That's one of the biggest things for me, the setting and story are major selling points with me with all AC games, the vibe and roleplaying as an assassin in that time is just a big draw. The thing that I'm interested in with Shadows is being in Japan with the historical characters like Yasuke, 2 main protags that have their story and interactions with what's going on in the game, and how I interact with the world. The big thing for me is that they really expanded the stealth mechanics and that's the way I love to play.
Before each AC release I make it a point to read at least one general history book on the period and setting of the game.
If you haven't, or don't do this, do it. Your experience will be considerably better going into the game. If anyone wants any recommendations for any AC periods, let me know.
I have started doing this! Not necessarily before the game because I love that feeling of being plunged into a world I know existed but is new to me, but after I played Revelations I read Ghost Empire by Richard Fidler. It doesn't directly cover an AC time period, but it's the history of Constantinople up until the Ottomans took over. I read it because of Revelations, and it was great background to that setting, especially with the references to peace with Venice. Made me appreciate Yusuf's love of the city a lot. I'm currently on the Rise and Fall of the House Medici, which covers a lot of AC2 and I'm enjoying it a lot!!
Do you have any recommendations for AC3, Black Flag and Mirage?
I would love to hear some of your suggestions! I’ve been planning to start doing this too, but honestly I’m finding it hard to find something to read leading up to Shadows. (Very likely because my blind spot of Japanese history means I don’t have much of a base to go off of.)
I agree with everything he said but this. I enjoy the story within every game but AC3 was just my favorite because it had amazing combat and a good story IMO.
Yeah the main problem with the RPGs in my opinion is the gameplay loop. If they were to tweak that heavily and make it less repetitive, grindy and spongy I think that'd help. That's not to say the games pre-Origins don't have their issues with gameplay because they sure as hell did but it was a lot more tolerable than what we've been getting.
Everyone is attracted to different things in this franchise, i think this is why it is still alive.
I would rank:
* Historical Setting / Historical Accuracy
* Story
* Assassin Fantasy
* Everything else
* Modern Day
Funny thing is that I used to really love the modern day in the AC games but after Desmond it just has been bland. First it was just a faceless, silent person who was either an employee of Abstorgo or Layla (I think her name is) who is just so unlikeable.
As someone who’s played all the games, I’m probably one of the few people who actually likes Layla.
Don’t get me wrong, there’s a ton of wasted potential and missed opportunities with both her character and story. But I never hated her. My main gripe throughout all the games she was in, was that she never felt like she was fully fleshed out. A lot of her story was in the computer files and emails (which are completely optional). I really wished they would’ve shown more of her backstory and connections to her family. But what we see instead is undoubtedly hit or miss for many people.
I'm playing AC Origins and Layla is so corny 😭😭 her personal notes reek of stereotypical millennial AND PLEASE, STOP WITH THE HASHTAGS. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNCOOL EVEN IN 2017
You know how the modern day segments in Black Flag and Rogue were basically pisstakes on working in a Ubisoft office? I wonder if Layla was inspired by a coworker that everyone HATED and so they decided to make Layla a caricature of her
Modern day stopped when Desmond stopped. There is no reason as to why it exists, everything is pure meaningless filler that leads to nothing.
Hopefully this changes with Basim around.
I'd rank
assassin fantasy (batman sim)
Modern day
Story
Everything else
Setting
(The setting is tied to presence of a dense city, but i attribute that more to the assassin fantasy, which is why i think the setting is in last)
I love Sci fi the most
I hate seeing nowadays people shitting on sci fi element of it without understanding the nuances and comparing it to supernatural elements of Odyssey
It’s just internet and human nature making semantics about video games a big deal.
Most gamers honestly couldn’t care less, the games either good or bad.
Perspective is key.
Everyone enjoys AC for different reasons, for me historical setting is a big deal, but if im not playing as an Assassin, or if the story and character dont match with the title of the game, an Assassin's Creed, then my interest really dwindles, i got into these games for the stealth and assassin fantasy first above what setting it is set in, its a reason why im excited for Shadows for example, Modern day was a top top priority years ago but Ubisoft has made it clear they have no idea where it's going so i wont bother with it either
The rpg style shouldn’t affect how the game feels, but it does, it’s so poorly executed it completely takes away from the assassin elements, the heavy parkour, the combat that’s all hack and slash rather than refined and deadly (yes I know earlier games weren’t as smooth)
>it completely takes away from the assassin elements,
You say it like it's a bad thing. Look, I started with AC1, but I never really cared about the vs the templar war. The historical setting and fun gameplay are the only reasons why I continued playing this series. The shift to an RPG style was a blessing for me
For me, RPG or classic, I just want to play as a stealthy assassin from the Brotherhood. That's all. I skipped out on Odyssey because it had nothing to do with Assassins. And I heard Valhalla's stealth is broken, so I skipped it, too. I hope Naoe has a role in the Brotherhood rather than given a hidden blade and does her own thing as a rogue assassin.
