The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

You, good sir, have hit the nail square on its noggin.

It could have worked and should have been done this way. *wishes hard for alternate realities*

Revelations story was very much a bridge between Brotherhood and AC3. The problem was the structure was too much like Brotherhood so everyone had the deja vu effect.

Still, i think it was fun running around Constantinople discovering all the secrets left behind by the Polos so i don't mind that it was a separate game. I have to wonder what it would've been like if AC:R remained a 3DS title(Lost Legacy was the supposed to be the name).

I can see both ways.... but I guess Ezio still had to get to the temple in Masyaf... I guess he could have left from Rome.

Ezio had already accomplished everything possible in Rome. Revelations was old Ezio trying to help others out. Turkish bomb-crafting doesn't work in Rome.

I'm not saying it couldn't have worked as one game. But I was fine with two games.

It's the lack of gameplay advancements and lack of creativity in Revelations that bothers me more than the story.

Masyaf could have been at the last memory. Ezio's Roman robes would've been suited better as well, since he'd practically be a foreigner AND that it'd mirror Altair's robes better.

Yusef could have been some kind of foreign tourist - to see that Assassin v. Templar conflict from a different pair of eyes.

The life of an Assassin could have been explored. Altair had a happy family, but his son and wife were town from him. Ezio never chose this life. He started out with revenge, but he could have became a philosopher. His love life could have been pushed further, considering he's memorizing Christina, Caterina dumping him, and Sofia introducing into the picture.

That last bit about his love life reminds me of a Tumblr post that I replied to;
"Describe your favorite game series while making it sound as wacky/stupid as possible."
My answer:
"You have to stab religious people because of aliens and everyone you love dies."

The Vlad Tempes' kill animations could have been imported to Altair's sword. Perhaps Leonardo improved upon it, or Ezio simply got accustomed using such a historic blade with great importance. As for Desmond's side of the story:

- Cesare could have had the last Memory Seal, claiming that it gave him the location of another Apple besides the one Ezio stole from him. Maybe he could have some 1st Civ genes in him?
- Once Ezio have finished his trip to Masyaf's castle to visit Altair, he could have made the same decision and hid the apple in the Colosseum. It would've reflected/connected the 2 Assassins together.
- The Black Room visual motif could be a accidental programming error Rebecca did. It would have increased the Bleeding Effect to an entire new level. Or it could have been scrapped altogether.
- After Desmond stabbed Lucy, the Bleeding Effect would have overtaken him, causing him to relief memories of his ancestor. That would explain why the player would be stuck playing as Ezio.

Then again, I'm just bordering on fan-fiction right now.

Are you describing Assassin's Creed or Scientology?

That is a very good question.

The decision to make two yearly titles in the wait for AC3 was made by the higher-ups in charge of profits and brand awareness and stuff like that. If they had chosen to spend two years making one game and then release AC3, then yes, they could have. The story had been planned to fit into three games, they could easily have made just one bridge to AC3.

Not to sound rude, but was this ever in doubt?

Anyways.

I've probably said this before, but I liked Brotherhood for the Desmond stuff, I liked Revelations for the Ezio stuff (and the Lost Archive DLC) and I like AC3 for everything. (random aside: I never ran into any real glitches until I'd played for about 30 hours)

I don't really have anythin' else to add to this conversation. : P

Yes, Calvar. I know Ubisoft planned Ezio's saga as a trilogy due to profitable reasons. I'm not doubting it - just claiming that the 2 could have been combined for a even greater game.

And damn, Calvar. What didn't you like in ACB, ACR, and ACIII? You seem to have only positive things to say about these games. You must dislike something.

Yes they very well could of but as the old saying goes...

Thats the game we wanted...

Not the game we deserved...

Oh, I spend plenty of time talking about what I don't like, but people always get so enraged that I didn't hate them overall that they don't seem to notice.

Brotherhood, as I implied in my post, had the worst Ezio story, combat was far to easy, and elite guards too scarce.

Revelations had a ton of Desmond stuff cut and shunted into the lost archive, and Revelations very obviously had a ton of stuff cut and was rough around the edges.

Assassin's Creed 3:

Unlike others, I didn't find the glitches that bad, especially compared to my AC1 or even AC2 experience.
The game introduces a billion tools and gameplay loops without explaining them adequately, or even mentioning them.
The chases are quite bad, though they've been improved significantly in the newest patch.
The Desmond segments could have used a bit more polish: full cutscenes for interactive conversations, ect.
And Desmond desperately needed one more mission, for the abstergo mission to be stealth-based, or both.
The elite guards are NEVER used in main missions or any missions at all, to my knowledge.
The Assassination contracts basically just spawn people to kill. Not that that's not fun, I liked hunting templars in AC1, but I want the AC2 contract system.
Anything they said about making this game's story standalone is ridiculous. You would be lost without previous games.

