The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

Dude, that's an amazing idea for a game. Please get into the industry ASAP.

Also I would want it to be barely scripted at all in terms of cop interactions. The entire thing should be one smooth on going system that simply gets more intense as they close in. There would also be very little information on the HUD, there would be no little update box that tells you cops are coming in. I would want it to be as immersive as you can get.

So the more contracts or crimes you commit, the more heat you get and the more cops that will come looking for you. For instance if you steal a car it would depend on the witnesses that saw you, if somebody saw you they might call the cops and you wouldn't even know, the cops would then be dispatched from a station in game or from those on patrol and they will check out the last whereabouts of your car and take a good guess as to where you are going.

Murders would be different, it would take a while but cops would build up a case against you and slowly start to track down who you are and where you live. But you are always moving through apartments and such. You also have to eat, and the more notorious you get the better they get to know you and your spending patterns so they will try and ambush you at fast food joints etc.

Not only that but other factions from missions or people related to the guy you killed would always be on the lookout for you. The game could take place in multiple towns, you can skip them anytime. After a crime though it may be risky to do so as cops will be looking out the state highways and such.

EDIT: This is my most important point, I would like the cops actions to be a consequence of your actions. That is, your wanted level doesn't simply spawn cops nearby or make them more aggressive. It is your action and your action alone that causes the cops actions.

I would like to be able to trace the cops line of thought to exactly how they knew where I was, I don't want them to spawn out of thin air but actually travel from a police station. There would be randomness in their search patterns, but in general when they are hunting you down, its all due to traces you left in your actions. You would also need to steal fake identities and all that jazz.

I officially worship Jack-Reacher's most recent posts.

I would love a game like that. Like, the Demon's Souls/Dark Souls of Assassination. A permanent Wanted system could be pretty awesome, and no game so far has really made me feel that much tension. Watch_Dogs is sort of doing that for next-gen, what with every citizen being able to phone in to the cops, and you being able to threaten them and be observant, but that's just flirting with the idea.

Jack's concept is huge. With a game as loosely-scripted as his, imagine the emergent gameplay possibilities that would come out of it? For example, we at THB understand how to break AC games because we know where the boundaries ARE in the FIRST PLACE. We know how to Eagle Strike, we know how to Out Of Bounds, we know how to Sequence Break and all that, because we understand where the limits are to begin with.

In Jack's game, that wouldn't necessarily be the case. Any kind of playstyle could be possible; provided it doesn't get the player killed, anything's fair game. Wow. We should talk, PM me if you want or make a new thread about this. I'm 100% behind this idea. Do you need a story writer? ;]

Ideas like this just make me smile and think about how awesome it could be and then I smile some more and think of what I would do in this or that situation and then I smile some more and then I think of planning escapes 20 steps ahead and then I smile some more.

Yeah, it makes me smile a lot.

Wow thanks for the feedback. I have wanted a game like this since.... jeez maybe GTA 3?

Few more things.

The way I see it, dieing should be extremely punishing to make players plan better. Games that simply respawn you when you die make you don't really care about dieing and you just sorta repeat the task over and over until its done. With this, you want to be connected to your character and what you have done so far in the game. So death should really mean death, you gotta start over on that character.

Now this means combat shouldn't be central to the game, as this would just be insanely frustrating, unless they give you lots of health but that sounds horrible for a game like this. So there would be no real linear storyline/progression. It would simply be about your character. There would be no actual plot but the plot you make for yourself. You would gain money by stumbling on contracts, you could build a network of criminal contacts or other sources of income to get yourself an apartment, traps, fake identities, sniper rifles, all this stuff to make being an assassin easier and to make the game more fun, better cars etc etc.

Now to make this even more interesting, it should be online, like an MMORPG. Since it is all centered around gameplay itself, I think this could work online. The other players will NEVER show up on the map, they have no health bar or name tag etc. You could walk right past each other in a crowd on the street and you wouldn't even know it. You might see one player having a shootout with the cops and you could stab him in the chest as he walks away. You could find out other players phone numbers by holding up someone at gunpoint and threatening to kill him if he doesn't give his friends up.