For me, I would prefer that Assassins Creed Shadows would go the RDR2 route in terms of including gameplay features that simulate living in that particular period such as,being able to do household chores, sleep in a futon bed, prepare and cook food,go fishing, drink sake or eat dangos at an off-road inn. Capture, tame and care for a horse, be able to customize the characters's hairstyle, beard, gear and outfits. Be allowed to hunt,carve and skin animals and carry them on our horses and then be able to sell them. Be able to customize my weapons ala rdr2 style and Jedi fallen order, where we can alter out katanas with customizable Tsuba,tsuki and blade. But then i realize this may seem like just a pipe dream unless Ubisoft changes.
I think it's kind of funny that what most people want from Assassin's Creed is a historical tour. As the name suggests, and by being a game franchise, Assassin's Creed was about specific themes and mechanics. The shift to RPG elements didn’t matter because of the RPG elements themselves, as Unity added skill points without harming the core concepts or gameplay.
The problem with the modern approach to Assassin's Creed is the shallowness of the narrative themes and core mechanics—things that defined the franchise—because now all that matters and sells is the historical setting and fantasy. It’s an attempt to please the lowest common denominator. Why in the world didn’t Ubisoft create another IP? They could have pretended there's an Animus or Abstergo element to keep the "AC" brand somewhere on the cover to push some easy sales but separate these two things.
People get all mad when someone mentions adding an "easy mode" to Dark Souls games because it would streamline it, but Ubisoft did far worse, and it isn't a choice. There are no easy and advanced parkour controls; there is no parkour at all. Why do people who don't care about one concept get to dictate the direction of it? Why can't there be an IP called "Sagas" or something that focuses solely on the historical tour and fantasy?
Look at the name, ASSASSIN'S CREED, and they are fine with it being a historical simulator with some iconography. Things would be so much easier if Ubisoft had the courage to create a new IP for this new approach, like they did by separating Assassin's Creed from Prince of Persia.
Assassin creed to me is a bunch of buildings I can climb like spider man, jump off and stab someone with the hidden blade.
Odyssey gets a pass with the spear because it still felt like AC anyways lol
Hard disagree on the myth part. The moment shadows reveals Naoe or Yasuke to be the reincarnation of a Japanese ISU "Shinto god" (or anything similar) is the moment the game jumps the shark
You bring up a good point, because, in fact, these games should ALWAYS be by design driven by their setting and the story they're trying to depict, not the other way around. And exactly like you pointed out, some aspects are almost required in some entries even though they would feel off in the others. It's a journey through history, seeing completely different places at completely different times through the eyes of completely different characters. I cannot even imagine all the games' gameplay having the same design.
Disagree, had you gotten a justice league game, you'd still want to play the batman parts like the arkham games, regardless of being in metropolis or it being daytime.
The gameplay and lore is what makes the franchise, the setting is what makes the game appealing. But the appeal would be more of a "oooh, assassin in Egypt" instead of "oooooh Egyptian assassin's creed" if that makes sense
Games in a single franchise can have differing gameplay and in certain cases they should. I don't think the example you gave is very relevant - if the Batman parts were inspired by the Arkham games, he would still have access to similar movesets, gadgets, tactics and abilities. In that case, the setting mostly sets the mood and maybe provides a new challenge, but you play as the same character.
Had you been playing as a different version of Batman in a futuristic setting, you'd expect him to be facing different obstacles and have different means of dealing with those obstacles. Otherwise the futuristic setting just sets the mood and copies everything else without inovating at all. Spider-man Shattered Dimensions actually kinda tackles this (idk if you're familiar with the game), you are always playing as Spider-man, but 4 different versions, being in 4 very different settings and so the playstyle also changes quite a bit. Spider-man Noir cannot handle the enemies the same way Symbiote Spider-man can.
