The Hidden Blade Assassin's Creed in Depth

The series jumped the shark as soon as they let Patrice Desilets go.

I reinstalled AC1 yesterday to get back to that atmosphere. Holy shit you guys, it's still great.

This thread echoes my emotions and it's a little sad.

Agree on AC1 having the best atmosphere. There was no game like it, that I've ever played. I really enjoyed that feeling of being weak all the time, but no one actually knows you're weak, because no one's paying attention to you, because you're just some random guy. And then BAM, you take a life, you're a surgeon, and then you get out and literally the phantom after-image of a white-clad fallen angel doing God's work HAUNTS this city's people for WEEKS.

Agree on Patrice Desilets being let go being the turning point of awful for the series.

Agree on AC1 being the best game in the series - despite it not quite being phrased that way ;] (You know I'm right.)

However, I do think that the Pieces of Eden, First Civ and all those elements of AC are very much a part of what make AC what it used to be. I do think that with Desilets' removal from Ubisoft, the developer started abusing these parts of the Assassin's Creed mythos. They're now thrown in for a cheap sort of thrill, and you can tell that the games only lift up plot threads or First Civ plot threads in particular, with their pinky fingers just to keep us excited, but they do little else with them.

I recently beat every Helix Rift in Unity enough times to unlock all the Assassin Intel, and I'm gonna go ahead and post the Juno, Clay, Desmond and Instruments of the First Will story files that I've unlocked, as well as Project Phoenix and what little we know about it. Assassin's Creed looked like it might head in the direction I wanted it to story-wise, but as always, it's being too slow.

Even the Juno being in the Internet thing, she can still be pretty threatening with the plan she's devised, but it's not HAPPENING. WHY did you make it all happen in TEXT files?! WHY did you not let me play those parts!? I'm not LOOKING for a big open world in Modern Day or the First Civ times, or even as the Desmond and Clay AIs in the Abstergo Cloud Server, I just want to PLAY. You know? GAMEPLAY? The way this medium's storytelling is primarily developed? Damn haha.

I'm mostly pissed that the only part of the story I cared about in Unity is just shoved off to the side as text logs and nothing more. No gameplay, no cutscenes even, just text and one - ONE! - blurry picture. That stuff only works if the audience actually doesn't know what's going on. I KNOW what's going on, now I want to SEE it. The plot twist, I've guessed that would happen since the end of AC THREE, and now you're still going to keep it from me? Wow.

Stupid.

Once I get back from my Exam at school today I'm gonna Dump all the Modern Day story from Unity into a New Thread here. Better way to experience it that way IMO. I'll even screenshot the First Civ image file (holla for Next-Gen Image Sharing Features ;D)

I still get goosebumps watching this:

It makes me so sad to know that I'll likely never play another game quite like the first AC. They need to do an HD remake for Gen IV with a modern control scheme (so you can do air assassinations more smoothly). I think I saw a petition online for Ubisoft to make one the other day but I can't remember where.

There's been some talk here of a possible ten year anniversary edition, and what it could/should have.

http://thehiddenblade.com/assassins-creed-10th-anniversary-edition

I remember complaints, myself included, Altair was devoid of emotion, We could not interact with beggars ect...more diversity in quests, ect...then we got them....in a way....although it was cool, I feel Ubi ran a bit off the rails with Ezio, they tried to fill the gaps we asked for, he was alot of fun, something new and exciting...opposite of Altair....then we came to realize the coldness of Altair is what gave him his power. Where is the middle ground? Thats how I parsed out the game to that point anyway.

He wasn't really even devoid of emotion. He actually wore his heart on his sleeve a lot of the time, rarely keeping it vague as to what he was thinking. But the design of his character and the attitude exuded by his movement puts in your head the image of a mysterious and cold man, which kinda conflicts with that.

The problem is that these games put us in the shoes of an extremely capable and purposeful avatar, and then they tell us in cut-scenes that they are conflicted or naive. I don't think the solution is to make the characters more one-note and self-assured, but to represent the conflicts of the character in the gameplay, or at least the way the gameplay is themed.

I still think Connor is the best synthesis of avatar expressiveness and script-based character, and even he often conflicts between those two representations of him. Arno is possibly the worst. The flourishing nature of his kill animations is impossible to read as anything but sadistic, yet that doesn't fit with his character at all.

How could they show the conflict within the character through gameplay, without making the gameplay stiffer, more frustrating and the like? I'm actually curious to know the answer to this question. In a way, Edward might've been the character that fit the most with his gameplay. It just made sense. He's a bastard (but we love him) who cares very little for his crew except for Adewale. He actually could go where he liked and do as he pleased.

it's pretty clear how you can establish a character's personality in the way they move, and restrictions in what they'll do based on who they are is just game design. Games are games because they have restrictions that you must overcome to accomplish your goals.

