Warning: Rant! *Possible spoilers*
FLAE got me thinking.
I can say with total honesty (and not a trace of false modesty) that I am a total nincompoop as a game player. While people like stab, ian, Jack-Reacher and everybody else here could beat the game without breaking a sweat and while comatose, I can and do struggle mightily for hours and fail a lot. So I can't complain about the easy (although I sympathise with the frustration of skilled gamers like everybody-but-me). What I feel I can complain about is the stupid.
I was watching my daughter play the Michelotto mission (the one with the Passion Play) and both of us were scratching our heads and saying, "Wait... what? Really? This is what you came up with?" I'd seriously like to know how many Ubisoft employees were sleeping through that planning meeting. Completely brain-dead.
My personal favorite example of stupid is the courtesan mission "Closing In", where you have to follow an ambassador and kill him with the hidden blade for 100% synch. Just after the cutscene, the game automatically switches your weapon to fists! I literally screamed at Ubisoft when Ezio ran in and PUNCHED the target, resulting in synch failure. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the games never did crap like that before, did they? (I mean, fists equipped automatically in AC2 when you picked up a corpse, but I thought they fixed that in this game.) It's like Ubisoft was saying, "Let's surreptitiously change the selected weapon in an unprecedented way so the player will automatically fail so they'll have to do the mission again and that will increase the challenge and enjoyment of the game!" I realize I should have been aware enough to check it first, but still - who walks around without a weapon equipped and who would suspect they would use such a cheap trick anyway?
This ticked me off when playing: is there any reason why there are parts of the map closed off and only available later (other than Ubi did it in earlier games and got into the habit)? So the final Romulus Lair is only open at the beginning of Seq 8 and thus no unbreakable armor until then - even though the whole game is only 9 sequences? Why can't you go around everywhere knocking down all the Borgia Towers, then recruiting the full boatload of Assassins once that ability becomes available? I didn't mind it in AC1 and 2 (I'm not sure why), but in this game I see no gameplay or story reason that the whole shebang can't be open from the get-go.
Getting away safely. Ubisoft completely dropped the ball on this when they didn't make it enough of a part of AC2. In AC1, each mission had 3 equal parts: 1) get to the target, 2) eliminate the target, 3) get away alive. It was pure genius on Ubisoft's part that they designed it so the mission wasn't complete until all 3 things - equally important! - were accomplished. Oh, yeah, they still kinda had it in AC2, but the distance to safety was laughably small and it was usually easier to just kill everybody instead. I don't even remember if BroHood had any escape requirements at all. Even though Ezio wasn't a trained Assassin like Altair, Ubisoft could easily have figured out a way to include a true escape requirement and make it an equal part of the whole mission's parameters (maybe gradually phasing it in over the course of AC2). More brain-dead.
This whole "desynch when detected" thing. It simply doesn't work in a realistic and challenging way, much less in a having-fun way. It's just become annoying. Assassination missions should require observation, foresight, planning and thinking. I get that they are trying to encourage stealth by enacting a penalty for non-stealth, but all you do is reset to the last checkpoint, which was probably only 2 seconds earlier anyway. Detection should result in mission failure. The target flees and hides and doesn't respawn 3 minutes later in the same place (duh). He should respawn only when the Assassin gets far enough away (and make it a decent distance, not just 60 paces or so like in AC2). An of course you are completely notorious the whole time (because hello! they saw you!). Then you have to start basically from square one, plotting a different route to the target since naturally there would be extra and more-alert guards along the path you first used, wouldn't there? Of course there would.
Ubisoft began the series with one of the most interesting ideas ever for a videogame, one with built-in dramatic tension inherent in the very essence of the Assassin Order; that is, the completely contradictory nature of the Order's objectives. On the one hand, Assassins must work in utter secrecy to gain access to their targets without hinderance, and to return to safety when the deed is done - but on the other hand, the killing itself must be accomplished with the maximum amount of publicity and witnesses, so it can serve as warning and object lesson to other tyrants; otherwise it's just raw murder. The most important thing that Ubisoft has always needed to do was to remember to combine these polar-opposite objectives together into each mission to maintain that dramatic tension. AC1 had it, AC2 not so much and this game: virtually none. This is razor-close to a fatal flaw. And very, very stupid.
I can appreciate how difficult it can be to strike the right balance between challenging and do-able; I think we all can appreciate that. (Warning: incoming Stephen Colbert reference.) Tip of the Hat: to Ubisoft for listening to the fans even a little and making some kind of attempt to rectify their complaints. Wag of the Finger: to Ubisoft for being so half-assed and imbecilic in their methods!