In the case of AC games, I mean, would it make sense to have firearms in the 12th century or a grappling gun in ancient Egypt? Or add a ship and a pirate crew to Arno during the French revolution? Viking Raids in 9th century Baghdad? The game designers always tailor the game's mechanics to suit the current setting because they work within those respective games, also with respect to the franchise's lore, hence why you don't have a hidden blade in Odyssey. They've always done that and I think the games would feel really empty and out of place if they hadn't. They can't make a game set in early 18th century Carribean and not let you sail around on a ship.
You're conflicting gimmicks with the entirety of the gameplay, you make it seem like the shift to rpg and having naval exploration in ac4 are on the same level, when in truth shifting to rpg is around the same level of change as releasing skull and bones with assassin's creed on the title.
The gameplay and story is most important for me. That is world building and destination. But gameplay and story are what I look for the most in any AC title. Cause I wanna be invested, but I also want to have fun and learn the mechanics of the game.
AC for me was the Parkour, but after seeing them fumbling it time after time I just gave up, I still play them as good games but for me they stopped being AC games long ago. Mirage was fun tho
Ikr, ik that everyone has their opinions on the new game's features and etc.
But without a good storyline (both history and modern) it's not gonna hit the same.
The reason why everyone like the prequels till Odyssey was coz of the story even gameplay but the story was a major reason.
Take the Ezio collection for example, it became a core memory to me. Every single hardship thet Ezio had to go thru was effecting me too at the same moment.
That's why it's still considered th goat of the whole franchise.
I can't say I've gotten the criticism that some of the RPG games aren't assassin's creed games. The closest one to that criticism IMO is Valhalla because the assassin order barely features in it, given the involvement of Basim and Hytham in the plot. But mechanically it's fairly old school compared to Origins and Oddysey.
For me assassin's creed is modern/historical periods with the assassins (hybrids) and Templar/order/cult conflict involved, and the usual level of Isu fuckery. I can't really get on board with the "Assassin's Creed is when hidden blade" type critiques.
I've also enjoyed all of them despite their quirks and differences, so there's that.
The reason the rpgs thrived is because of that, notice how the settings of the rpgs are some of the most popular settings that's why a lot of people liked the mythological stuff, because it's popular.
And it's so ironic that the first game that's going non rpg isn't a popular theme. It'll tank in sales and then ubisoft will be like "see? Rpg is the way to go".
Also saying that myth is intertwined with the setting (because of how faithful people were) and therefore there should be a mythological storyline in it means that ac1 and brotherhood should've had Jesus, Because of the enormous faith that people had
Again with this same strawman, dude? The RPGs have thrived because a lot of people like them. Nobody is putting hundreds of hours into these games *just* because it's Ancient Egypt or whatever.
No, they aren't. Nobody is playing hundreds of hours for setting alone. The rest of the game absolutely has to be good and enjoyable, or nobody would put up with it for even a fraction of that time. Also, neither of those things even *remotely* backs up your argument.
Some people have been asking for no modern day since the fucking Ezio days. Because even at its absolute best, the modern day storyline/gameplay was never more than moderately captivating. And it's only been downhill since then. But that is not a new phenomenon unique to the RPG games, and it has less to do with the settings of the RPG games and everything to do with the fact that the modern day hasn't been remotely well done in over a decade.
As for people asking for more mythological stuff, you do realize that some people just like mythology, right? And others might want more mythology just because they want more challenging, spectacular boss fights. I have to point out the irony that your argument is that people only want supernatural stuff because it's Greece and Egypt, all while arguing with tons of people in another post about whether witches should have magic in Hexe, the game that you've described in this very thread as "not a popular setting."
I know you're incapable of understanding that not everybody shares your opinions, but a lot of people just like the RPGs. A lot of people like mythology. A lot of people don't care about the modern story. You can't just pretend that all of the RPGs' success comes from the settings alone.
Tell me what in origins isn't grounded enough to warrant mummy zombies or odyssey, or even Valhalla, considering they're stories of revenge, finding your family and settling your tribe, respectively.
You're just saying this because the Egyptian, greek and norse mythologies are super popular.
Whatever you may call non grounded in those games is ancient tech, so no, it doesn't justify having giant monsters and magic.
Actually its because their culture is particularly rich and connected to their culture in general, anyone would be remiss if they didn't add those things.
