The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

Co-Op devblog: http://assassinscreed.ubi.com/en-US/news/news_detail.aspx?c=tcm:152-1753...

synchronization is in, but based on player actions rather than specific objectives. sounds like chains of players doing these actions in quick succession give more points. So, reason to synchronize your stealth kills. example of combo that rewards both players: one play drops a stun bomb, the other double assassinates the stunned enemies.

sounds similar to past multiplayer scoring, where stealth kills are rewarded, but so are stylish and/or uniquely executed kills.

I really like the new viewpoint camera. It zooms WAAAY out there. Also, that's a hell of a lot of people on those streets. We knew this was going to be a thing, but I'm still impressed when I see it.

^Wow. I was wondering if you can customize the camera and how to swivels around Arno.

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/907964-Assassin-s-Creed-Unity-Paris...

There's the in-game map, and if you scroll down, there's a 1729 map of Paris. Seems like a near 1 to 1 ratio to me. Impressive.

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20141006172939/assassinscreed/images/...

Oh, and glyphs have returned.

Nice!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvq3sRxQ2bw

So Ubisoft is locking each version at 900P for XBOX ONE and PS4?

Meh. I belong to the master race. Muahahahahahahah.

Well heil to you, too!

Hooray for the return of glyphs! I freaking loved those things! Well, to be fair, I loved the conspiracy-themed puzzles that were behind them, so here's hoping they'll make a return as well.

!!

So ubisoft thought the best way to keep the fans from whining and bitching about graphics was to limit the obviously better consoles capability to match up with the lesser console...nice going, Ubisoft.

Also,yay! glyphs are back I hope the puzzels are as challenging as they were.

meh... when it's framerate (30 fps) and resolution (900p) vs gameplay (more novel AI controlled NPCs), I'll take the gameplay upgrade every. single. time.

Something I've been thinking about is ways to get around the restrictions of genetic memory and the precedent of the series in general We can't see protagonists die, and we can't customize them beyond their outfits. what if we began playing as characters whose memories are extracted from their buried corpses, those allowing us to be them up til the moment they die? Additionally, this opens the way for complications in the animus' ability to resolve their memories. Allowing us, the player, to fill in the gaps of who we want the character to be. Guidelines being ethnicity and age, but othewise leaving hair, eye color, and yes, gender, up for grabs.

And due to no requirement of player choices in cutscenes, it means comparatively less work on framing the differences between each genders interactions as opposed to the mass effect style. I'm not sure id find it ideal, as I think female assassins would benefit from games being made specifically with them in mind, but its a way they could go down that path. And the new source for genetic memory would be less confusing and far more freeing, narratively. It makes things like homosexual or forever childless protagonists possible.

^ Interesting perspective, but then again, if the protagonist was a woman or gay, it might clash with the historical narrative of the story. Not to mention that each cuts-scene of the protagonist interacting with another character will probably have to be edited to minute detail (unless the dialogue was completely androgynous).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbiJwqUV_j4

- Damn. Free-running has never moved so smoother, and I though Connor and Haythem climbed fast. There was one climb animation (the part where he's using the black bars attached to a wall) where his lunge was the equivalent of Ezio with his hook-blades.
- I assume the ghost image projected on the screen every-time the character gets into combat or runs away is to signify the last point the guard saw him. Somewhat redundant to have, but useful if you're not playing with the map HUD on.
- Let's take a closer look at the weapon "slide". I assume that pushing JUST the left button will cycle through projections (phantom blade and guns) while pushing JUST the right button will cycle through things you can throw (smoke, bombs, money). Pressing the up is medicine, but I'm not sure what the bottom is. Perhaps drawing your weapon is with just the square/X button, or when you enter in combat, and sheathing it is when you exit out of combat or sprint?
- Some of the leaps the character does towards beams in a STATIONARY crouching position are simply enormous.

All in all, it look nice. Can't wait to get it.

It really depends on the location in the world and what time period the game takes place in. Also, if you're gay, you can hide it. A character doesn't have to be out when the story starts. They could pull a Dumbledore and say, "Oh yeah, they were homosexual/bisexual. Due to the timeline during the game and people's negative criticisms, our character couldn't show themselves as they are." A good place to show an openly gay character would be in ancient Greece.