The bottom line: when a gaming nincompoop like me can be so very disgruntled with faults like these, there is something seriously wrong with the direction this franchise has taken. As Talleyrand famously said, "It was worse than a crime, it was a blunder".
Well said! I agree with FLAE on his post, Brotherhood dissapointed me extremely. But I keep telling myself 'its just an extension to AC2'. I dont play it much anymore, i've put out a few stunts, a variety pack or 2, and a multiplayer game. There is really nothing left to do. I cannot find any more missions/agents/contracts to do cool things on. The assassinations are heavily scripted
And about your Escape rant, i totally agree. I wish Ubisoft brought back the Ac1's style of 'Gather Intel before assassinating'. But since that got repetetive real fast, make it like...not required. Like an optional mission before an assassination (AND ADD MORE MAIN ASSASSINATIONS!!) Like in AC2 you assassinated all of the Pazzi, and the Barbarigo (however u spell it). In AcB, you assassinate A Banker, A French Wierdo, and Cesare. You don't really Assassinate Cesare, you kick him in the balls and chip away at his armor before pouncing on him and dropping him off a wall.
As I was saying...I remember how in AC1 when u gathered enough intel, there was a map of an escape route. Perhaps Ubi should have implented this system into brotherhood. Perhaps speak to servants of the Borgia, or citizens who have been in and out. Or perhaps even have your recruits or factions do it. You command the Assassin Order, and basically the Mercenaries, Courtesans, and Thieves. Perhaps you could send out the recruits or thieves to gather intel on your target, or go out and do it yourself.
Or if not talking to civilians, have your recruits or thieves find escape routes themselves!! Such as finding blindspots of guards or long parkour paths.
Not to mention the stealth in this game is nothing but a joke. If it wasn't for the continuation of Desmond's story, I would have considered this game just pointless.
Seeing as what Brotherhood as turned out to be, I still havn't lost my faith in the series. I eagerly await Ac3 and the continuation of Desmond's story. That is what kept me on the series, not Altair's story, or Ezio's, but Desmonds.
Sadly, I have to agree with both you and FLAE. When you go back to AC1, it's like an entirely different game now. They made Ezio so overpowered. What made Altair a badass was that he only had the basic essentials and he got the job done with no problems. Ezio's gadgets and now Assassins basically do the assassinations for him. He could be sitting on a couch eating Doritos, tell a recruit that a banker needs to die, and then wait 10 minutes until it's done. Altair got off his hooded ass and did the damn job!!!
I'd love to see Arrrogance's idea of optional information-gathering missions. Maybe put those in for 100% sync (but make them challenging and worth getting the info and not sitting on a bench and eavesdropping for 30 seconds).
And the "getting out alive" thing? Yeah, I noticed that you go off scott-free once you killed the guys. Nothing hard there.
I hope that with each sequel (REAL sequels, not AC2.5's) they change the atmosphere and gameplay style. AC1 was a "hopeless" and threatening atmosphere. AC2 had a "do whatever you want, but be wary of those red arrows above guard's heads" style. ACB just had a "we're running out of idead" style.
If AC3 isn't good (or even mediocre) then I'm gonna pull a FLAE and retire from AC altogether as well.
Yeah I miss returning to the bureau in AC1 after a kill, with the whole city after you. It gave you a reason to plan your escape, and even if you could just fight your way out it would take ages.
I like how they have an escape the area and return anonymous, but that is more like a downgrade of AC1. The escape area is usually pathetic, man im going to replay AC1 again, il just do it to make a profile for each memory block to give me an incentive to replay it
And after you kill your target an AC1, rushing back to the bureau, with those bells in the background and that epic music playing. What a rush! It had to be my favorite part of Assassin's Creed 1, 2, and 2.5
I agree with joey, if Ac3 isn't the least bit good, im afraid im going to leave the series. "Requiescat in Pace"
Also im tired of playing god. in AC1 I always knew I could stop the chase and kill them all with counters.
AC2, I never even stared a chase you could annihilate everyone so easily. This game, its a joke. Ok il admit its been fun having all these gadgets and such, but in AC3 I better have a feeling that there is a chance I could die on a mission. Instead to make it challenging, they add in timed optional challenges, and desynches if you are seen. This isnt the way to go about it, imo
I was trying to desync so I could restart a mission (wanted that 100% really badly) and the only thing i could do was to have the guards slash me to death, as I couldn't simply jump off a roof, since i was on the ground with little health and no armor at the time.