You could have a bank system such that if someone gets the upper hand on you, they may not want to kill you as they wont get your bank. By letting them go, they can go to their bank and give you some more cash provided they can get away.

Killing a player would make him drop everything, it is a huge deal and makes you notorious among other players. You could get his identity, his apartment, all this stuff. How the lobby system would work though with property, I am not sure. This is where the idea breaks down for online as you can't have two people sharing the same property.

EDIT: Thought of a major solution to this problem that complements the game drastically. Will post it later, gotta go to work.

EDIT 2: Basically here is how the lobby system would work. There would be a list of lobbies you can join, most of them based on region or some kind of rule. The lobby would fit about 1000 people max, this is how many people would be in the game, the map is that massive. Now when you join a lobby, you have reserved your spot until your character dies, or until you resign.

This is where it gets interesting. When you turn off your game, your character turns into an NPC. So it is all one huge continuous process. This means sleep truly is an integral part of the game, when you have to sign off you actually want a home to go back to so your character can sleep safely. There will be other NPCs living in their own apartments and sleeping as well. If you had a wanted level and cops were really starting to get a heads up on your location, or another player was hunting you down, they will kill you in your sleep. Finding a place to live is vital. You could even sleep on the streets if you had to, there would be homeless people and such.

You are constantly having to pay rent as well. If you don't pay rent you simply get evicted. You could kill the landlord and buy yourself a day, you could sneak into peoples houses and kill the owners to stay alive for a few day. And note these are all real days, you will be in this lobby for like a week. You will have to skip town as well. Your method of transport will be important, you could bus but risk being recognized or having it searched. Or you could simply walk or hitchhike. It would be the ultimate fugitive game.

This is a great idea for multiplayer. The current multiplayer feels like a gimmick to lure in more players, but this feels more like what what it should be like.

...I'll do the concept art.

I seriously want to play this game. I would play nothing but this.

I pitched the idea on GTAF, most people liked it except for the one life only part. Kinda lame but I can see how most people wouldn't like it, its too big a change from what they are used to.

I would play it exactly for the one-life only thing. If people wanted to keep their character, like if they were so attached to them that they couldn't stand to lose them, I'd add in a cheat code or something. Deities know we need more cheat codes in gaming - just for fun.

So apparently the new LOTR game is very AC inspired, but it also has a ton of new ideas. Check out this gameplay walkthrough to see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bl9J_ewx3Rg

Remember that this is Alpha gameplay and a very tightly controlled scenario. We have no idea exactly how this might shake out in the full game. But the level of simulation and adaptation that this game seems to be promising is super cool.

That game looks literally perfect.

I've watched that demo probably 15 times. This is the videogame I would make, if I were to ever make one. It's the game I've always wanted. A rogue-type character, corrupted with some kind of dark power that aids him, assassination, stealth, climbing and environment traversal, a burdened protagonist. Like, this is just MY JAM. I already liked Assassin's Creed enough, they didn't have to go ahead and murder my soul by showing me something this nice. I can't handle this. Oh my god. Oh my HELL. URGH.

Holy crap that looks amazing.

It has a minimap, which very likely implies a follow the objective marker type of play, with no option to play without objective markers. So sad.

Some facts about gathering info about your targets:

Link

The video made a point of not showing any objective arrows or anything, using their version of eagle vision to mark targets and such. It remains to be seen how much that will stay true, but that's what we were shown, so I don't know where you're getting this from.

Even if objectives were marked on the HUD, I fail to see how a game is totally ruined simply because it has a very minimal HUD element, the gameplay matters more than figuring out how to get to the place where you do gameplay. And we don't know anywhere near enough about the game to know if the HUD can/can't be turned off.

@Joey, I'm curious about how much depth the Nemesis system has. Definitely sounds like something that would fit AC.

I always liked the idea of building good/bad relationships with people. Something from this LotR game or Walking Dead. You do something in front of/to someone and they remember it. They grow from it or perceive you differently. In an open sandbox game like this, it can be different depending on how you influence them. For example, in the demo you linked, the orc had his face burned in a previous encounter. I'm hoping (but unlikely) that this was because the player performed the grab move on him one too many times and caused overwhelming damage to his face by throwing him into a fire.

