The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

I don't want a guy swinging through trees.

I was just thinking... "Hey, there's no way up this cliff face. I have this long rope with a heavy object on the end that I can easily swing around that tree limb near the top." or... "Crap, there's no hay bale at the bottom of the cliff, but i can wrap my long rope around this stump to rappel down."

And I know there will be swords. They just haven't SHOWN them. Just like I know Connor will kill people on both sides of the conflict but they haven't shown it.

But the dart is not meant for embedding in cliffs. Try doing that in real life.

We've seen swords on enemies, and on connor's belt. We've also seen connor killing colonist soldiers.

It's not like I want to stab it into something to get it to stay put... you can use a rock on the end of a rope as a weight to wrap around something. Any weight will do. The point is, he has a rope that he can easily throw over something (ever try to throw a rope without a weight at one end? How does that go?). I could see that being useful in the right situations. That is all.

To get a rock heavy enough to support you, you'd need to carry it as you climbed. An it would be too heavy. Professional climbers even in modern times would never rely on something like that. Conner uses crack climbing to scale cliffs that appear to have minimal handholds in a somewhat realistic way.

I get what you're saying, but since the rope dart is consumable, I think that it's meant to be for use on enemies only, not in navigation. If it was for navigation, then what if you ran out? Would that just be a dead end til you went to a shop?

Bottom line, I'm pretty sure that functionality will not be in the game, based on what I've heard from every interview that mentions it and every video showing navigation.

It won't be like that in the game, but you actually wouldn't need that heavy of an anchor to grapple. You'd just have to be very good at using it.

if you had some crags to wedge it in, maybe, but at a sheer flat cliff top, that would be sketch as all get out. Conner is a heavy guy. Maybe if it were an actual grappling device, but not a stone on a rope. Ah well. I have no problem with relying only on Conner's arms and legs for climbing

Well duh. I was thinking of it wrapped around something like Indiana Jones does with his whip.

Based on what I've seen, I think I won't be buying this game anytime soon. I'm not willing to shell out 60 bucks for something like that.

People tend to have different definitions of "spoiler", so how about these for some general guidelines?

Post links to all the videos that you would like, but post the whole link (not the shortened one which shows a frame which might give something away).

For comments about the video which require viewing the video to understand, use the spoiler tags.

Quick questions which are clearly speculative (a la "Can Connor's rope dart be used for climbing, do ya think?") probably don't need the tags. But if the speculation relies on analysis of a substantial chunk of preview videos, use the spoiler tags.

It's also a good idea to continue with spoiler protection for a certain amount of time after the game is released as well. Some people may not have the chance (or the desire) to play it right away.

What do you think? Doable?

False...

That makes more sense Joey. Double however was proposing the stone approach.

Aw Phi. Miss you!

For me personally everything looks so much better. Combat looks like real combat. Enemies have this kind of appearance of actually defending themselves, and it looks like Connor beats them because he's actually skilled, not that he just can move from guy to guy and no-one interrupts his animations.

This looks even more like the Assassin's Creed I wanted when AC1 dissappointed me, and when ACB-ACR didn't move things forward terribly much.

Adventure, actual cover and stealth mechanics, improved navigation, huge environments, freaking Naval Battles? Yessss!

Out of interest, and a little off topic: what kind of games do you guys usually play? Usually third person stealth games, or more action oriented things?

(wow I'm bad at going dark)

EDIT: to clarify about combat, it's also that from what I understand it's actually a lot more mechanically deep than before. It seems like it contains elements of some suggestions I made in my combat topic in this forum.

I wonder how Desmond combat will pan out?

I wasn't proposing a stone as a counterweight. I was proposing something heavy on the end of a rope so that you could throw the rope accurately and use the rope as a rope.

http://www.nowgamer.com/news/1613461/assassins_creed_3_dev_no_reason_to_...

after AC3, annual releases will continue for several years

Hutchinson said that what they want to do is have annual releases, but not annual development cycles. Meaning that production for the next game has likely already begun.