The screen did the slo-mo/red/glitchy thing it does when you're about to die. I wasn't using medicine. My health had no time to regenerate. The guards wouldn't let up on me...you can't die from being beaten up in ACB. Try it. Unless they patched it, it's still there. I did this the first night I played it.
I dont understand, I have been killed from guards before
Well it didn't work on mine. haha
Well it didn't work on mine.
It's because you're healing just before the next hit comes in. The health regen ticks happen very frequently.
I had the same issue when I wanted to desync to the last checkpoint (should be an option in the menu!). I was getting really frustrated because even with the controller sitting on the table, Ezio just would not die.
It's clear that the combat in Brotherhood wasn't meant to be very challenging. I'm normally one who prefers games to be easier, but this is way beyond 'easy'.
I won't go into detail about my issues with Brotherhood because you guys have done a good job covering the main points already. I'll just summarize my feelings about the whole thing by saying that while Brotherhood can definitely be fun at times, it's lost so much of what made AC1 so unique and amazing. AC1 was isolating, intriguing, creepy, intense and fun. AC2 lost a fair bit of the magic, and Brotherhood took it further. The new 'good' stuff we got just doesn't make up for what we've lost.
If any Ubisoft marketers or developers are reading our threads, I hope you find it clear that the people unanimously want the next AC to be much more like the original. We realize that there was a lot of flack for having just a handful of generic investigation missions repeated each memory block, but just replace them with more story-driven investigation missions and retain everything else. It was both realistic and cool to have to investigate your target before just charging in.
Then start over with the combat engine and make it tough – avoiding open/public combat should be top priority (whatever happened to having a creed to follow?!) and running away should always be the ideal choice if you don't want your head on a pike in the town square. Combat should be an option, but as a last resort (or a past time for masochists, because it should be realistically difficult).
I could seriously write a book about how to improve these games (even AC1!) while retaining the atmosphere and magic of the series, but this isn't the place. If I get bored this weekend, maybe I'll write a sort of editorial about all the changes I'd make if I were in charge. 
Unfortunately I created a similar topic on their forums and almost everyone disagreed with me. It seems people are more interested in loads of small little side quests like templar agents ( come on those are pathetic) than quality assassinations
Unfortunately I created a similar topic on their forums and almost everyone disagreed with me. It seems people are more interested in loads of small little side quests like templar agents ( come on those are pathetic) than quality assassinations
You have to realize that the average age on more public forums like that is probably around 13. 
Ask some adults (ie: the ones who are actually purchasing the game) and then we'll have a more definitive wish list with a lot more thought and reflection behind it.
I always cringe when I hear about developers scouring forums to see what the players want out of sequels. Granted, there aren't a lot of other places to go, but they really need to consider their audience. Far more kids post on online forums than adults, and most of them tend to be under the age that the product is rated for. Way to gauge the wrong audience for feedback. 
It may be age discrimination, but I would no sooner ask a kid how to improve a big-budget non-family friendly game than I would ask them for input on a script for a new summer blockbuster movie. Or on what car to purchase. Or what house to buy. Et cetera.
Yea I realise that, thats why I said unfortunately, because its their official website and they take feedback there seriously ( a bad thing for us)
I mean they halved the co op bonuses, why??! what moron asked them to do that? I have a feeling they just picked some random bonuses to tweak so it looks like they are monitoring and perfecting the game
I imagine it's just a lack of thorough analysis behind the real problem(s) they were trying to solve (whatever it may be). Let's face it – Ubisoft has never been known for polished, balanced or bug-free games. They have a stellar reputation of exactly the opposite.
While I'm sure many of the game developers working for Ubisoft love making games and do it with a passion, they're limited by very strict rules and budgets, both time and monetary. After all, the bigwigs at the company are just looking to be a successful business, and if they can put out their products earlier with less money spent on polishing and testing and still make the same amount of money, you can bet your ass they will. I imagine there's a whole crapload of red tape the developers have to deal with to get anything done, even if it's something really quick and simple.
It's all about the business, not the passion. Sadly, the market we have today fully supports that philosophy. And that's true of a great many things these days. 