I like that idea of missions and characters reacting independently depending on subtle actions you never really think about in games. It's weird when you plan a unique way to kill a boss in a game, but the cutscene afterwards shows them in entirely different circumstances from how you just left them.

This wouldn't be easy to input into AC, though, because it's based on actual events. You couldn't burn Charles Lee's face like the orc's and then find out history never mentions a burn. One of several ways that AC is free, but held back.

Well none of the stuff about targets dynamically escaping and carrying scars would apply to major named targets, but it could very easily apply to Templar outposts/Borgia towers/forts/whatever. It would be interesting if that system were expanded on and made to replace regular side assassinations. Who says Templars that exist in the world to be assassinated need to be in forts or around towers that all look similar? Why not have them blending into a variety of places with no need to accept a contract for them (a story-based cutscene could establish that you've been assigned to rid the area of templars) and there would be no marker for them being a target until you use eagle vision.

And the same sort of idea of figuring out your targets weaknesses and habits on a very detailed level could be applied to both outposts AND main story targets.

1. It completely ruins the immersion for me.
2. I don't pay attention to the environments because I'm trying to get to the next objective.

For me, it takes out an immense amount of fun of the game.

This is not a point that needs debating. This is my opinion.

This game appears to have a huge incentive for just going off and doing your own thing, though. If we CAN turn off HUD, that'd be even better. I'd wander around for days stumbling into minor side objectives, accidentally and triggering facets of Nemesis without even knowing it, grinding XP and Leveling until eventually I walked into a Main Quest and my previous decisions have changed everything. It'd be a very powerful gaming moment for me.

That said, and I'm sure I've alluded to (or flat-out mentioned already) that this is a first day buy for me, no matter what. It's just too perfect in terms of what I look for in a game.

Not to mention it's being accused of copying ACII code and I'm just sitting here going, "Yes, please feel free to copy my favorite games of all time, it will only make me want to play your product more." (And I'm serious. That climbing. That Air Assassination. That combat.)

I feel like the huge "revolutions" in design will come from the Nemesis System. All other innate systems like Climbing/Free-Running, Assassination, Domination, Combat and Stealth are fine and dandy (very, very dandy, Leo likes) but the real "twist" is Nemesis for sure.

Just watched that Middle Earth video. I haven't seen or read any LOTR, so I'm not familiar with anything, but...
Holy cow, that game is pretty sweet.

Upon re-watching the video, it appears as though selecting the nemesis marks the general location on your map, then once you get there you are given no further help from the HUD, and must find your target. So it's player choice that drives the waypoint system. Simply choose not to use it, and you'll not have to deal with it.

I still don't understand why you think there won't be an option to toggle the HUD simply because there's a HUD.

It's not like the game looks any more HUD dependent than Assassin's Creed is.

The later AC games are hugely HUD-dependent. You will NOT be able to find any of your mission locations without at the very least consulting your map. I think it's much more enjoyable for the game to tell you: "yeah, we'll be over there" and then finding out where that is yourself.

This game could tip me over the edge to get a PS4 if it really is this good. I know it's on current gen as well, but this looks to be a title that's more fun on next gen. So this, The Division, and the next AC...yes perfect...

If I had turned off my minimap or not used my full map in AC1, I wouldn't consider it any more playable than AC4 doing the same.

Verbal instructions routinely rely on "go West/North/ect." which might as well be greek if I don't have my compass visible, since I don't know what time of day it is and the sun never moves.
Many of the environments either look the same or actually are the same building models and textures, so getting lost can be easy.

I find it far easier to be immersed in the concept of playing as a person who is reliving a memory with a computer than the concept of actually being the person they're reliving.

Just like I find it easy to accept a HUD in a first person shooter if my character is aware of it, and it's explained as contact lenses or a helmet or something. I'm not debating, just explaining my view on it. It's fine if you feel differently, and I respect that you're good enough with navigating 3D spaces sans HUD to be able to overcome the problems that I have with it in giant open-world games

Anyways, I was actually referring specifically to AC1 with my comparison, since knowing where you're going seems very not-hud dependent, since you're mainly dealing with procedurally generated enemies that you can fight at any time, and the narrator specifically says you can follow enemies to reach the people you want to find, though they didn't show that part in the demo.

