The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

I like the colors but it's too bulky, reminds me of a MW2 juggernaut in some odd way. Personally don't really like the overall look, if this is what it would look like on Ezio.

I think we saw it in the combat trailer, when he has the cape.

It didn't look as bulky as this.

Perhaps you have a link Calvar? I'm not sure what video you are refering to

Yeah, I don't remember seeing any advanced armor like this in any trailers.

Not sure if you're joking, but I personally don't think this armor looks very advanced. It's pretty typical for the ottoman armor of the time.

And the trailer I was talking about was the new combat trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvFV9qdiMoM

A little bit blurry, even on 720 p, for some reason, but it shows what looks like a deadlock (swords crossing, like in star wars) between Ezio and a bosslike figure. Combat looks like it could be a little more difficult, even though the trailer is obviously more about the crazy finishing moves than difficulty.

Oh THAT trailer...the one that JUST came out...today...that's been everywhere on the internet. How could we have missed it?! lol

EDIT: This was being humorous, not a dick remark.

Yeah, I figured.

I wasn't sure if you guys had seen it yet, that's why I posted the link. Come to think of it, I may have visited a topic about this today. I think my mind was getting mixed up with what has been discussed on which forum. XD

Get your forums straight! lol

One of the top comments on the combat trailer video says : "The assassins get worse and worse at being sneaky........I thought the point was to just kill the target, not his entire army". How accurate!

Not bad but as others have said it looks a bit bulky (mind you, Ezio's armour is always ridiculous considering the moves he pulls off).

I don't think the fact that it's been drawn as though it's on a mannequin (with the arms splayed out awkwardly) really helps though

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJttePgcjoc
Description on the video: "So much fighting... That's why I shortened it from 13 mins. to 5 mins."

At least this time around fighting and stealth will both be optional in most cases.

Anyways, looking back at the combat video, I don't think that that cape is from the turkish armor. It looks more like a disguise for cappidocia, because it replaces his beaked hood with a nondescript grey one.

Haha, you got me there. The Arsuf segment of AC was the one part that was completely deprived of stealth, and where you literally have to defeat an army. It was better rendered in "The secret Crusade" where Altaïr made his way towards Richard trying to avoid conflict, and found himself occasionaly fending off clusters of guards when unavoidable. Saracens and Crusaders were supposed to be fighting each other at the time, and with Altaïr being the ennemy of both, no wonder he would be engaged in combat whenever he was spotted. In the game, it felt more like the guards were just standing there waiting for him alone, neglecting the war context.
That said, AC games really are becoming less stealthy, even if you can choose how you want to play. Stealthy gameplay should be imposed, like in MGS.

I think the best games give you a choice, Like Deus Ex 1 and 3.

AC has become more than a stealth game. It's become more about supporting all playstyles.

And some people might say that this is to attract a larger audience: and they're right! Ubisoft wants everyone to have something they like. But the difference between them and some other studios is that they really make an effort to do so without sacrificing quality. Brotherhood was a magnitude less good than AC2, but I could feel the effort to have variety there, and in a lot of ways, it showed through. I just think that it wasn't really supported by the structure of the game, with no big change like dynamic events in Revelations, or involved battles to capture cities.

The assassin is meant to have no fear, and be more skillful than most men. The Assassin is meant to use all the tools at his disposal to complete the assignment with no loss of innocent life. I see no real contradiction with the philosophy of Altair and Ezio in their respective games. As for combat having more of a focus, it definately is. And that is because combat should be fun and exciting. You should enjoy fighting. If a sandbox game allows you the option of fighting, I think you should be able to fight like a bamf. Sure, we need a lot more challenge from enemies, but challenge and slow waits for the next charge and next kill animation are totally different things.

Combat in AC1 was almost universally critisized.

It makes sense that they'd want to improve it.