My impression of the whole of Brotherhood as I played it was that Ezio was finally the prefect assassin, to the point where he could kill lots of guards so easily, use tons of powerful weapons and was always one step ahead of his opponents. In the cutscenes, Ezio is always the one who comes up with the plans, knows what to do, and wins philisophical arguments. He is the mentor to those in his order. And Brotherhood had to be experienced more linearly at some times to show that Ezio had dwelled on these events for a long time, particularly the last two sequences. So the main story was more of an epic, movie length tale, and the side quests are more traditional free-roaming AC. Brotherhood was not a sequel, and it makes no pretensions of being one. For the actual sequel, we know they have put a lot of emphasis on how powerful Abstergo is, how their guards could easily take down a team of assassins. The days of Assassins being able to behave as Ezio did is over. AC3 should have more emphasis on stealth not because the character you control was not detected, but because his head will be blown off is you are seen. Actual combat should be fluid and rely more on dodging than counters, and incorporate the hidden blade and fists at the same time. Desmond's attire should be blue jeans and a white hoodie, with the eagle beak, and wrist guards that look like they are part of a parkour expert's outfit, but one conceals a more compact hidden blade. He should not be able to blend into crowds that are smaller than 8 people, or do not look the same, at lease once he has been actively pursued. He should have one hidden blade, his fists, a silenced hidden gun that can be used at long range, and a knife of some kind. Guards should notice if the crowd is running from you, and have awareness of you from much further away.
Getting carried away, but I'll make an official topic for AC3 mechanics later. Bottom line, I enjoyed brotherhood as a fun extension to AC2, and for continuing AC's story, but Ubi better realize that we expect a lot more from a legit sequel. I'm impressed with what ubi did in a year, I liked all the optional free-form missions, the secret locations ""the last day" ftw) and the fact that moments which would have fallen flat in AC2 were delivered with epic cinematography and better graphics.
The guards can't kill you? Haha! That's just so very unsurprising.
Ask some adults
Yea, AC1 is the adult version, I'm telling you.
AC1 was a unique possibility in game design, and I don't think it will happen again any time soon. They were working on a new idea for a really long time, without any feedback from the marketing department. That doesn't happen very often. That doesn't happen, really.
After AC1 they just collected all the requests for features, poured them in a bucket, and dumped it on DVD. Of course the ungraspable subtle balance of gameplay was lost. It couldn't have happened any other way.
My impression of the whole of Brotherhood as I played it was that Ezio was finally the prefect assassin, to the point where he could kill lots of guards so easily, use tons of powerful weapons and was always one step ahead of his opponents. In the cutscenes, Ezio is always the one who comes up with the plans, knows what to do, and wins philisophical arguments. He is the mentor to those in his order. And Brotherhood had to be experienced more linearly at some times to show that Ezio had dwelled on these events for a long time, particularly the last two sequences. So the main story was more of an epic, movie length tale, and the side quests are more traditional free-roaming AC. Brotherhood was not a sequel, and it makes no pretensions of being one. For the actual sequel, we know they have put a lot of emphasis on how powerful Abstergo is, how their guards could easily take down a team of assassins. The days of Assassins being able to behave as Ezio did is over. AC3 should have more emphasis on stealth not because the character you control was not detected, but because his head will be blown off is you are seen. Actual combat should be fluid and rely more on dodging than counters, and incorporate the hidden blade and fists at the same time. Desmond's attire should be blue jeans and a white hoodie, with the eagle beak, and wrist guards that look like they are part of a parkour expert's outfit, but one conceals a more compact hidden blade. He should not be able to blend into crowds that are smaller than 8 people, or do not look the same, at lease once he has been actively pursued. He should have one hidden blade, his fists, a silenced hidden gun that can be used at long range, and a knife of some kind. Guards should notice if the crowd is running from you, and have awareness of you from much further away.Getting carried away, but I'll make an official topic for AC3 mechanics later. Bottom line, I enjoyed brotherhood as a fun extension to AC2, and for continuing AC's story, but Ubi better realize that we expect a lot more from a legit sequel. I'm impressed with what ubi did in a year, I liked all the optional free-form missions, the secret locations ""the last day" ftw) and the fact that moments which would have fallen flat in AC2 were delivered with epic cinematography and better graphics.
I thought you were one of those spam bots for a moment lol, A little space never hurt anyone
Personally, i think Ac3 should be Ac1's style of stealthy assassinations, and not being able to mow down an army of guards with your dagger. But have Ac2's style of a progressing storyline, instead of Ac1's repetetive storyline. Ac1's Storyline was great nonetheless. And in Ac3, if they have guns, perhaps when you get shot, you'll take more than 1 square of damage? I mean thats just ridiculous. I mean, if I got shot, i wouldn't be able to run around killing people and jumping off buildings
@Calvar
From what you've said, I've put together that you think Ezio's God-like abilities are fun. And there isn't any thing wrong with that. At times they are fun. But think about it, sometimes, it's unrealistic. (Forget about the Leap of Faith being unrealistic. I'd break my back) but Ezio's ability to just mow down batallions of guards? And single-handedly.
