Assassin's Creed vs. Red Dead Redemption
A youtube commenter was trying to tell me that Red Dead and AC both controlled just as sluggishly. I sometimes can barely walk through doors in Red Dead. I can do complicated parkour maneuvers in AC.
Anyways, with AC3 having a frontier, it would be interesting to ask: how do you think it's going to compare to Red Dead's?
I'm glad that there's an actual tracking system and way of discovering what animals are in the area, instead of it just automatically being on your map like in Red Dead.
Well, I've never played RD:R, but with what ACIII is going for, it's obviously gonna be more compacted and dense compared to the sparce, vastness of...wherever RD:R takes place. A forest that goes through and affected by seasons will be quite different from a desert like place.
I hear that you can even pet cattle in ACIII, so there's bonus points there.
Yeah, there were very few actual forested areas in Red Dead. Though its size was quite impressive. If I'm not mistaken Red Dead was mostly in Mexico, and I think the amount of vegetation was accurate considering that location.
One thing that annoyed me about Red Dead hunting was that spawning locations would just spawn a bear or something behind you every minute infinitely, which resulted in SO many cheap deaths. IT never felt like you actually were hunting, more like waiting to trigger an animal ambush. I like that AC emphasizes taking out animals silently.
I've never played Red Dead, so I can't attest to that.
It'd be better in ACIII if you were walking/parkouring around and you just happen to spot animals in the distance. It'd be your choice to interact with them or not.
Yeah, I'm fuzzy on exactly how it works but I don't think multiple animals will spawn in rapid succession when you're around. Of course they need to spawn in, it IS a game, but regardless of how they do it mechanically, it looks like from the gameplay we've seen that animals just are roaming and clearly visible from a far distance.
One thing I keep forgetting is that we're going to get a telescope. I hope the zoom function can measure up to how well it worked in red dead.
EDIT: I don't know, is telescope the right word for it? I know it's that thing that ship captains use.
A telescope in ACIII?
Well, there's a cutscene where Connor is using one. But I'm not sure if they'll actually be an item like that for Connor to use.
Perhaps Eagle Sense will fill in for that - highlighting all tree routes and animals for a distance. It'll stand out more due to the contrast.
No, the spyglass is supposed to be in actual gameplay, naval and non-naval.
It'll be kinda weird. Stopping around and having to whip out your telescope. I'd rather have Eagle Sense accomplish the same thing, but we'll just have to see when the game comes out. To each his own, I guess...
Eagle sense had never had the ability to zoom in on things. Why randomly add it now?
I see nothing weird about the spyglass, it would help with planning assassinations and surveying areas. Its a common tool of the times.
You don't HAVE to use it.
Where is the evidence that it exists anywhere but on the ship and in cutscenes?
I'm not trying to be accusatory. I've probably missed it so am legitimately asking... I want to believe it's there, because I'd use it... but Where's the Beef?
“Force has no place where there is need of skill." Herodotus
I've only seen it when Connor is on his ship, so I'm doubting we'll get it outside of that, too.
Adding things and improving this have been the entire point of sequels.
And if would be fitting if Eagle Sense can zoom in on objects, considering the fact that eagles themselves have eyes that are 40x stronger than normal.
Also, how would you pull them out from your inventory? From the demos, Connor seems to have only 4 weapons.
Eagle sense is not literal. Eagles don't see the world with their targets in gold.
The demos don't necessarily always show Connor with all of his things equipped.
And the first mention of the spyglass in an interview was prior to us knowing about naval battles, and the context in which it was spoken of was in normal gameplay.
As to where he would put it, he has a belt that he can strap things to, as well as pouches.
I think it's a lot cooler and gives more of a feel of the period to make zooming in a feature accessed by a tool, rather than a power. I don't want Eagle Vision to become too powerful, either. It could take away from the realism. It's fine as is IMO, but who knows, they might make it better in later games.
Alex Hutchinson said that it was largely what we've seen before, and nothing crazy was added other than the tracking capabilities, at his eurogamer conference.
No. Of course eagles don't go soaring around seeing everything in gold. That's just ridiculous. I was merely talking about the zoom feature. Do you have a link to this interview about this spyglass? And I don't think a zoom feature in Eagle Sense would make it too powerful. Ezio can hear the heartbeat of enemies, pick up cold trails, and locate disguised enemies. A small zoom feature wouldn't be too much.
The heartbeat thing was only in one mission in Revelations, I think.
But it's not really that having the zoom ability makes you super powerful, but that it starts to feel like you have a ton of supernatural abilities. Eagle vision should be a small part of the gameplay, mainly in locating targets.
I don't know where the interview about the spyglass is, but I'm actually excited for it, and it just is more interesting to me than yet another eagle vision ability. It'll make me feel like I'm an actual kinda realistic assassin scoping out things, rather than doing it with my mystical powers.
It would be really hard to find, but anyways, we'll see when the game comes out how it works.
A zoom feature doesn't seem too crazy when dealing with this type of gameplay, but honestly, do we really need it? I think we're fine doing what we already do without it.
Scaling a tree and using it or looking out over a cliff with it will be fun.
As for gameplay, as I said lots of stealth games have them, helps to survey areas and plan your attack.
Do we need it? Is it critical to the game working? No. But it will definitely be usable in a variety of ways, and just adds to the immersion of the player in the time period.
If they did use a spyglass to zoom I'm thinking the button for it would be one of the analog sticks.
Eagle sense is not literal. Eagles don't see the world with their targets in gold.
You don't know that. 
I doubt it's an analog stick because eagle vision is on one of those. I bet it's a tool.
I could see some practicality to it, much as I don't enjoy the idea of one ATM, I could learn to really like it. This scenario;
"Okay there's three guys over there, one I can't take out quick enough with just my hands..and I gotta get closer to the other two after I kill the first....well maybe there's a gun rack over there or something (uses telescope) nope, no gun rack, BUT I SEE A MUZZEL LOADER ON THE GROUND!!"
Something like this, lol I'm sorry for the example not being ideal but basically what I'm saying is it'd be great for spotting small weapons, whatever form the feathers are in now, maybe spotting through an open window to see the rooftop on the other side?
could be quite nifty!