I share Calvar's greater ease of synchronizing ( ;D ) with gameplay that is explained in-context and 'makes sense' like an Animus (which is part of why I love the Modern Day so much, it gives the game credibility, sticking power and extra creepiness).

I will say, however, that in Black Flag, almost no HUD is required - at least on foot. Climbing to the top of a Viewpoint and staying on the Sync Beam without even Synchronizing will make icons of Objectives pop up, overlayed on top of the real game world's locations. So you can keep one in mind, Leap of Faith and head in that general direction. It's actually pretty cool.

I've actually just started a second playthrough of AC:4, this time with all the HUD turned off (except for SSI) and so far (Only near the end of sequence 2 though) it's great. The icons popping up when at a viewpoint really helps when i've lost my bearings and motivates me to synchronize all the viewpoints again.
I'm enjoying the environment much more now than in my first playthrough.

I started playing the game again, and noticed all manner of things obviously designed for those without minimaps. birds circling around whaling points, the animus spires around places of interest at sea. And it's also true that synch points are actually useful for spotting point of interest without marking them on your map, and extend the actual usefulness of viewpoints as a way to get your bearings.

I would like the next game to give Eagle vision more utility (and make the "see through walls" part of it less distracting visually, maybe by not highlighting the entire body but just a point of light, or something) so that it can be even better be used as a HUD replacement.

I liked in Revelations that if you set a waypoint and turned on eagle vision, a giant spire of light would appear over the spot that you had marked.

That's not been in any other AC game to my knowledge.

Thing I was just thinking about: what is the point of the high-profile/low profile system as far as assassinations? it basically boils down to being able to press a button and alert nearby enemies who aren't looking at you to your kill. Wouldn't an assassin try to make all their kills as inconspicuous and silent as possible when they haven't yet been detected? (obviously the hidden blade would be the most silent and inconspicuous one to use)

I get things like the low profile ledge assassinate versus high profile, because those actually do significantly different things. But it would be easy to make the high profile one the default, and hold the assassinate button for the animation where you actually pull the guard off the roof.

air assassinates are already low profile in terms of activation but not in terms of function... so how about we just ditch the system entirely?

assassinating a target with the hidden blade is low profile depending on the context. if it's a target you're chasing and/or you're hitting them at top speed, it's going to be more visible. if you able over and stab them in the back while no nearby guards are watching, it's not noticed immediately.

Using your normal weapon works the same, except it will make more noise and be clear from further away what you're doing.

if movement speed is controlled solely by how far you're moving the stick then free-running can be controlled just by holding the A button and left stick, and the right trigger can be freed up for a new functionality or be a more comfortable spot for an old one.

I feel like the profile system made more sense in the old vision for AC, where there were supposed to be a lot of things the player could do that would make them conspicuous at the wrong time. I really don't see what it offers to the game in its current state, where stealth is important, but it's mostly done through context and not specific inputs, like automatically blending with civillians compared to having to hold "low profile legs" while walking past guards

EDIT: speaking of risk/reward, I'd love to see enemies that can only be assassinated with your sword/combat weapon. this would mean you have to do a louder takedown on them, that could more easily draw enemy attention. It also gives a real purpose to using the combat weapon for out of combat kills, and means the placement of tougher enemies affects your strategy in terms of the order you take people out.

After having to get full sync for a second time due to a save glitch, I've finally decided that full sync as is sucks for AC.

No matter how general hey are, having to complete an objective in a certain way just doesn't play to the strengths of the series.

What I'd like is for full sync to become about optional objectives, like killing secondary targets or stealing information. Stuff like killing a target a certain way, using a certain type of weapon or kill technique, or disabling alarm bells, none of that should be part of the optional objectives. Those should be things that player chooses to do because that's how they want to play, and nothing more.

Being detected shouldn't reduce your completion score, or instantly end the mission, the results of being detected should be a punishment all on its own.