About the dialogue options: It's not hard. There are tons of games that give the player an option to pick gender. They don't always say the player's name (unless it's a last name; i.e. Mass Effect). They literally just do multiple takes of each line with different pronouns.

I don't buy the "historical accuracy" argument. We're playing as people who are masters of stealth and are outcasts due to what they do. They aren't socially accepted, regardless of background. We have examples of assassins and allies who have disguised themselves as men (mary read), used their gender to their advantage, or done well for themselves while not disclosing their sexuality to everyone on the street (leo).

Women and people of different orientations have been important parts of history, in many cases in highly visible ways, and sometimes in secret. And while there has been a history of prejudice towards both those groups, its not like they couldnt EVER safely walk down a street. In fact, women were more likely to be ignored, because who would suspect someone they consider subservient to be planning anything? it wasnt so different from modern times, its just that prejudice was questioned less and enabled more. And again, outspoken women didnt just immediately get silenced. People like caterina sforza could handle themseles, and assassin tools and training would only further enable them. Theres endless precedent, only thing stopping it from happening is ubi choosing not to do it.

Fact of the matter remains that AC is a mainstream franchise and the main stream gaming audience is predominantly male. If you're going to make money, make a game with a male protagonist. I don't care what you think about it, statistics tells us games with male protagonists sell better. Hence, if Ubi wants to make more money, they're going to make a game with a male protagonist. That's all there is to it and I don't blame them for it. This is free market in action.

The gaming audience is mainly male specifically because it caters to men. And thats been changing for many years now. Video games are becoming more than a niche market, and need to be welcoming to more than just the old niche.

There are literally millions of female ac fans.

Dont get why you of all people would support the idea of sacrificing variety to appeal to an audience that wants homogenity rather than growing one that appreciates diversity.

If you were just pointing out that view is prolly part of ubis thought process, fine, but its still bullshit and that attitude wont keep their series alive.

Aveline got lots of popularity. So did Shao Jun (not a full game, but enough praise to get an add-on to Unity). Fans in the series have proven that diversity can be accepted. In fact, keeping with their "Generic Male Archetype" has pushed away fans especially after their explanation about not including female avatars in Unity's co-op. Hardcore fans of the series will stay to enjoy the story/gameplay and the fans they lost will come back for the risk they'd take.

If you need more explanation, look at games like Tomb Raider or Bayonetta. Highly popular titles with female characters. Neither fit a regular stereotype of the usual female "damsel in distress". They were strong and motivated characters that didn't make any players uncomfortable for playing as them. The games were fun (which should be the number one element that matters) and made even male players feel badass.

I'm just tired of people saying "It's the easiest decision because it sells". Sure, but more attention goes to the person that shakes the cage. I'd have LOVED if we played as Elise as an Assassin with Arno as the Templar in Unity. From what I've seen, she's an in-depth character that fights her own battles outside of Arno's adventures. With character development like that, the story is more interesting. With Arno, you have a pretty clear idea of what's going to happen just by the story details given (kids grow up together, fall in love, a mutual father figure of theirs dies, they're on opposite sides, they try and help one another, conflicted feelings, the girl dies or disappears from his life).

It would be so much more interesting from her point of view, especially during times that thought of women as less than men. Give every player the feeling of having to prove themselves because they're different from the norm. If done well, that could change people's thoughts about the cycle of "popular" business strategies.

I'm still going to play and enjoy Unity, but more companies need to realize that changing things is what the world thrives on.

Some members of this forum may feel like this, but the fact is you're a minority. The most polite comment I read about Liberation was something along the lines of "it was fucked up playing as a woman but I kind of got used to it because I wanted to know how the story ended". The less polite ones were straight up misogyny, that went beyond the topic of video games.
Most women don't mind playing as male characters, and most men don't like playing as female characters. That's how it's been for years, and I'm not saying the games wouldn't be popular, but they would be less popular. Why would industries change their way for the sake of diversity if it brings them less money?

I hope Lisa sees these and gives her input. I remember we had an interesting conversation about this a couple years ago.

