stuff. And at a certain point, it's necessary to talk about that stuff to determine which version of a game is actually legitimately technically superior. You're not always going to notice just by eye-balling it or even worse, going off what PR guys say.

EDIT: a closing is not a closing when you close by saying "oh yeah and you're an Xbone shill who wants me to buy a certain product" that's sorta disrespectful, not to mention a huge leap of logic. Every single time that I closed, I didn't say anything about your opinion being biased or anything, I just made it clear that we disagreed and there was no point continuing.

I'm going by my experiences with consoles (I've had both Xboxes, all three Playstations) and the fact that before the news releases at E3 about the console hardware and features, many developers commented on how easy to use and rewarding it was for them creating their games. PS4 will have a subscription for some of its extra online features as Xbox has had, but it's still at a lower price. I've never had a particular preference or favored one over the other. My choice would be PS4 because I personally find it more convenient and enticing to me, just as you see Xbox One in a similar way.

Yes, that's how I closed it because that's how you come off when Xbox vs Playstation comes up in any thread. So let's drop it.

And to think, this started because I was asked what console I wanted a gifted game on.

Madre Dios. I am genuinely perplexed at how I could say this:

and yet you still think you need to defend your console choice to me, or that I think less of you for what console you've chosen.

The PS4 will be a totally fine machine, it just doesn't have the exclusives I want. For some people, the Xbone exclusives are total garbage. FINE BY ME. Think whatever you want to think. Be whoever you want to be. You are a beautiful and wonderous human being no matter what, and I'm not really upset at you even though this kind of repetitive and endless argument seems to happen a lot with both of us, probably because we like having the last word.

I am excited to be a pirate assassin who murders people in Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag.

I leave the last word to you. No matter what your post contains, I will not post here again unless it is unrelated to this conversation, and someone else has posted (unless I have a link to new AC4 info)

Yet you still decide to comment with your opinion on why you think Xbox One is the best at any given moment. That's the problem here.

That's my last word and the point that you're missing.

turns out, if you lose all your crew during a boarding, you desync... i guess you need SOMEONE to captain both ships when you're done. https://twitter.com/AshrafAIsmail/status/361190795635724288

he didn't answer my question though: https://twitter.com/scottishduck88/status/361155578757779459

That makes sense. You wouldn't want a ship with just Edward. Awkward sailing.

Oh my god.
Assassin's Creed.
I'm sorry, I'm just having a really hard time not freaking out.
I'm actually going crazy. I either need to see some more gameplay or like... I don't know.
Due to the Blowpipe having Sleep Darts, and Unarmed not being a Kill, I wonder if I could go through this game without killing anyone except Assassination Targets.

*heart rate increases*
*brain threatens to explode*

Ugh... It's so far away..

I was watching the Comic-Con panel video yesterday (haven't watched it all) and something one of the guys said struck me as odd and out of place. I don't know if he misspoke and was incorrect in what he said, or if he spoiled some of the story that Ubisoft has been trying to keep under wraps.

As we all know, Eddie is a pirate first, and learns of the Creed. He likes the Assassin weapons and methodologies, but, as Ubisoft has said countless times, struggles with fully buying into the Creed. This normally goes something like, "Edward, a pirate, learns of the Assassins and has an internal struggle to whether he fully buys into the Creed or not, and this is a driving force to the game."

Now compare this to the statement one of the guys made in the panel. (I don't remember his name, but it's the guy that voices Edward). He said that Eddie has a struggle as he "doesn't know if he wants to be an Assassin or a Templar." This is much different from what we've heard already, which would be "doesn't know if he wants to be an Assassin or not."

I'd like to think the guy that is voicing the character knows the story inside and out. So the question is, did he misspeak, and this is wrong? Or did he just blow/spoil one of Ubisoft's hidden plot points for the game?

He didn't spoil anything. I think Ubisoft just didn't mention that part of Edward's character. Darby, the writer, said in a few video interviews (one was with a YouTuber named "Loomer", I think?) about how Edward likes living as a pirate, the "extreme" version of the Assassin ideals, but will go back and forth between Templar and Assassin mindsets.

So this is what separates Edward from the other Assassins. He uses the resources of Assassins (and possibly Templars as well) to his own gain, but is at a constant battle with which he ends up joining.

If you read Forsaken, you'd know which side he ends up on, though.

I read before that Edward is interested in both factions. They both have elements that he is attracted to. Once the Templars and Assassins find out that Edward 'has something special', they both grow interested in him and try to convince him to join their side.