If it's something like missing an eavesdrop or failing a tailing mission, then fine. But maybe those mission types shouldn't be the focus of so many main story missions?

I fully agree with you, I've never been a fan of optional objectives. They're usually annoyingly specific or they spoil parts of the mission. An example of the latter is during the second assassination in AC:3, where it says you should air assassinate him. Since there was only 1 tree/pole near him it instantly spoiled that route for me since obviously 99 percent of people will take that route and now I couldn't stumble upon it myself.
I do think that the optional objectives have come a long way since AC:B, because now when you "fail" them you don't get a failed objective message.

I think they're maybe the best they've been in AC IV, excluding the ones about assassinating your target a certain way. But it's so more interesting when they expand your goals rather than being constraints on what you have to do when achieving your main goal. There have actually been some examples of them working like that in the last few games, and it's always been cool and fun.

I've been crying for a New Game+ mode and difficulties forever.
Full Syncs, if stripped from the vanilla game would fall under that.

I don't see why... especially if they become more like optional objectives than constraints. In that case normal difficulty players are just missing out on content, and I don't think the aim of the higher difficulty should be that people have to play on it to see the full game. they just get to chose how difficult the game is.

Also, if it were a new game +, it would mean it's impossible to get full sync in less than two playthroughs. Many people, including myself would be annoyed at that.

That's true. Then I'd have them be truly Optional, and Toggleable from the Save Select Screen. Thief 4 is doing something called Custom Difficulty, where it allows you to select a Base Difficulty (Rogue, Thief, Master) and Modify parameters. The more of them you turn On, the more Difficulty Points you get at the end of your playthrough. These mods can be anything from disable crosshairs, to being unable to regenerate Health or Focus, all the way to Iron Man which deletes your save if you fail a single objective.

I hear where you're coming from with the annoyance of Optional Objectives, but I'm the kind of person that plays these games at least three times, so that's probably why I hadn't put enough thought into that. You get my idea though, right?

yeah. I'm not really sure about toggling for that sort of thing. if the optional objective is just simply there, people can choose to ignore it or do it. that's the more efficient way of accomplishing the same thing.

regarding activating certain things to make the game more difficult, sure. That's kinda like Skulls in Halo.

I replay games, but the thing is I don't ever replay them straight back to back.

With AC games in particular, I try to get as many full syncs as possible, and then come back to the specific missions I didn't get it on and full sync them. I don't want to just go through the whole game again right after I finished it. If it were something like extra hard new missions that only unlock after you beat the game, then it would feel more justified.

yeah. I'm not really sure about toggling for that sort of thing. if the optional objective is just simply there, people can choose to ignore it or do it. that's the more efficient way of accomplishing the same thing.

regarding activating certain things to make the game more difficult, sure. That's kinda like Skulls in Halo.

I replay games, but the thing is I don't ever replay them straight back to back.

With AC games in particular, I try to get as many full syncs as possible, and then come back to the specific missions I didn't get it on and full sync them. I don't want to just go through the whole game again right after I finished it. If it were something like extra hard new missions that only unlock after you beat the game, then it would feel more justified.

I'll start off by saying that my personal taste agrees with yours 100%, and continue by discussing the other side which needs to be observed.

See, this has been something that people have talked about over and over again, and both answers have always been the same, so I'm just going to repeat the often-spoken answer to your reply.

Basically, yes I agree that Full Syncs are more efficient by showing them to the player in the first playthrough. I love Full Syncs. I 100% these games, always, no exceptions, from midnight when they come out, to however long it takes me. I replay missions until I Full Sync them, and until I do, I do not move on with the story at all.

So, I'm with you there, that's what I want to say with that paragraph.

But the problem is that for some players - maybe not us, but some players - the Full Sync Objectives that pop up do actually distract them from the way they want to enjoy the game.

The reason this suggestion is brought up so much is that if it's not the greatest, at least it doesn't hurt anyone.

You and I can have them Toggled On during the first playthrough no problem. Other players that don't want to be bothered by them at all, and experience the game their way can have them turned off before starting their Save. This would not be difficult to implement at all, it would just require not triggering certain Flags in the code when they would normally pop.