I played through AC3 with a very critical eye, and saw oh so many things that I knew you guys had specifically asked for, and things that I thought you would like. There were so many missions that just dropped you into a place and gave you an objective and freedom to complete it, and the Forts were so very good. The story did the AC1 style memory corridors far better than AC1 did, IMO.

So I was actually surprised that few of you seemed to enjoy the game at all. Ah well, it's your prerogative to do so.

I liked AC3 quite a lot but it just felt.. Different. It didn't really feel like Assassin's Creed. I don't know if anyone understand what I'm trying to say but it felt like they could've slapped a different name on the game, renamed the characters, used a different plot device than the Animus and make it its own, different game. Maybe that was just me. I loved it though.

It's not that we didn't enjoy it at all. The thing is that people tend to be the most outspoken when something they like lets them down. I think that AC3 is a very good game, but it could have been downright amazing with a handful of changes. That's painful, especially when the faults it does have were easily identified and I immediately thought of a number of ways that each could have been improved. A bunch of things felt like they were the way they were because they were "good enough". In my book, "good enough" isn't a goal, it's something you settle for. I will never praise "good enough". C+ is good enough. I shoot for A+.

If I thought the entire game was bad, I wouldn't waste my time posting long messages about it. I'd have written it off and moved on. You usually don't hear much from people who think something was completely bad.

I know exactly what you mean.

This is also true.

I don't lower my expectations. I demanded liquid gold from ACIII. Instead, I got a chunk of gold with chunks of errors and MAJOR flaws in it.

This had the potential to become the AAA blockbuster game that Ubisoft so hoped for, as evident with their advertisement.

I didn't get that AAA blockbuster game. So I was disappointed? Did I set my expectations too high? After around 3 years of development, I can say FUCK NO!

Oh, and as for my points that could've been added:
- Subject 16 could have been squeezed in. Once you solved all the 10 Rifts, an AI program of him that only lasted 50 seconds. Of course, he wouldn't have time to reveal Lucy's true nature
- Eagle Sense could have been imported. Maybe it could have activated after Mario's death
- Once you get 100%, you get to see a cut-scene of Ezio watching Leo on his deathbed.
- You could have purchased "perks" for Ezio. Stuff like running without being hear, poison weapons, swimming slightly faster; ect.

The descriptor "AAA Blockbuster Game" does not imply quality, rather the nature of the development and marketing. Are you saying that this is an indie game if it's not a blockbuster one? A 40 hour indie game made by 5 studios with multiplayer, its own engine, and several CG cutscenes? (Yes, I'm joking, I know that you meant that it doesn't live up to the quality you expect, in your opinion)

I also think that Assassin's Creed 3 was very different, and I think the Assassin's Creed series has NEEDED something different. I expected things to be different.

And Asaic, I'm not expecting you to be more enthusiastic about a game that you experienced as a C+.

I'm just saying that the changes to the mechanics of the game and the obvious effort to give most side content more narrative ties outweighed all the problems that I had with it, to the point where my experience was an A- to A+ at times.

The way I felt and still feel while playing it reminds me of AC2. I've played 75 hours and haven't finished everything, and have tons of missions I want to revisit to play through in new and interesting ways.

I'm not suggesting that your actual real impressions are wrong, just that none of the issues you raise that I agree with truly downgrade the experience for me.

I could tell when I played it that it would be a divisive game, but the things that made me think that were the changes that seemed implemented specifically for fans like those at THB, who didn't mind tricky stealth and a little bit of difficulty, among other things.

I don't feel for a second that this game could be anything other than Assassin's Creed. That feel is very much there for me. I never thought that the era would fit the idea of secret societies so well.

Anyways, I suppose I'm a bit overzealous to say that you didn't enjoy it at all. But I don't think I'm exaggerating to say that you were very disappointed.

And of all the things I feel about this game, disappointed is not one of them. There were a multitude of moments were I could see just how much work had gone into the game, and I was just taken aback. Moreso than in any game I've played recently. (that's not me trying to guilt you into saying you love the game just because people worked hard on it, I always hate it when people do that, just to be clear.)

I feel as though you don't understand that I notice everything that is objectively a thing that could have been done better in the game. The way I differ from you is that I enjoy most of the things that you dislike subjectively, and so I would rate the game far higher than you.

If I had to rate it, actually, I would give it something from 8.5 to 9, not a 10.

This is entirely because of the issues with teaching the player how the do things. There is not enough tutorialization. Every weapon and element should be introduced and explained. Also the chases are silly. They should be designed so you have a time limit to catch the target, not so that you need to follow a very rigid path to get to them.

I learned how to craft largely all at once, at the end of the game. The tutorial for crafting was extremely unclear. Also, things like the interface and weapon wheel could be clunky at times.