EDIT:
from http://blog.ubi.com/assassins-creed-4-black-flag-edward-kenway-origin/

While McDevitt is keen to avoid story spoilers, he tells us that Edward first gets involved in the conflict between the Assassins and the Templars when he learns about a mysterious object that could make him powerful and wealthy. Naturally, both sides are after this object as well – and this serves as a jumping off point for the Edward’s journey

Even after Edward begins to associate with the Assassins, he doesn’t fully commit right away. “He kind of bounces between the Assassins and Templars for a time, trying to find something that makes his life more meaningful,” McDevitt says. “At first he has all these selfish goals but his experiences focus him on what is and isn’t important in life.”

A mysterious object that will make him powerful and wealthy that both Assassins and Templars desire?
Well golly gang, this sure sounds like a Piece of Eden, now dun'nit?
It makes sense as well, at one point someone revealed that there would be new Pieces of Eden that we haven't seen yet in AC4.

Yeah, in one of the trailers we can see Edward on his ship with a mysterious item in his hand, contemplating what it might be. It looks like a glass cube with two teeth in it.

EDIT: took some time finding it but here it is

Some kind of diamond, maybe?

If you lean your head slightly to the right it looks a bit like a bell.

Or a cherry pit preserved in acrylic...

there's only one thing in it though, not two...

Maybe that ILLUSION is the thing that will make Edward powerful and wealthy!!! You can put anything in there and it turns it into two of them!!!

No. Of course not. That's ridiculous. Use your brain.

Put in Desmond's finger and you get more Desmond DNA. Sorry, too soon?

It's obviously a...

Yo, check this out: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-tour-of-microsofts-truly-gigantic-spraw...

Anyone else reminded of those modern day screenshots?

More proof that Abstergo entertainment is really well-designed.

https://twitter.com/AshrafAIsmail

I should have linked this a long time ago, but Ashraf Ismail (Game Director on Black flag) answers a TON of fan questions on twitter. Lots of info there that I don't recall being shared anywhere else. No spoilers or anything.

This is my favorite...

here's my favorite... because he answered my question... https://twitter.com/AshrafAIsmail/status/363119712936280064

Okay, I'm back on-board for this game and franchise. Originally I was disappointed with the story of assassins falling extremely far from what an assassin is, but that was me being stubborn about what first made me a fan of Assassin's Creed. I am now accepting the games as what they are rather than how well they portrey the concept of an assassin. Give me guns, I don't care anymore. Throwing knives are gone probably for good, and I'll heal from that too. I think I might even enjoy role playing this character in terms of freedom to wreak havoc without worrying if it's totally realistic or not.
Anyways, I just wanted to say that although I can't contribute alot of practical information, I am here to stay and voice my opinion on these games. Oh, and as long as I'm still curious about the fate of the modern-day world, I will continue to purchase and support these game titles and respect the dev's final decisions on them. Although it took me a lot of time in the corner to understand this.

Calvar and Joey, I was such a person who suffered (kidding) through your awesome debate. I hate seeing "new" in my forum section. I think it's compulsory, either way you guys are awesome for reasons unrelated.

Hoping to sink ships and stab templars soon,

ThroatnDagger

You could try replaying the first games. That could also rekindle your love for these games.

You must be more mature than me.

There were always three possible ways Assassin's Creed could go down.

#1, the first game sold horribly and there was never a sequel.

#2, it sold well, and the second game also about just as well. There would be a third game and if sales didn't dramatically increase the series would have ended.

#3, the first game sold well, the second game sold EXTREMELY well, and the series as a result moved to yearly titles, seeing increasing sales with each one, and making the game more accessible gameplay-wise in order to attract more people.

Accessibility is NOT necessarily a bad thing, but it definitely always results in some growing pains, and I think Brotherhood and Revelations were the most obvious result of those.

I think AC3, however, was an example of them getting their stuff together.
YES, some of those forts could have used a few extra design passes, and YES, there were a few missions that used linear sequences to tell the story of an assassination rather than letting you do it yourself, but overall, it had far more well-designed assassination scenarios, more stealth mechanics, interesting new weapons, a great variety of content, and oodles of love and care put into tons of details like the frontiersman missions, or the mostly unique animations for Haytham, Connor, Desmond, and plenty of NPCs.

There were plenty of things that could use more work, like the system of crafting and trading, more utilization of the ability to free-run on moving objects. (and fixing the way guards detect you and making it seem a bit more fair) But game design is an iterative process, and from playing all the other AC games I've always noticed that the teams working on them really do care about the details and the little things that went wrong, with fixes for really specific things always showing up in the sequel.

I enjoyed the last few years of AC games, warts and all, and I really appreciate how they're trying to bring back and refine a lot of the things that people loved about the older games with Black Flag. I think there were a lot of steps towards that in AC3, but they weren't really all that appreciated or even noticed.

And story-wise I'm glad that not every era of Assassin's has operated exactly the same with the exact same equipment, since that would make them seem very foolish.