Ah, alright, I guess you're in a position to represent entire groups of people. I'll shut up now.

No, sorry...wait...

The female gamers I know tend to give me a different point of view on this subject. It's not that they "don't mind" playing as the same generic male fantasy character in every game, it's that it's one of the only options for them. That, or a super-sexually charged female character meant for the male gaze (see: Dead or Alive, Ninja Gaiden). It's all about representation. Sure, they might find a game entertaining, but it doesn't mean they like playing as the same archetype in 98% of video games.

In a game series such as Assassin's Creed where the historical main character changes constantly, there's no good reason not to have a couple of women headlining a full console title. They could even find a way to give players a male/female option like Calvar mentioned before. They made co-op work when it supposedly couldn't in previous games.

"But an interesting, well-rounded female protagonist doesn't sell as much as broody, handsome, manly white guy #4,576!" Grow the hell up.

Hey, do you think I enjoyed posting this message? I was just telling what I saw and heard.
I don't claim to represent entire groups of people, that's why I used "most". I thought men didn't like playing as female protagonists because that's what I see everywhere. Kind of hard to think differentely when there's no one to say otherwise. The people on this forum are the first ones to prove my assumptions wrong.

One of the coolest/most important things we should look back at from time to time is that Assassin's Creed as a whole was not initially designed to be a game that just anyone could easily swallow.

"This work of fiction was created by a multicultural team of various religious faiths and beliefs."

The disclaimer's there because they knew the game's roots and artistic identity involves pushing /certain/ people's limits. That said, I don't think there's anything that Assassin's Creed can't do

I don't think there's any risk Assassin's Creed can take, that will hurt it badly enough for it to not be profitable to Ubisoft. It's established itself a straight up f***ing amazing series. Some of them are less good than the others, but there is no Assassin's Creed game that's a legitimately BAD GAME.

This was precisely my intention. Once it doesn't work any more, it doesn't work any more and they'll have to find something else. I just don't understand how people are getting so angry with Ubi for doing precisely what one would expect them to do. If you disagree with it, vote with your wallet and don't buy the game.

Exactly. Money talks. And money has been saying make these games how they've been making them.

It's the exact same argument for/against yearly releases.

When it doesn't work, they won't do it.

I think that JoeyFogey and sync are both right. To a degree.

Just one thing here: It may be less "don't mind" than don't have a choice about playing as male characters.

I'm not at all sure about this. I worry that a business like Ubisoft tends to reinforce gender inequality not merely because they believe it makes sense in terms of profit, but also because gender inequality confirms their preconceived notions anyway. I think there is a distinct possibility that the powers that be in videogaming will continue to cling to this notion in spite of hits to their pocketbooks, because they want it to be true.

In order to change their business practices to appeal to a broader audience, they would first have to conceive that more gender equality is a thing that can happen. I'm not sure they can step outside their own worldview to even have that idea in the first place.

I'd be happy to be proved wrong. But a company that can argue against a female main character by saying that such would be more difficult to animate doesn't inspire confidence in me that they can get outside their own box.

P.S. to sync: I have no problem with what you said. I think you were making a point about the industry and it doesn't say anything about you or your beliefs. In other words, I don't think you're some sort of troglodyte.

Question: Would Ubisoft sell MORE copies of an AC game if there were a female protagonist than if it were a male one? If the answer isn't a resounding "YES" (which I doubt it is), why would they (Ubisoft) want to do extra work to make one when they have lots of experience in animating the movements of the male body?

The issue here is that there's an unsettling amount of underlying sexism planted into society's head for centuries. We're in a time where we say everyone is more equal to one another and there's no privilege, when in fact those are complete lies. The fact that any difference in a character type should affect sales negatively is just wrong. Do you think it should matter if it's a woman? Non-white? Non-straight? If it's fun, that should be an afterthought of the player. Yes, the "average male archetype" will sell the most because that's what we're told is the norm; it's what we're used to, but if a company decides not to diverge from that imagery, it's continuing that cycle of putting down anything different and new. Female characters have as much depth, if not more, than male characters (it's why half my book's characters are female; THEY'RE INTERESTING).