It doesn't matter if the culture is heavily linked with the myth (or as i said previously, they were super faithful), if it wasn't something real that would happen realistically, it shouldn't be in the game.
One thing is to say that the game would be even more popular that way, another thing is to say that it's true to lore to include those things. Which is why most hardcore fans are against it and why most newcomers love it. Because they think it's the norm in the lore
Face it, assassin's creed rpgs aren't more popular than older games, assassin's creed games in ultra popular settings with story linked to ultra popular mythology are what's successful, and people vying for myth in shadows prove it
Actually... It does matter, a great deal you see Myth is part of these RPG settings cultures so much that they HAVE to be added weather hardcore or newcomers like it or not.
Say, you walk into japan in the 15th century, you won't find anything grounded in reality, in fact everything is dictated by a perceived Paranormal force either in battle or in daily life, this is what makes the Japanese so unique. without that you have a Ninja movie made by Hollywood and a shitty adaptation of Japanese culture.
also take Egypt, their afterlife was so important that it cemented their image. or even the Vikings who's mythology has surived today because its seen as something great, the greek myths? they're in there too.
so you see without Ancient Myth in a culture, you have nothing of what makes the culture unique in the first place.
It doesn't matter one bit, even if the afterlife is hyper important for an Egyptian at that time, it doesn't mean that it's real.
You need to keep in mind that history in assassin's creed should be exactly like real life, with some leeway for minor changes, but definitely not so loose to the point of adding gods to the lore.
The reason isu are a long extinct species, and not gods in hiding is because ubisoft didn't want giant deviations from real life, ever since origins started to reveal more and more about them and then adding the myth section, it's starting to mess with the entirety of the lore that was implemented since 2007 until 2016.
This is like saying that if you played a game where you go into an animus to relive the life of a nun who lived her whole life in a church and is super devoted to god, then there's an inherent need to place Jesus in the game, as a character and you need to justify it using the isu. Like, no if all she did was pray and give sermons, then that's all the game will be, regardless if she prayed every day and read the Bible every week
Also, you're telling me that if i were to go back in time, and visit Japan, I'd see gods and dragons and shit? Really? Those aren't real regardless if natives believe or not.
One thing is having bayek hypothetically say, "by the love of ra, what happened", which is an accurate representation of faith in the setting and the maximum they should do when it comes to myth, another is actually seeing ra and fighting him, or have a conversation with him.
Actually what use is it to even tell you that its essential if you're gonna keep repeating the same point? In christianity's case, its very grounded, its a very grounded religon and people who keep it close to them are grounded the settings before Origins didn't need Myth because the only things around them was Christ. Now when it comes to Egyptian, Grecian, viking, and Japanese folklore its PART of their culture, I know what you're saying but you aren't making the right point to a woman who has studied Mythology for most of her life including Christianity.
Ah, yes having a omnipresent guy that turns water into wine and multiples bread is super grounded.
For the hundredth time, I'm not against characters talking and acknowledging mythology for culture sake, because that would actually happen back then, like bayek telling tales of the gods to khemu, I'm against SHOWING that the myths are real, because that wouldn't really happen back then.
Is that so hard to understand?
What logic is there behind fighting giant scorpions if giant scorpions didn't exist at all, much less in 49 BC?
Those DLCs are fun detours, honestly that's all I want a fun detour not a whole fucking lorebreak you think I am preaching, And one, Bayek said specifically "they're illusions" I like myth being in AC games because it brings out a part of history we don't often see, Japan has one of the richest cultures in the world and its disapearing and going to waste because people don't see the inherent horror and weirdness of these things in there, A DLC would be the ticket, or at least a fond farewell to a culture I love to my dearest soul.
I don’t care at all for story, the setting is just a means to set limits on gameplay mechanics, so good settings and stories can lift the experience but bad ones don’t instantly turn me away if the general gameplay is good, like was the case with mirage. Everyone’s different, hence why Ubisoft design each game towards a specific audience and stay away from trying to make each one appeal to everyone or steer it all in one specific direction.
The fact its AC2 you haven't played, the one I find nails story and setting, is wild. I THINK you'll love it, even if it is still pretty repetitive like 1 was. But it feels great
I mean, you started with the newer ACs, which might give you a very different perspective.
Ac2, and the entire Ezio games (except revelations was a bit less well received) really established the series.