I'd like to know how Ezio goes into the Vault at the end of Ac2, being an above-average assassin, and comes out at the beginning of Ac:b, as a one-man-army
. . . Or perhaps even have your recruits or factions do it. You command the Assassin Order, and basically the Mercenaries, Courtesans, and Thieves. Perhaps you could send out the recruits or thieves to gather intel on your target, or go out and do it yourself.
Sending the recruits and guilds to do intel gathering is a fabulous idea. It would be just like the contract missions: you would have to determine what kind of intel you are looking for and how to get it (interrogate, follow, beat up?) and which groups would get the best result. Then you can plan out the mission in advance, maybe send a group of recruits to do something a point A, and some courtesans to distract people at point B. Each of these groups could be a possible fail point, so you'd have to re-think your plan.
Although I'm sure a lot of people would complain about repetitiveness and boredom, so perhaps they should limit it to the "big" or "important" assassinations - the ones that usually end that memory sequence. But along the way there could be a few other assassinations that Ezio could do himself like they have already.
I sure wish they had this in BroHood. Man, Ubisoft should just talk to us first! 
Yes! I didn't think of having different factions for different tasks (beatup, interrogate, follow) thats brilliant. I only thought of using thieves or something to find good escape routes after taking out your target.
And you're right people would complain of it being repetetive. If they were 100% optional, and weren't required for Full Sync of the mission, (maybe full sync of the game alltogether) then maybe people wuldnt complain how repeteive it is. I personally wish it was like this, i might go pop in my Ac1 disc and have a go
Can we all write up requests for AC3 (gameplay-wise) and format it into an actual plea letter and send it to Jade Raymond and Gabe G-whatever? They're losing they're own self-respect by listening to the little kids on other forums that don't care about the mature aspects of it. They're too used to God of War and Halo being over-the-top action-focused.
Not trying to be egotistical about the site, but we're the REAL fans. We know what the series needs. FLAE was probably the first to take it to that level, but he had good reasoning behind it. If Ubi cares about it's feedback, we need to make ourselves public to them.
Personally, i think Ac3 should be Ac1's style of stealthy assassinations, and not being able to mow down an army of guards with your dagger. But have Ac2's style of a progressing storyline, instead of Ac1's repetetive storyline. Ac1's Storyline was great nonetheless.
I didn't find AC1's storyline to be repetitive, but rather the generic investigation missions made things repetitive and uninspired. The actual story-based progression was great. Not only were these preparations giving the main assassinations a feeling of weight and importance, but along the way our main character is both learning about his own mistakes in life and unraveling a greater mystery all along the way. It had so much intrigue that wasn't terribly foreshadowed. AC2 and ACB didn't have any of that. Players like twists and surprises and to find out that not everything is exactly as it seems. AC1 always had that air of mystery and conspiracy. Any conspiracies in the two following games were right out in the open and didn't really affect your character at all. That's just boring.
Yeah thing about AC1 is the confessions put doubt in my mind on Altairs actions, the templars were right, the assassins are in a way hypocrites, but I wont go into much detail.
AC1 is not repetitive, but symmetrical. Like a crystal is symmetrical as opposed to the organic randomness of a piece of turd.
The storyline reflects the Nizari faith in the temporal relativism of understanding (Altair sees a different perspective and arrives at a higher level of understanding through a synergy of perspective), and the symmetry of gameplay through the nine levels reflect the Aristotelian rationalism of the Ismaili.
Just so you know...
@Asaic
ye i didn't mean the storyline, i meant like how the game is played.
@al-Assas
its a game D:and yes the gameplay was repetetive lol. Teh storyline was great
Can we all write up requests for AC3 (gameplay-wise) and format it into an actual plea letter and send it to Jade Raymond and Gabe G-whatever? They're losing they're own self-respect by listening to the little kids on other forums that don't care about the mature aspects of it.
I was going to suggest that we spam the Ubisoft website instead of all the pre-adolescents (we'll have to avoid saying things like, "Oh what are you, a tiny child?"), but a mature, well-reasoned open-letter type thing and signed by those of us here who are interested is a better idea.