A thing with AC is that it has always behaved more like a Toy than a Game a lot of the time: the designers want you to be able to do mostly whatever you want and get through fine, using different mechanics because you feel like it rather than because you need to. For the pillars of the game to have a tighter relationship, there have to be situations where it's clear that you need to do a very specific thing, or else you won't be able to succeed. And what I mean by this is it's fine if there are certain paths through a mission that allow different playstyles, but each of those paths needs to have its own unique challenges that you have to acknowledge and solve to overcome, never simply something that can be ungracefully blundered through by accident.

Fictionally justifying what the Assassin you're playing is willing to do and how they'll do it is a great way of giving those mechanics some of the structure and restriction it needs, without those rules feeling completely arbitrary. If AC establishes a solid game rule-set for its base mechanics, the personality of the character can be used as an extra wrinkle in that: what if we were playing an entirely non-lethal and conflict-averse assassin, who uses sleep darts and bare fists, and focuses on bypassing enemies and kidnapping their targets? What if we are ACTUALLY playing as a sadistic assassin, whose objective is to kill literally every enemy in the level, including their target? Both of these things would feel like completely different games, all without actually changing ANY of the ways the mechanics work. And the same pillars and paths of play could be supported, though one of them might require a different approach or more caution than before. (combat in the case of the martial arts assassin)

Edward was an intelligent deconstruction of the problems with storytelling in AC: it doesn't make sense unless it's a story about a guy who's kinda a jerk and takes whatever he wants in any way he wants to. They've always been pirates, even Altair. I don't think the reaction to his character should be "hey, they solved it!" but instead "oh, they have a lot of work to do.". We should want AC to be a game that can credibly support diverse characters, diverse not just in their backgrounds but in who they specifically are as people and how that is reflected in their actions. A sandbox/toy inherently requires an avatar that is generic and unspecific, who can fit into any situation and perform any action at the whim of the player.

All very good points. My favorite were;
"Each of those paths needs to have its own unique challenges that you have to acknowledge and solve to overcome, never simply something that can be ungracefully blundered through by accident."
"I don't think the reaction to [Edward's] character should be "hey, they solved it!" but instead "oh, they have a lot of work to do."

And they do have much work to do, they didn't solve anything, really.

It kind of does make sense that AC has felt more like a Toy than a Game. I think that's a point you've actually brought up on multiple occasions, but only now do I Understand what you mean by it. That we can do whatever we want with little consequence to playstyle or outcome makes it feel like AC is only one or two steps removed from Minecraft.

Maybe that's why the open world aspect of it, walking around, unfogging the map, moving through the game world is more satisfying than the actual missions most of the time. (At least to me, I can't speak for everyone. Someone might legit love the campaigns way more than anything else.)

Thank you for your answer, that shed some much-needed light.

After reading it, I'm 100% behind the idea of character-through-gameplay as you described it.
Characters averse to violence, or characters reveling in violence would be much more interesting to see through gameplay. Using the medium's strongest trait (interactivity) to make us become a character would work better if there are some things that are not fully within our control. We are not playing as Us. We are playing as this character, who has their own way of doing things.

In The Last of Us, there is no Non-Lethal Action Joel can take, except for passing people by. Even then, it's not because he doesn't want blood on his hands, it's because he recognizes that conflict reduces his chances of staying alive in that kind of world. I've brought this up before too, just because I think it's a really strong example. TLoU, even while linear, allows you to play in several different ways that all blend together (dare I say it?) seamlessly. Still, Joel's characterization never empties out of him. He never becomes purely an avatar for the player, he is very much his own person. Making the player wait to smash a Hunter's face in as he pleads for his life no matter how fast you mash Melee. Strangling people always being a kill, things like that. He doesn't care much for preserving life. He's an angry, angry man who's genuinely selfish - but we can still care about him and Ellie, and the story works better because that's highlighted.

It'd be even more special if the devs include little one-liners or quotes they'll sometimes mumble to themselves when the player does certain things related to their character. We don't have to hear all of these lines or quotes, we don't even have to hear any of them. I'd prefer if they weren't all guaranteed. I'd just like it if they were included in case you did trigger them.

One of the missions that I thought had the most personality in Unity was when Arno was chasing the hot-air Balloon (the Montgolfiere? or something?) that Elise was in. Odd, right? That such a mission, so heavily scripted could evoke what I'm talking about? What I mean is, if you jump through a certain window, go through that attic and hop out the window on the other side, the man within the house will exclaim in shock and Arno will say, "Pardon me!" That was COOL for two reasons.