EDIT: don't hate me for pointing this out, but there was an article ages ago talking about their plans to do this. So, old news?

Meh. It's a company. What do you expect?

Besides, Ubisoft has an extremely large workforce.

I'm glad that they had the sense not to stretch out Desmond for too long. Once they're done with him, I think there's a lot of potential. The AC universe is huge. Here's hoping for GOOD milking!

Maybe that will be changing soon.

Car racing games, especially at arcades because the controls are easy to pick up.

perhaps...

American Football (NCAA), racing games, Worms Armageddon (if I'm looking for something to fill a short amount of time), PGA Tour golf, a few FPS.... mostly things that I can play by myself to occupy some time.

This sounds fun~

The Tyranny of King Washington DLC
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/728480/ubisoft-reveals-assassins-c...

Just... wow. OMG. How could you not be excited for this?

You are so bad at going dark... aren't you?

haha. I love your input to the site though, so I'm not complaining or trying to scare you away.

Exited about the prospect of exploring an alternate version of American history? Fuck yeah!

Exited about having to shove out $30 for something that should have been added in the game since the beginning?
Fuck no!

$30 for this and ALL the other DLCs they release within the first year, I think... Who knows what it adds up to if you buy them individually.

Why would this have been in the game originally? How does an alternate history fit into Desmond's story at all?

It's not like they're done making the DLC content now, guys. It's just planned out already. At this moment they're wrapping up production on AC3, polishing and stuff, but the DLC is being worked on by the dedicated DLC team. Holy crap, why are people complaining about this when it's a huge step up from previous DLC, which either WAS stuff that was cut from the game, or was only one.

As Double said, it's 30$ for all FIVE DLC packs they plan to release. That means you get all the single-player and multiplayer content, and when it releases you don't need to bother with buying it. That also means it's only 6 bucks for each pack individually. Compare that to Halo, where the DLC is ONLY multiplayer maps, and it still costs 10 bucks each.

There are DLCs that seem like they were cut from games, or should have been included.

George Washington establishing an American monarchy with the Apple of Eden and Connor taking him down is not one of them.

Calvar...

...it's a video-game.

So because it's a video game I'm not allowed to make an informed and considered response to your claim that the DLC is content that's being witheld?

I'm not angry or anything. It's just that sometimes not every company is trying to screw you over. Sometimes they are actually giving you something good for a reasonable price compared to the competition and what they've previously charged.

I'm simply pointing that out.

So we're just forgetting the last two games that were basically add-ons to AC2? And ACR's horribly-priced and worthless DLC? Well okay then.

I forgot what this thread was about...

"a reasonable price compared to the competition and what they've previously charged."
is the opposite to forgetting about that.

Though I would never call the previous two games DLC. They were decent. And ACR's DLC was my favorite gaming experience of a long time. It was a lot better than the Desmond story missions, and much more atmospheric.

Irregardless, looking at AC3 alone, there's nothing unfair or witholding about the DLC.

Why is it that if Ubisoft does better with the next game we have to be gloomy because of previous games?

We're gloomy because most of us (including me) despised ACR and its DLC. ACB was expanded gameplay - didn't forward anything with the story. Just a simple revenge/liberation story with a traitor in the midst. Too simple for my tastes.

So stop dredging up what you DIDN'T like, and excited about things looking better! The time to be cynical and critical is when the things you're being that way about are still going on. Otherwise you're just hurting your own enjoyment of the good things.

For me, I did not like Brotherhood's story either, other than the Desmond parts. Revelations story, I liked. I thought Revelations was awesome, though it was disappointing to be able to see so clearly within it places where things got cut or were undeveloped. Gameplay-wise, I enjoyed it a lot.

Overall, I wanted more AC2 after I finished AC2, and I got what I wanted instead of having to wait until now for more AC.