I'm a guy that defends Ubisoft to people that claim they're sexist or racist, so I don't think they are. I believe the reasoning they gave for not including female Assassins in Unity was legitimate, because of the format of their "seamless co-op" integration. It does make sense if you read into it, and I'm fine with what they've brought us so far.

This is about future games, movies, novels, etc. The entertainment medium is stuck in this boring set of unwritten rules of how to tell a story. The loudest voices are usually the white young-middle aged males that take everything too personally, and that's what these companies hear. In a lot of cases, I see guys commenting a female-led game judging whether or not they'd have sex with her or how hot she looks, not by the gameplay or story. These are the guys that help businesses make these "safe" decisions.

Modeling a protagonist after "female movements" (which aren't that different from males, especially when fighting) isn't any different than modeling a male protagonist's movements the first time. They've had to do this with every game, even sequels that copy and paste old move sets include brand new animations either choreographed or referenced from male models/choreographers. They make enough money to keep 5 AC games in production at all times around the world, along with all their other titles and merchandise. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be difficult to bring in some capable females to do some motion capture for a future game.

Keeping ideas like this at bay because the company wants to get a little more money out of it takes away creative freedom from everyone involved. I just can't stand that kind of attitude. If I were making these games, I'd probably quit by now. Every story is just "revenge story, girl drama, girl dies/is captured, beat the bad guy, get broody, super macho fantasy", rinse and repeat.

I think Elise might fit the type of character I'm trying to advocate for this series, but of course she's not a playable title character, because it wouldn't sell well...

I'm sure Ubisoft will create a console title (not Vita like Aveline) with a female main character in the next few installments, especially after the outcry over Unity. If it looks promising, you bet your ass I'm preordering that! And so will all the fans they lost from Unity.

And it's Ubisoft's (for example) job to solve those problems? No. It's called free market capitalism. Don't want another game with a male protagonist? Don't buy one.

I'll buy whatever I think is worth the money. If you don't want a game that takes a risk with representation, that's your problem.

Say your favorite male-led game was originally a female-led game. The gameplay would be the exact same, the story only slightly tweaked to accommodate the perspective, and the only other difference is that it's a woman you're playing as. Should that affect your enjoyment of the product? Will you be distracted by the curves? Are you going to be too worried about how much her boobs jiggle when you run? Women don't worry about a guy's junk flopping around when leaping across rooftops. It would be just as fun, because women are capable of these things just as much as men are. It's male insecurity deep down. We need to get over that so these decisions don't have to be made.

I agree 100% that it doesn't matter to me.

But I'm not making the game, doing the market research, or providing the capital. I don't blame Ubisoft (and others) for taking the path of least resistance to their piles and piles of money.

Exactly my thoughts. I don't give a damn about the gender of the character.

At a certain point, being so cynical that you dont bother to demand more from a company is just enabling them. Bigots get to intimidate them into thinking straight white men are 'safe' because the bigots speak loudest. The acunity controversy began off a misunderstanding, but it kicked off a larger discussion. And we need more of that, bc it being so easy to start a controversy shows how fucked up things are.

We need to speak up LOUDER than the bigoted trolls when homogenous protagonist 32 is introduced, not say 'this is just how it is' or any of the other usual self-fulfilling prophecies. Because if we dont want narrow-minded people to represent us, we must represent ourselves.

In the case of such a big game, a few voices can speak far louder and more eloquently than a few wallets. It must be clear what we want.

Remember, they didnt have trouble justifying women in co op bc women are harder to animate than men, but because they chose a male main character first, making his animation (and gear and outfits, which were undoubtedly the more expensive consideration) a greater priority. It was an uninspired choice of lead that led to this, not complete grossness. I believe they are not so lost that this discusion is hopeless.

On twitter, every ac dev i follow humbly acknowledged the criticism and discouraged jerks from attacking critics. There's definitely reason to expect more.

and thanks to those of you who backed me up!

I kind of moved that last comment into the appropriate thread recently created. This one needs to get back on track.

apologies, im on mobile as my comp is dead. Hard to see anything. Im fine with that post just standing on its own, as debate/discussion w/o a keyboard sucks.