Right now, players are divided on Full Syncs - one side demands they stay in, another side demands they be taken out. My philosophy with games is that if there's a mechanic that is enjoyable - even if it's not enjoyed by some - it's bad design to have it stripped away entirely. This idea appeases both sides, that's all I'm trying to say. It just makes sense.

Definitely in agreement there, and this is also something I've been yearning for. Extra replay value is preached by Ubisoft, but most often this extra replay value is 'cleared' and played by me on the first playthrough. It's not any challenges that are unlocked, it's not anything that gives you a reason to go back to the story or previous 'levels' (see the Splinter Cell: Blacklist Challenges and the Batman: Arkham Challenges for great examples). Things like that in an Assassin's Creed game would be a big hit, and the reason I know this is because they already were, once.

Brotherhood's VR Training was something that pretty much everyone enjoyed. There's no reason not to bring that back. Let the Level Designers have some fun. Let us have some fun too. Assassin's Creed is perfectly suited to Challenge Modes because of its emphasis on Freedom of Movement and Freedom of Kills.

In fact, just how suited Assassin's Creed is to such gameplay is exemplified in total by this very site!

TheHiddenBlade is living proof, a testament to how fun a Challenge Mode could be.

We've just made our own challenges, but a great amount of players truly loved VR Training as well, because it was more focused and it forced you to use your general Assassin's Creed skills in different ways, to tackle tightly designed missions. The Freedom given to players in normal AC Level Design is great, but VR Training demonstrated how good tight, focused levels could feel.

So I've been thinking about tailing missions. it's pretty well known that a lot of people dislike them. and they're not really all that exciting gameplay-wise (or fun to full-sync). However they're pretty ingrained with the idea of being an Assassin.

So what if they were simply made into less of a "gamey" thing and more of an immersive thing?

#1: remove the whole "they turn and look behind them every few seconds" thing. This should be saved for stuff like guard and target patrol patterns, where it makes sense they would be doing that. when your tailing targets so easily detect you, it makes you feel like every person you tail suddenly instantly knows who you are, which doesn't exactly make you feel stealthy.

#2: make them short and sweet. The purpose of tailing/eavesdropping should be to find out where you need to go or what you need to do or what's going on. It should not be to actually take you all the way across the city, or hear an entire conversation establishing a character. Small little bits of information feel a lot more natural, and less like this conversation has been set up so you can learn something specific, making the part you actually need to stick around and hear a quick thing means you can still hear them talking as you walk away, about things irrelevant to your mission.

This is what I loved about that one Templar Key mission in ACIV, where the two people you're tailing give a little pertinent info, but then devolve into a discussion about how weird the word "smuggler" sounds. Natural conversations give people personality, and makes them feel less like plot-delivery devices.

Smaller bits of information also give you a greater feeling of actually piecing something together, which was something I really loved about Freedom Cry's investigation mission. Each investigation was a discrete conversation that you and Adewale pieced together into a larger whole.

(I don't think people would have as much of a problem with the investigation system if it returned, if there was just one primary investigation that took the form of any number of activities, and the rest were optional to give you greater detail and dialogue that indicates your assassin has more intel than if you hadn't bothered.)

#3 The only failstate should be open combat. Tailing missions should not be about tailing targets or other people who would know you. They should be your way of interacting with their lackeys and underlings, the sort of people who would say stuff that to them wouldn't seem important, but could be potentially damaging to their masters in your hands. If you literally fight a guard behind them, then they scatter. but they don't detect you, because this implies that you are so noticable as suspicious when you're just walking around normally that it makes the idea that you can run across the street any up a building without really being seriously pursued seem completely ridiculous. Also, the animations for your character can do part of the work of justifying why they aren't suspicious of you (averting your face when they naturally look at you, blending dynamically with the crowd)

I feel like these would address a lot of people's problems with tailing. it's one of the few things that I enjoyed far more the way it was implemented in AC1.

I think the investigations in FC were a great example of how to gather information (prior to an assassination). It reminded me of AC1's investigations.