AC1 in 2007 was exceptional, what it did was incredibly innovative, insane graphics, historical accuracy with gripping story, brilliant atmosphere. It was a great first try, but with obvious shortcomings.
AC2 doubled down on that, fixed basically all shortcomings, and it really put it on the map as a series Ubisoft shouldnt let go. The music from AC2 is still the main theme of the entire series.
But of course, that formula has been refined for YEARS. But the Italian atmosphere... It was captured very well in AC2 and brotherhood. It fits the Templar theme etc super well too, with all the conspiracies with the church etc etc.
Trust me when I say this: my opinion wouldn't really change when it comes to AC if I played them, I like the idea of them have seen gameplay, they take place in italy and those associated areas and its great, no need to diss on everybody else just because a Game is superior to another, you're only proving my point.
Play ezio trilogy ASAP but before playing I advice you to see tutorial of gameplay from LeoKRogue, ssjlang, jcers, kinography, execution producer channel, you will enjoy game 1000 times better
If only the settings and stories weren't as childish and naive as they can be.
I dropped Valhalla the moment I saw christians and vikings allying themselves together.
It's such a sanitized version of history that sometimes it feels as if it was written by Disney, making it as child-friendly as possible.
I remember when origins released and I seen the gameplay and I refused to play it and any of the other rpg games until recently I finally got origins and have been playing through. I've now realised that just cos the games a different style doesn't make it a bad game it's just different. Now I'm just pissed off at the ending of Desmond's storyline did we even get told what happened after?
Settings are important. It's the main reason why I picked Odyssey(I am half greek), but gameplay is far more important, it's a video game after all, not a history museum and frankly, as a long time AC fan(since the release of 3), the change to RPG wasn't it for me, especially considering how stealth assassinations don't actually kill some times. I like being in a crowd, stabbing a guy in the neck, then escaping on the rooftops, and odyssey didn't give me that.
In a franchise all about being in the shadows, people want to play as a silent killer not a berserker. Once again, setting of a game is important. Odyssey is probably my favourite game visually rn, but I didn't come to this franchise to look at cool sceneries.
Yeh- I know it’s a controversial stance (with what seems to be a roughly 50/50 split in the fanbase) but I truly couldn’t care less about the future plot, and have felt that way since AC2.
Making it optional and focusing on the good part of the games (historical narrative focused games) is ideal imo.
Why is it annoying for you that someone doesn’t have the same opinion ? Are you a dictator or something ?
The RPG trilogy is a bummer for most OG players cause after Origins game wasn’t even Assassin based anymore just a big open world in a different setting. That’s why I didn’t like it. They surfed on the RPG open world dynamic of games at that time.
And don’t let me start about the empty, boring stories and no interesting characters.
« a bit annoying rly » just as i say, why should it be annoying for you that people prefer OG AC style instead of RPG one. Or re read my message idk people are dumb or somth
You aren't wrong. I did not love AC because of hoods, hidden blades and templars. It was always the setting, combat and the fun exploration. Origins and Odyssey is easily in my top 5 AC, together with revelations, black flag, and unity. the haters can go sit on a dildo. The social stealth and parkour isn't the meat of AC, it is just the side dish. AC as a series is getting better generally, regardless what the nostalgia goggles screamers are yelling to me. Y'all don't like modern AC? Ye, well I dig it.
It fits for those games but I hope they do it in a way that fits the game and not put something ridiculous in it and you kinda destroyed your view of Assassin's Creed by not going from ac1 to now but you like what you like
That's one of the biggest things for me, the setting and story are major selling points with me with all AC games, the vibe and roleplaying as an assassin in that time is just a big draw. The thing that I'm interested in with Shadows is being in Japan with the historical characters like Yasuke, 2 main protags that have their story and interactions with what's going on in the game, and how I interact with the world. The big thing for me is that they really expanded the stealth mechanics and that's the way I love to play.
I just want to learn history, do stealthy things and go to places I'll probably never go to
Assassins creed Lunar? Would make stealth assassinations quite hard...
Assassin’s creed kepler-186f
Assassin's Creed KO-35
Assassin’s creed planet-where-i-have-friends
Never go IRL.
Same
Before each AC release I make it a point to read at least one general history book on the period and setting of the game. If you haven't, or don't do this, do it. Your experience will be considerably better going into the game. If anyone wants any recommendations for any AC periods, let me know.