No worries. Just doing my duty as a THB citizen.

This video stresses the freedom even in side quests.

Joey, you have PS4, right?

I'll keep you posted when I get mine and get Unity to start playing.

I think Sunday AM is the best time for me. I'm on PT now (California), not ET. May as well try to set up some schedule to play with others here so the multiplayer stuff can get taken care of.

Yep! PS4 is what I got.

It sucks that we have to schedule for things like this. DAZ and I tend to sleep a little later than we should, I found out (he and I are about the same time zones anyways), so if you're ever able to get any evening gaming going for co-op, I'm sure that can work, too!

Until then, I'll keep an eye on my inbox.

I know you sleep later... that was always the problem when I was in that time zone!

Now that I'm earlier, I figure I can play early by myself and wait for you to get your ass out of bed and it will still be 9-11 my time (12-2pm in Indianapolis)

That'll probably be a good time, especially on Sundays (some Saturdays). And I get up early for classes the other days, so I am sleeping in, dammit!

8:30 IS sleeping in.

Maybe in your crazy adult world.

crosspost from laugh thread because it belongs in both... some more coop gameplay.

http://kotaku.com/arnold-schwarzenegger-impressions-make-assassins-creed...

Ok, this is actually pretty cool. Time Anomaly trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wW_-exDp3CE

I totally called that they'd do something like this to get the Eiffel Tower in. glad they're continuing black flag's trend of doing weird and fun things with the modern elements rather than just using them for plot.

So you actually get to use the Eiffel Tower. Amazing!

I wonder how this is going to be technically explained. Perhaps 2 DNA are erratically bleeding into each other, causing to computer to render this "genetic glitch".

And Arno using a machine gun to shoot down Nazi planes? Damn. I wonder how to stealth/combat will be depicted...

http://cdn.gamerant.com/wp-content/uploads/Assassins-Creed-Unity-Rifts-C...

Interesting screen capture. Perhaps a side-activity in AC Unity, and not necessary a DLC.

Am I the only one not excited about the WWII part in Unity? I like the modern elements in all AC games and I love the metastory they can express with those (Rifts in AC2/B, Liberation being an Abstergo product, the modern day segments in AC4), but this sounds to me like a silly excuse to show another time period. It's fine with me if a later AC game takes you to 1940s Paris to uncover Templar plots and assassinate Nazis, but let's just keep Unity in its own time period for now. I could be wrong; if these WWII segments serve a purpose in Unity's bigger picture, OK. But now it just seems like a very easy explanation to go somewhere else. "Yeah, because of the Animus technology, the memory data couldn't compute, so you have to uplink the files manually before the download client starts booting up or else the connection to cloud data will be desynchronized and memory files will be corrupted by a glitch in the mainframe."

To be honest, I think it's just a fun side content part of the game. I don't see any reason why it should be shot down. They said they probably won't do a WWII game, but this could be their way of giving us a taste of playing around in that time period. If it's fun, who cares?

If it's part of the main plot it would be weird, but having these as side missions to explore different times in the same city is interesting. I mean, they don't seem to want to revisit the same place during a different time in the mainline games, and I kinda think that would be a bit of a waste too. Rogue may be including an older version of New York, but given that game's derivative nature it's hardly the best argument.

So this is probably the only way to see different time periods represented. It looks like they'll mainly be "exotic" gameplay sequences like Brotherhood's war machines, I can't imagine stealthing around guards fits into the footage shown. But even then, this is the kind of thing that really sells the idea of being in a machine that can access all of history. A version of desynching that's more fictionally involved than a standard respawn-to-checkpoint.

and again, for those who're allergic to animus stuff, I can't imagine they'd not do this as side content, especially since it appears to involve Arno solely as an avatar, unable to have any comments on the situation or pretense at his own agency. they've been moving more and more towards both segmenting the different layers of the games' fiction and making them compliment each other in subtle and less contrived ways.

I'm actually wondering if engaging with anything other than the very beginning of Unity's modern story is required to progress through Arno's story. maybe separate achievements and trophies for completing each, to further emphasize your ability to choose?