And as for what people on this forum who love the stealthy aspect and think they should have only focused on that, that's the kind of descicion that no-one gets to make in a project as big as assassin's creed. Ubisoft is not non-profit,a nd it takes a lot of money to make a game. I'm sorry,b ut we're kinda in the minority, and it's not fair to just focus on what the minority of people wanted improved.

this looks awesome ... way better than the romulus armor to me

@Calvar: But that doesn't mean we can't just accept every decision Ubisoft makes like we're their bitches or anything. We prefer the original conception of the franchise. It was realistic and made confrontation a troubling matter, which is also a realistic aspect. Assassins should only kill when necessary, not every guard they see. The way Ubi is handling this actually encourages the player to kill everyone. Why kill someone for just doing their job?

The primary focus of AC shouldn't be on fast-paced combat OR stealth, it should be on strategy for every mission. Once you give each mission some thought, see how it plays out when you execute each step.

I don't get how the fact that Ubisoft made so many changes to please a wider audience is seen as a good thing. They listened to the majority to fill their pockets, not to bring diversity to the games. Take the flaws of a first game and improve them on the next is a normal thing to do for any saga, however, ACII and ACB weren't "AC with flaws fixed", but rather two completely new games that utterly ruined everything AC was so special for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Soaq7bB_gA#t=3m15s
Ubisoft : "So... most of the people playing our games want to see blood everywhere and brutal kills. There's no way the actual Assassins would have eliminated their targets by clobbering them with a hammer, but the kids like it, they're gonna want to kill. Let's do that lol."

What Sync said.

@Sync

Like how they gave Altair all of Ezio's moves in the Revelations demo.

And yes I would agree the Turkish armor is a step up from the Romulus armor, I just hate that one

The Armor of Brutus was too bulky for an Assassin. For a badass warrior, it would look amazing.

Regardless, I don't like the way it looks.

Exactly. Each choice should require strategy. Combat should be challenging enough to require strategy. Bottom line, it should not feel clunky or under-developed, and AC1's combat definately felt that way to most people.

If AC was a linear stealth game, I could understand that. But it's a sandbox game. A sandbox by definition allows you to do things how you want.

And Sync, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. People fought with hammers in that time, why should you arbitrarily decide that this fictional group of assassins wouldn't use modern weapons?

Also, can we please stop saying that these changes only appeal to little kids? Even if we're not totally serious? I wholeheartedly loved AC2 more than any other game in part because of its sense of fun and creativity. Many people much older than I enjoyed it for the same reason.

And I'm not saying that an Assassin game should be all rainbows and unicorns, I'm just saying that the player should be free to play how he wants. People who love combat in AC don't love it because it's easy. In fact, they almost all want it harder. They love it because they enjoy fighting.

And even though most assassins throughout history have not lived after trying to fight it out against a huge group, there are definately those who have done it multiple times. Ezio is like one of those guys, but better. Is it unlikely he could have survived that much or been quite so skillful? Yes. Is it impossible? No.

Actually, if you want to talk about contradicting historical sources, the Hassassin in real life killed themselves after every assassination.

And I am not saying we shouldn't expect Ubisoft to improve stealth-based gameplay, because that should always be a big part of the game, but I am saying that we shouldn't get mad at them for improving other parts of the game in tandem. And that's something it sounds like they're doing for revelations. And really, all these combat trailer have been doing is showing kill and attack animations, which the AC1 trailers relied on HEAVILY.

And that game didn't turn out to have an overwhelming combat focus, did it?

Of course, if every detail was perfectly accurate to the Hashashins, Altaïr wouldn't have lived more than a mission. Because they actually existed in the 12th century in Syria, AC is part reality, part fiction. Starting ACII the story becomes completely fictional, which unavoidably leads to less accuracy with history.
The reason I mentioned the dev diary video at this particuliar moment, wasn't because of the fighting images but because the guy clearly said "they're gonna want to kill". There are plenty of games that are developed solely for the purpose of killing people ; to me AC wasn't one of those. Of course they'd want to diversify the fight, but that's supposed to be a minor detail.
As for my bitching about the hammer, it's because you shouldn't even have the need to use one. Back to the combat trailer's top comment, the Hashashin's mission is to kill his target, only. For that, if the infiltration is done well, a short blade is enough to finish him in one shot. The ones carrying hammers around are the guards, who you shouldn't be encouraged to fight if, once again, you approach your target carefully. As Joey said, they're just doing their job. Now if for some reason you absolutely have to fight someone with a hammer, what about striking for his weak points with your own weapons ? During the fight with Rodrigo Borgia in which you're not supposed to disarm him of the papal staff to impale him, you had to dodge his attacks, strike him from behind. Wouldn't that be the perfect challenge? Players who love to fight would stay and actually have a hard time, those who prefer to escape would have a good reason to. That's still faithful to the sandbox policy and is a little more accurate to history.
You could still defeat an army, with a hell lot more of difficulty. Without buying an hammer in a store.