Eurogamer Naval Fort Interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCLcuez5Y7s

- extremely french. really really french
- small bit of new gameplay that is looped twice.
- looks like forts are definitely more about open naval combat than sneaky infiltration, but I can't be sure, he talks about there being other entrances into the fort, it's kinda unclear.
- edward's defense break is a differently animated version of the kick in the balls one that Ezio had, which makes sense for the character of both him and our old Italian friend now that I think about it.
- at the moment, the forts don't reset because you get side-qests from them once you own them, but they're gaging fan reaction to them and thinking about patching it in eventually.
- ends with the worst pun ever oh my gosh

all in all, I rate this video interview about 6/10. Didn't even bother to find other b-roll or a trailer to show, just looped the gameplay twice? layered a guy talking about what will happen when you attack a fort over footage of a fort being attacked? dude. who edited this?

gameplay looked great, though. People should remember that forts are not replacing the forts from AC3, Plantations are supposed to be more along those lines, and those DO reset.

Ubisoft made a gigantic leap with the 1st AC. A new next-gen IP was up against commercial franchises by the likes of Halo, and Ubisoft had only their reputation from the Prince of Persia game to hold up. One could say that was a leap of faith.

Gameplay is, like you said, an interative process. However, with each new step that they add that's GOOD and POSITIVE, it has to stay. Each step that's BAD and met with NEGATIVE response has to be changed or discarded. An example of this is the Den Tower Defense in ACR. It's quite baffling to me as to how and why in AC3 they were FEWER cities, tombs, and LESS freedom/stealth missions/less-scripted events.

The small little things (picking up weapons while moving, faster free-running, new free-running terrain, new combat) are unfortunately not gonna matter to players (including me) if they're constantly being overshadowing by the bigger things.

In AC3, that would be:
- The (slightly above) story is hampered terribly by horrendous pacing
- Inconsistent, boring, bland protagonist that didn't live up to the Assassin standards
- Superficial economy system
- FEWER assassination targets that actually INVOLVED STEALTH with LESS room for creativity

I could go on, but I think I should stop hear.

(TL;DR at bottom)
#1, you're wrong about there being less cities in Ac3, there were four. Brotherhood and Revelations had 1 and 2 respectively. The Frontier is a legitemate gameplay space where quite a few missions take place, so it counts in my book, and the Homestead has plenty of missions as well.

And there are as many Captain Kidd missions as there were AC2 Tombs.

#2, the story was paced fine after you got to Connor. Haytham's section should definitely have been smaller, but this was their first time doing a multi-ancestor story. The misstep was understandable for me, and I really liked being Haytham for the time he was playable.

#3, There is only one instance of Connor being inconsistent (his surprise when Haytham re-explains what his targets were trying to accomplish), and I consider him the most interesting Assassin yet, and fully worthy of the Order. His personal development and discovery of what it means to be an Assassin was very unique to his personality and background, and my favorite story arc in an AC game yet. Very interesting exploration of why the Templars and Assassins cannot co-exist, the treatment of Native Americans, and the hypocrisy of the American Revolution.

#4, the economy system in AC2 to Revelations was far more superficial. In AC3, it requires you to be more involved, and also is necessary for upgrading the Aquila, since it cost a lot to do so. It was not executed in the best fashion, nor was it tutorialized well, but that does not make it superficial, it makes it shakily executed and poorly tutorialized.

#5, compared to Brotherhood or Revelations, you are 100% wrong. Those games were far more restricting in most cases.

My post was not meant to convince you that you are supposed to like AC3. If you didn't enjoy it, then you didn't enjoy it. But there was definite effort to make it more like the sort of game you would enjoy evident in it, and that appears to be continuing going forward, which I'm excited about.

I want pretty much the same things that you do for the series, but my expectations have been tempered as a result of learning a lot about how the development side of things works.

TL;DR: Don't worry, I already have heard every single possible reason to dislike AC3, and I agree with more of them than you'd think. I liked it anyways, and saw a good sign for AC going forward in it. That doesn't mean that I think you aren't allowed to hate it, or disagree that it holds any promise.

meh. if you're looking for gameplay, don't bother. nothing is terribly new, and it's weirdly spliced together with two forts at once... which you can tell by the fact that two fort captains are killed in the spliced video... and one of the forts we've already seen.

Actually, from the voice-over I got the impression that when you invade a fort you have to kill both the Captain and the Governor of the fort. But yeah, near the end the clip repeats. It's barely any real gameplay, as I said, but it did clarify a bit about what Forts are, and showed Edward's guardbreaker move.

Fair enough. the sound on my cpu was too quiet for me to hear much.. but i was watching for gameplay not commentary

In any case, it was weirdly spliced together and hard to tell what was going on or even if it was all the same timeline at times.