I've been playing a lot of AC Liberation lately. So, the disguise concept. Cool concept, feels kinda clunky with the changing booths.

Since our Parisan Assassin's outfit basically looks like a french gentleman's, why not add a similar system based on the hood being up or down. One that can only be activated while out of sight of the guards, and only slows detection if not blended. Without the hood up you can blend in smaller crowds, but the hood requires larger ones.

You can run, but you cannot kill or parkour without the hood on, and Arno will cover his face and immediately put it on if discovered by a guard and going into open combat. (very quickly, and peeking through his fingers so you can counter any attack that happens to be coming towards you already.)

There is no way to have your hood down when around a guard who is in open combat with you, unless the story dictates it.

When in restricted areas, your hood automatically goes up and stays up. When being detected by a guard with your hood down, arno will look away casually. When detection is nearing full, absentmindedly scratch his head, ready to pull the hood down. his body language will appear non-threatening.

When being detected with a hood, a simple tilt of the head to fully obscure the face, and less of a change in the walk.

Overall different posture and bearing depending on which mode you're in, and very possibly totally different in completely restricted areas. I personally hope they make you automatically enter a sneaky, crouched stance, since there's no way to "casual walk" your way out of being spotted in a restricted compound, you just need to stay low and move fast.

I don't think a more traditional Hitman-esque disguise system is really something AC needs.

In normal gameplay, getting into areas should be about manipulating the crowd or factions, or finding a sneaky path. not donning a disguise and walking through. Again, that's fine for a few missions. I think a chain of side-quests that are all about wearing perfect disguises and accomplishing various objectives in plain sight could be really fun, actually. An interesting way to add variety to side content while still making it about the things you'd expect an assassin to do, not barfights or racing thieves.

So, you know how long bus rides can get you thinking?

I don't think it's been discussed before on this site, but forgive me if it has.
Would AC work with a first person standpoint instead of third person? I generally like to play third person, but I don't strongly oppose first person. AFAIK the only first person we've seen in AC so far is when Altaïr used Eagle Vision in AC1. Would it change AC a lot if it went first person? Let me go by The Three Holy Pillars of Core Assassin's Creed Gameplay.

• Freerunning
  Would become something like Mirror's Edge or Thief. I don't really see anything different.
• Stealth
  The key is looking around (moving the camera around). When in bushes or haystacks, your view would be impaired, but you should still be able to observe. Now what if you want to look behind you without turning your entire body around (pretty conspicuous if you ask me)? Could there be a button implemented to just turn your head while remaining blended? You'd have to find a balance between optimal sight and not causing attention, because turning your head the full 180 degrees (if possible) will still let people know you're trying to observe someone behind you. Could Eagle Vision be used somehow?
• Combat
  This might be the hardest. I don't want first person melee combat like in, say, Skyrim, where you can just mash the attack button until your opponent's health runs out and he drops dead. Timing will probably become (even more) crucial in getting combo attacks. Perhaps it will mean a huge overhaul in which we get to spot weak points in the opponents defense and actually aim your strikes for those points. Look at the way he's holding his sword and choose where to hit him, left or right, low or high, wherever you can aim. It would make combat way more interesting than just 'Press to attack'.
  Countering attacks would become harder, because you can't see whether the guy behind you is about to strike. You would rely more on audio clues, or maybe Eagle Vision can be expanded into Eagle Sense again for 'feeling' you're about to be hit in the back if you don't act immediately. This would also mean that you're more likely to fight in a narrow alley, with your back facing a wall, instead of in the middle of an empty square or plaza, because you won't get surrounded and you have eyes on all of your enemies.

What do you think? It won't come to a perspective overhaul, I know, but I was just thinking about what would happen if it would.

Anyone ever considered checkpoints leading to assassination mission areas, that you can't pass without surrendering your weapons? so you lose all your weapons except the concealed ones (hidden blade and its attachments, all consumable weapons) but once you're through, guards won't be suspicious of you. of course you could just find a way around the checkpoint, but then you'd trade off the lack of suspicion.

those who use the checkpoint might be more motivated to do a silent kill, so they can retrieve their weapons without incident.

That's a nice idea.

agreed.