I think Assassin's Creed 2 had a perfect tutorial woven into the story, and a perfect interface. AC1 was good with that too.

But yeah, given my experience, I expected this game to get a better reception here than Brotherhood and Revelations, which I consider to be lesser games to the numbered ones, though still good.

I do not begrudge your opinions or experiences, nor do I intend to invalidate them by sharing my own positive ones.

EDIT:
And by the way, the reason I post walls of text is because if I try to keep it short I am seldom understood. Yes, I know my writing isn't the best but it's a trade-off, innit? Also, bolded for emphasis.

EDIT2: I would also have mentioned in my review that the story totally relies on you having played the previous ones. Really, this could be any game if they removed the animus? What about the reason the Haytham goes to America? What about the space witch who turns Connor into an eagle and sends him on a destiny quest? Usually they wait til the end of the game to get into that stuff, but they were not shy in this one. New players would be lost narratively and gameplay-wise.

AC3 is very different from the previous games. That is both a good and a bad thing.

They should have made sequence one mostly a tutorial on most of the new features. And they should have gotten to the point with the story and killing necessary targets, instead of having it drag. The story feels like a mess (not trying to bash the game, it had it's good moments).

Even with the new weapons and features, the gameplay is more limited than the previous titles. AC1 feels like it had more options.

All in all, none of the sequels have quite lived up to AC1 and 2, although this might have come the closest.

New players would have been lost to begin with, considering that this is the 5th game in the main series. When I played ACII, I didn't even know what the hell everybody was talking about.

I think Haytham's sequences did quite a good job explaining how the game works on a basic level. I think the need for tutorial was in the more ancilliary systems and the basic tools you use.

I found this game more freeing than any other AC1 game most of the time, but a lot of important story moments rely on scripting, which is OK with me.

For example, before you kill Charles Lee, the very mission before you chase him down, there is a mission on a ship, where you are given this strict path through this environment, and then turned loose to kill the captain however you want, and the ship becomes a playground. That right there is what I consider the excuse for scripting lee's death. And I find that totally acceptable.

I never felt like the story dragged, at times I felt like it moved too fast, since I decided I was going to do the major side-mission stuff AS it unlocked, so I would have all the stuff Connor cannonically would have by the endgame. It felt like a lifetime. I liked the struggle towards even getting to put on the assassin outfit. It made it feel like it meant more, previous games have always given it for barely any effort.

Anyways, I realize that the pacing would have been too slow for a lot of people, this is just my personal preference. I can understand how you feel that previous games were more free, but I feel like there is just as much freedom in content, but there is scripting added at points to enhance the story. And for people who deplore scripting this can make it feel like there is less freedom, but the fact remain that there are probably more freeform missions than in AC2, and definitely AC1.

And lol, yeah I would have been lost even starting at AC2. It's important to remember that even though we just know it all at this point, the AC universe is incredibly complicated.

I didn't feel that AC3 as a whole was a C+. There were moments that were C+, some that were A+, and everything in between. Actually, I felt a couple missions were downright terrible. But as a whole, it was a good game. Just not the amazing game it could have been.

I really loved the Haytham character, especially in the first three sequences. I really like that type of character over a young, brash hothead. He had great character design and a perfect voice actor. I was very impressed. Connor was so-so. I didn't have any real problems with the character or the voice actor, but I definitely felt that some parts could have been stronger. Some missions were great, some were awful, and most fell between 'decent' and 'good'. Despite having a clearly-identified set of targets, the actual assassination of them felt too scripted, like the story was taking unreasonable turns just to serve up the assassination opportunity on a silver platter. We already know they need to die, we don't need the story to spoon feed us a glorious opportunity every single time.

Anyway, I could go on for days about what I liked and didn't like about the game. I'm quite happy with it, but I also can't help but see how much better it could have been. So I enjoy playing what we have and I post about what I wanted to see. That's how I work.

And I value your opinion. I may not have been as bothered by certain elements as you, but there are few improvements you wanted that I would actually dislike if they were implemented.

One thing I really strongly disagree with, and which I know is very subjective, is Connor.

I'm going to post something here that I wrote on my blog about this subject.

I do agree that Haytham is awesome, but again, he's not a character I particularly connect with. I loved the exploration of who he is, but his personality is so very different than mine, and I've often been in Connor's position, in conflict with people like him.

I like Connor because he's open-minded, caring, willing to change if it seems necessary, willing to stay the course if it seems right, unwilling to speak if he feels he has nothing to say, unwilling to be silent if he feels something needs to be said, and unwilling to give anything any less than 100%.

I think a lot of why people see him as boring has to do with his voice, which to me sounds like someone who has known english for a long time, but only been around english speakers for a short time. Which is kinda what Connor was. He learned english as a child, through books and things, (Another reason why I love him) but he was never around english speakers for most of the first 17 years of his life. At a certain point, it's not possible to lose your accent no matter how well you have mastered a language.