I understand what you're saying, but the fact of the matter is that we're no longer playing the actual Hassassin, Ezio's Brotherhood does not cling to every last tradition, which, might I remind you, were created by a traitor. Ezio has become a skilled fighter, far above the average city guard. He may even be one of the best fighters in the world. Is this realistic? No. Is it possible? Yes. That is the premise that AC has been using since the beginning.

Rodrigo's boss fight was really boring, even moreso than Cesare's, because he just had a huge health bar. Tons of enemies in the game require you to dodge and then strike. Thing is, they only require you to do it once or twice before they die, which is more reasonable to me.

And the hammer is statistically identical to the sword. The sword is used for open combat. The hammer is used for open combat. No real difference in an assassin choosing to use one or the other. The Hassassin used a sword for most of their assassinations, and as I've said, the reason they ONLY killed their target and target only was because they committed suicide immediately after.

I have no problem with Combat being more difficult and having more depth.

I have no problem with Ubisoft advertizing combat.

In reply to what Joey said a bit ago, what we have to roll over and accept is not the game being skewed towards combat. Heck no. We have to protest that at every turn. But in regards to advertizing, Ubisoft has every right to advertize to their biggest audience. Not little kids, not people who like to blow things up because they're stupid and mindless, but people who enjoy combat in video games.

And regarding the oft-used "little kids" example, I've met my share of annoying, "OMG so EPIC" kids who are not only fond of stealth, but good at it.

Ok, we're getting nowhere with this conversation, haha. We're both clearly not going to change our minds, so I suggest we kill the walls of text before they kill us. (:
About the kids, I just see annoying specimens everywhere so I tend to generalize. Fortunately AC is aimed at an older audience, and do have an older audience, for all three games.

Okkies!

I have to agree largely with Calvar on this one.

Ubisoft are well within their rights to make money and sell their game in the most profitable way - by appealing to what may be deemed a more 'mainstream' market of combat lovers. I must admit, as a pretty mediocre gamer and AC player, I sometimes enjoy being able to take out a whole group of guards with ease; it just looks so cool!

One thing I will say is that they must continue to develop the stealth side of the game just as much as the combat, and make sure we know it is still there. The option to go in quietly or to attack with guns blazing is great but that choice must still be there, and the stealth side should be equally advanced.

On most of the main missions in Brotherhood, Ubisoft were guilty of taking away this freedom. The finale of most missons was pretty scripted and we were just passengers while watching a nice cinematic cutscene. The Banker assassination was pretty good for encouraging/allowing stealth, IMO, but it was not really available elsewhere, except perhaps the inflitration of the Castello...? Also, when I do fancy attacking the guards with little subtlety, I want a challenge. it can be difficult to avoid the guards when using stealth so it should be equally tough to fight them!

As for realism, I like things to be as realistic as possible, especially concerning historical events, people, places etc. but, at the end of the day, it's a game!

Totally agree. Brotherhood didn't add enough in terms of stealth options or open-ended/creative missions.

hmmm I love the armor hopefully we will get it with dlc ala drachen armor with the da vinci disappearance and if i may inserst a little gripe about ACB..... im not much of a trophy hunter and i feel like its an accomplishment to beat the game and keep your sanity in tact, but the full synch to me had no real worth. Im not a perfectionist lol anyways when all is said and done i agree with most that it is a game and as such should be played how one wishes its your 60 bucks right?

yeah i think they need to add something if you get 100% sync a extra mission and maybe an cape or an outfit