The reasons why people dread over the negative is because that'll be our focal point in determining whether ACIII has improved (or redeemed in some people's eyes) the entire AC franchise.

Believe me - I want to like. I want to love it.

But comparing the DLC practices of previous AC games to this one it's obvious there's an improvement, at least in the pricing department. That's a tangible thing to me. I'm not saying that previous practices should not be your base line, but when improvements come, why keep complaining about what they were improved from?

Basically, yeah.

You can't tell if a game is good or not just by what the developer SAYS. You have to play it yourself. It could be the total opposite of good and they're just wording it really well.

Quality was not what I was arguing at all. I said nothing about how GOOD the DLC was, the only improvements I was talking about and negative things I was responding to were about pricing and about the idea of the DLC being cut content, two things which we can determine the truth of before we've even played the DLC, just from the information we have.

Again, the pricing is comparatively low, and the premise of the DLC makes it obvious that it was not a part of the original story and is being developed as its own thing.

Those are the two things I addressed. By all means, you can be cynical or apprehensive about whether the gameplay/enjoyment factor will improve in your view. Go ahead. But the points I addressed don't require us to wait until release to determine their veracity.

We know what the pricing is. We know all that. We're saying that the content wasn't worth what was asked of it and was utterly pointless. The da Vinci Disappearance was good, but we mostly mentioned ACR's DLC. Then Vesferatu was explaining the point we were trying to make about why we're cynical about the new entry in the series. Nothing wrong with that.

Well, at all times I was saying anything I was speaking in terms of the basic facts about the new DLC, and mainly responding to:

"Exited about the prospect of exploring an alternate version of American history? Fuck yeah!

Exited about having to shove out $30 for something that should have been added in the game since the beginning?
Fuck no!"

As I said, there are only two self contained complaints about the game in that quotation, and that was all I was addressing.

I think that for one moment I shared my own views on the "gap games" in the series, but other than that I did not stray from defense of those two points.

I agree that it's fine to be cynical about the newest installment in the series because of lack of enjoyment with previous games, which is why I never said anything to the effect of the reverse of that statement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ph9jn5kRo9k&feature=g-all-lik

Connor's Story Trailer.

The last line of the trailer made me get a little emotional, TBH.

Points of interest: Connor killing more Blue-Coats, and the leader of the Assassins in the New World isn't white/british/american.

Hm. A leader of an Assassin order that's of Caribbean/English descent.
A playable Assassin who's of Native American/English descent.
A French apprentice.

Folk, I think we got ourselves the A-Team here!

And is it just me, or does the trailer make Connor's backstory somewhat similar to Ezio's?

Altair was born into the Assassin order and knows no other way. It is his job to be an Assassin first, ask questions later.
Ezio's family were Assassins that were taken out by Templars and he was driven by revenge.
Connor's village and homeland is being pillaged and he doesn't know what to do. He seeks out someone to help, finds the Assassins, and fights for justice.

Altair, by birthright, is doing a job.
Ezio was born into the Assassins and carries out vengeance.
Conner seeks out the Assassins in a hope of protecting his people, land, and freedom.

Desmond was born into the Assassins, left, and now chooses to be a part, and to do his duty... he's all three of them all rolled into one.

truesay. It's not like Ezio's, because there was no huge conspiracy that led to his village being attacked. It was simply the result of intolerance and greed of normal men.

You guys are awesome. A dlc of a king George Washington is too good to pass up, but I wish we didn't know about it yet. If he's going to be an assassination target we won't have to worry about finding exploit ways to kill him, although those would make for early deaths.

EDIT: How exactly is it explained that you play an alternate reality with George Washington as king?

We'll find out. The fact that the DLC is alternate universe probably has something to do with why they released details. It's its own story, we haven't really been spoiled.

Images from the game, showing Desmond, William Miles, Shaun, and others.

http://virtualcrunch.tumblr.com/post/32970739767/assassins-creed-iii-che...