His manner of speech is very similar to many first nation's people I've heard, and he was voiced by a person who war part native. I got used to it fast, and I actually find it just as interesting as an italian accent. Moreso, even. I also loved the scenes in his native language.

I also really like the running gag where people keep trying to shake his hand or hug him or touch him in any way, and he just stares them down or looks really disgruntled. : P

There was a post on Tumblr that goes something like this. I quite enjoyed the running gag about his social interactions as well.

That about sums it up, DAZ.

One of his assassin recruits flirts with him and he's actually pretty cool about it. It's not that he's really all that clueless, but that his priorities are just elsewhere at the moment.

He does say he'll consider settling down once his work is finished. But we know he still does things after AC3.

But yeah, I love that tumblr thing! Have you guys seen this?

http://calvarok.tumblr.com/post/36675491337/molto-bene-on-my-pene

It's really amazing.

"Where is Charles Lee?"

I literally died when that part came up

Desynchronized: Your ancestor did not die from laughing too hard.

Ha

But I agree that this doesn't feel like Assassin's Creed anymore. Even Brotherhood and Revelations seemed more like it than 3 does. The feeling of being a part of an ancient organization of peace keepers isn't there anymore. Sure we have Desmond and PoEs and such, but the FEELING isn't there anymore.

It's a great game with several flaws, but it's still a great game. Enjoyable 99% of the time. 9 out of 10 for me.

Gonna have to agree with Joey here. One of the main reasons why ACI is still beloved is due to its story, setting, and atmosphere. You always FELT that you were hunted, wanted, and part of a secret organization...even if they do set up their HQ in a giant fortress. Ezio just felt like he was meeting people and killing for them 5 minutes later. The same goes for Connor.

As for Connor, he certainly is the most psychologically interesting. Altair just felt like your everyday badass assassin who later becomes a wise philosopher and Ezio just lived his entire life. Attention to his posture and facial expressions are given more detail. His voice actually cracks when he yells. Ever noticed that when he's near his Dad or Washington, he usually has his arms behind him? My main issue is his voice. I know that they had to pick a Native American actor for obvious reasons, but he seems to have the same TONE whenever he talks. I know that he's in foreign territory, and that he has to seems strong, but still...can't he put some inflection towards his pronunciation?

Is English his 1st language? He can converse pretty good when he met Charles Lee as a kid. His mom must have taught him that, and she spoke excellent English. Or did he learn them at the same time?

About me, haven't you noticed I rarely post unless I have a very strong opinion about what's being discussed? Now minimize that a bunch and you have how often I join in conversations in real life, lol.

Technically, the Assassins aren't the peace-keepers. The Templars are.

And the feeling that I got was that we were a part of an order that has fallen on hard times and all but been wiped out. Which was kinda the feeling.

The point of the Assassins is not that they are one enduring order that lasts in one form forever. They are an ideology. And that ideology is picked up by people when the order is gone. Remember that the Assassins did not start with Altair's order, but the teachings of TWCB.

I definitely agree that it felt more modern, but I definitely felt a connection to the prevous incarnations of Assassins and Templars. I loved when Achilles mentioned "Ezio uncorking the bottle". The idea that these are just important and well-know parts of the order's history is so cool.

I totally understand how you might have felt that way, though!

By "peacekeepers", I obviously meant that the Assassins attempt to keep the peace by doing their jobs as assassins. Performing a small act of chaos to counteract more acts of chaos is their way of keeping the peace.

I totally understand what you're saying, but I think a more apt description of what they're trying to prevent is "control".

Freedom vs. Control.

I'm sure a lot of them would see themselves as fighting chaos, but the great thing about AC is that neither side is objective. Both are biased, and see themselves with those biases.

I'm being nitpicky, I know. sorry.

It's funny you mention that, because that's one of the issues I have with him. His facial expressions are generally subtle, but when they aren't, they don't match the voice acting at all. The biggest stand-out point to me is where he hears Prudence's good news in one of the Homestead missions. His face makes him look like he's about to burst into tears of happiness, but his dialogue in that scene feels more like, "Cool. Hey, when's lunch?"

I didn't have any issue with the Native American accent. My city has a sizable aboriginal population and I've grown up with people who sound similar. It's the actor himself, or the direction he was given while doing the acting, that I thought could have been better. It wasn't bad. It's certainly acceptable. But it's far from remarkable. I felt that Haytham's brilliant voice acting was a stark contrast.

Haha, brilliant!

Another one compared all the AC games based on the question of "Where?"

AC1: Where is Robert de Sable?
AC2: Where is Rodrigo?
ACB: Where is Cesare?
ACR: Where is your Hookblade?
AC3: Where is Charles Lee?

I had a chuckle.

I never felt any face/voice disparity at all.

never mind, obviously we just experience it differently.