Like a crystal is symmetrical as opposed to the organic randomness of a piece of turd.
LOL LOL LOL! Best laugh I've had all week. Thank you so very much.
I was going to suggest that we spam the Ubisoft website instead of all the pre-adolescents (we'll have to avoid saying things like, "Oh what are you, a tiny child?"), but a mature, well-reasoned open-letter type thing and signed by those of us here who are interested is a better idea.
Spamming the Ubisoft site will get us enough attention. lol Maybe we can make it one of those "Get to 100 signatures to get the support needed" type of deals.
You're welcome.
Sending the recruits and guilds to do intel gathering is a fabulous idea. It would be just like the contract missions: you would have to determine what kind of intel you are looking for and how to get it (interrogate, follow, beat up?) and which groups would get the best result. Then you can plan out the mission in advance, maybe send a group of recruits to do something a point A, and some courtesans to distract people at point B. Each of these groups could be a possible fail point, so you'd have to re-think your plan.
That is almost exactly what I expected when Ubisoft announced we could control our own assassin's guild. I was so disappointed with the actual implementation in the game.
@ Lisa & Fogey; When are you guys doing this signed-letter to ubisoft heads? I strongly agree with the views and opinions you guys have in entirety. I would gladly contribute to this idea of a THB guided development system (even if temporary, or not exactly that overbearing) that Ubisoft could refer to when looking at new, consistant, or relevant aspects or issues regarding Assassin's Creed.
Please notify me however you want regarding this, as it is something I can easily devote time out my life to extend to ubisoft. I love the potential for these already very incredible games, and I'd like to see that potential flourrish rather than wither and die at the hands of pass-time and novelty gamers, such as this 13 year old community, as I amusingly recall someone referring to them as.
There is possibility of disagreement between ideas and what is considered to be an improvement or a discomfort, howevever that is exactly why I am confident as I write this. I've read the criticism's and dissapointments Lisa and Fogey have shared with us and I find I agree with most, if not all opinions and possible modifications that have been suggested. I'm sorry for posting right here, right away but if I didn't I would not remember to post this at all, or too late in the "game".
-Let me know if the interest is at all there after we all play AC:III. I Imagine that just might silence the groans, if they do it right.
Look at all those criticism. Well, it's time I jumped in it as well...
I can't even count the number of scripted events in ACB - ACR. I'm not even gonna bother, with Lisa and FLAE doing a wonderful job over it. I, however, do have another gripe that I wanna point out: Ubisoft and their explicit attempts in padding the game.
For example, let's start with the excessive cut-scenes and blinding Animus lines. Let's say that you're replaying a mission. 1st, you have to approach him and talk to him. Easy enough. But wait! A blinding white light appears - forcing you the player to wait for at least a sec. If you just wanna skip the cut-scene you've already seen 5 billion times, you have to go to the START menu, but WAIT! You have to wait an extra 2 seconds for the blinding white light to reappear and disappear, scroll down towards the SKIP CINEMATIC option, and confirm.
BUT WAIT!
You're now directed back to the cut-scene, but it's in freeze mode with a bunch of Animus lines. A mission summary is prompted and an option is offered whether you want to accept it or now.
Seriously, Ubisoft? Seriously?
Of course I want to accept the goddamn mission. Why else would I want to talk to the him/her in the 1st place? Why else did I choose to replay the mission 5 million times in a row? And why isn't there a SKIP CINEMATIC button while the cuts-scene is playing? Why do I have to go to the START menu every time I wanna skip these cut-scenes?
And why does every time I select NO, it causes another loading screen, but with a red glow?
I played a game recently, I forgot which one but what it does is, when you press the B/O button, it shows it at the bottom right again and says "Press B/O to Skip Cutscene." That's very simple and nice. I think Arkham Asylum did it as well.
Accepting and Rejecting Missions was also really iffy for me, this is why:
Yes, if I wanted to not do the mission, I probably wouldn't have talked to the guy. But my more pressing concern is, if I change my mind and say Reject instead, the game Desynchs me. Instead of just letting me walk away and free roam, it Desynchs me and loads me from a previous checkpoint. There's no reason to do that, it's a little annoying.
Scripted events are something I've learned to live with but after playing Dishonored, I'm actually afraid of them..
Agreed. The Arkham games did it perfectly - just press a button to skip the damn cutscene.
And if it was just 2 people talking, you can just press the attack button to skip a line.
Dishonored allows you to hold the X button to skip the current cutscene. Not everything is skippable, but a good bit of them are.