1) It showed the character they wanted him to be through gameplay (a trickster, a joker)
2) It was in a way that felt natural. Not every player heard that quote, so the scripting felt less rigid. As opposed to earlier examples like, "What are you doing?" "Uh, RUNNING!" Those were still used in gameplay, but didn't feel as strong as the one with the attic because you were guaranteed to hear it no matter what. There's no sense of joyfully discovering another element of that character because you didn't actually discover it yourself.

I agree that that mission had some cool moments of personality, but I felt like it went on way longer than it needed to, without enough variation in what you were doing. I don't really mind long stretches of navigation when I'm trying to get somewhere concrete, but when it is so transparently that sort of carrot-on-a-stick situation it's a bit hard to take.

I think it would be great if AC protagonists had a few occasional lines of dialogue like Arno's "pardon me" that triggered at appropriate times regardless of if you're in a scripted mission or not. If they got a few different takes of each line and disabled the feature in all contexts it might be inappropriate, it could feel pretty natural!

---

Regarding the open world as a toy: yes, I think that's always been the part of AC that they've nailed. I think, however, that it would benefit from feeling more like a long-form game that doesn't end, similar to State of Decay. I disliked Unity's abundance of chests, but what I did like about a lot of them is that they were guarded, sometimes by guards in pretty complex patterns. This then turns that particular activity into a bite-sized bit of stealth gameplay with a small reward.

When I talk about systemic elements, I'm imagining something like that: simple stealth challenges that can pop up in a bunch of different places, but they would also randomize elements of themselves to some degree so that one setting could result in a variety of different patterns of guard placements. None of them too complex, just a little bit of variety.

And so participating in those small challenges would not be on their own a game, but they would be moves in a larger game: the low-level operations of Assassins and Templars. There are a billion more things to consider about that, but I think I'll do that another time.

I agree the mission went on too long. The overall mission itself, on consideration was not amazing.
But the touch of personality in his little quote, that's what I'd like to see more of (and yes, disabled for places where it would be inappropriate, as mentioned. Maybe even have it so that once heard once, it doesn't play again for that save file.)

---

One of the ways I consume Assassin's Creed is by 100%ing the game world. On that note, I can do nothing but agree that the sheer number of chests was insane.

But what you mentioned about them being guarded, I liked that too.
It was a good experiment in the idea of low-level Assassin-Templar ops, unlinked by story or mechanics aside from an arbitrary amount of Money, but nice nonetheless. Franciade, where Dead Kings takes place had some interesting formations of guards near Chests.

And in AC:Rogue there are Assassin Stalkers hiding around them waiting for you to "take the bait." It works in the story and mechanics of the game.

I seriously have to finish that game. I'm just sick right now and my PS3 is in the basement.
I've gotten stabbed by Stalkers crazy often, actually. It's kind of funny. I'm not so used to the stealth being flipped on me xD

Yeah. they take, what, 4 bars of health? so if you don't do the health upgrade it's instant death!
I hated running into them randomly in the middle of the forest and whatnot!

It's gotten to the point where I specifically go out of my way to kill them so they don't bother me in the area.
That makes sense, I guess. Fits with being a Templar.

Man, Stalkers are such a rad gameplay concept. I hope they build off that in the future, the idea of ambush chests is so cool!

It's been a while since I played, but I would say that about 50% of chests have an Assassin stalker nearby, and of those at least 50% have two stalkers (maybe one in a bush and one on a rooftop). They are also in random bushes and on random buildings that would be frequented by taking shortcuts.

It would be great if the static "ambush" form existed as one archetype, and the more proactive "whispers" stalker from Revelations was another. I think it would be cool if chests existed specifically as templar strongboxes in the center of one of the randomly generated stealth puzzles I mentioned, and whether there are stalkers protecting the chest or not could be part of the randomization.

Maybe no air assassinations, but things like crouching around a corner and in hide spots, to fit better with the operation of Templars and the context of urban structures.

Hehehe...geez...I remember these discussions.. If Altair only acknowledged the beggars, if he only interacted with the crowds, ect ect... Now how everyone talks has become so complicated I miss the simple AC days. I loved his illusiveness. I thought Ezio was a fun deviation from that but Altair will always be the most awesome assassin even...not the best skilled maybe (climbing skills) but hes a good old fashioned classic warrior, akin to watching old WWII films.

P.S. I miss the "find the templar" Accomplishment. That was alot of fun! So Joey, in a Nutshell, I agree completely with your nostalgia.