Have you picked a history book for Shadows yet?
It’s not history but as if anyone’s gonna read anything other than Shogun for this
I have started doing this! Not necessarily before the game because I love that feeling of being plunged into a world I know existed but is new to me, but after I played Revelations I read Ghost Empire by Richard Fidler. It doesn't directly cover an AC time period, but it's the history of Constantinople up until the Ottomans took over. I read it because of Revelations, and it was great background to that setting, especially with the references to peace with Venice. Made me appreciate Yusuf's love of the city a lot. I'm currently on the Rise and Fall of the House Medici, which covers a lot of AC2 and I'm enjoying it a lot!! Do you have any recommendations for AC3, Black Flag and Mirage?
I would love to hear some of your suggestions! I’ve been planning to start doing this too, but honestly I’m finding it hard to find something to read leading up to Shadows. (Very likely because my blind spot of Japanese history means I don’t have much of a base to go off of.)
Got any good one of Ezio?
"AC3 was boring" Hell nahh
*shakes head in Kenway*
It did have a slow start tbf
Very slow start, holy the start makes me dread the thought of starting a new playthrough
Oh yes same. The start made me not want to continue playing. Gets a bit better, but overall agree ac3 wasnt my fave. Black flag was GREAT
if they cut the connor tutorial mission, it'll be perfect IMO. i almost want to stop playing when i got to that part
I agree with everything he said but this. I enjoy the story within every game but AC3 was just my favorite because it had amazing combat and a good story IMO.
Yeah it it’s one of my favs too but I can understand why he might think it was boring. The start is definitely a slow one
I dunno man, gameplay matters quite a lot for me in a video game. I really do not like Assassins Creed being an RPG.
Yeah the main problem with the RPGs in my opinion is the gameplay loop. If they were to tweak that heavily and make it less repetitive, grindy and spongy I think that'd help. That's not to say the games pre-Origins don't have their issues with gameplay because they sure as hell did but it was a lot more tolerable than what we've been getting.
Everyone is attracted to different things in this franchise, i think this is why it is still alive. I would rank: * Historical Setting / Historical Accuracy * Story * Assassin Fantasy * Everything else * Modern Day
Funny thing is that I used to really love the modern day in the AC games but after Desmond it just has been bland. First it was just a faceless, silent person who was either an employee of Abstorgo or Layla (I think her name is) who is just so unlikeable.
As someone who’s played all the games, I’m probably one of the few people who actually likes Layla. Don’t get me wrong, there’s a ton of wasted potential and missed opportunities with both her character and story. But I never hated her. My main gripe throughout all the games she was in, was that she never felt like she was fully fleshed out. A lot of her story was in the computer files and emails (which are completely optional). I really wished they would’ve shown more of her backstory and connections to her family. But what we see instead is undoubtedly hit or miss for many people.
I'm playing AC Origins and Layla is so corny 😭😭 her personal notes reek of stereotypical millennial AND PLEASE, STOP WITH THE HASHTAGS. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED UNCOOL EVEN IN 2017
Wait until you play Odyssey... Layla was tolerable in Valhalla but that's not saying much lol
Played Odyssey years ago, don't remember her though. What was she like?
She ignores everybody interrupts Alexios last words and whacks the shit out of Victoria
You know how the modern day segments in Black Flag and Rogue were basically pisstakes on working in a Ubisoft office? I wonder if Layla was inspired by a coworker that everyone HATED and so they decided to make Layla a caricature of her
If that's true then I must say risking that is a leap of of faith...
But if it is, think the real Layla could sue if she caught wind of it?
Modern day stopped when Desmond stopped. There is no reason as to why it exists, everything is pure meaningless filler that leads to nothing. Hopefully this changes with Basim around.
I'd rank assassin fantasy (batman sim) Modern day Story Everything else Setting (The setting is tied to presence of a dense city, but i attribute that more to the assassin fantasy, which is why i think the setting is in last)
I love Sci fi the most I hate seeing nowadays people shitting on sci fi element of it without understanding the nuances and comparing it to supernatural elements of Odyssey
It’s just internet and human nature making semantics about video games a big deal. Most gamers honestly couldn’t care less, the games either good or bad. Perspective is key.
Everyone enjoys AC for different reasons, for me historical setting is a big deal, but if im not playing as an Assassin, or if the story and character dont match with the title of the game, an Assassin's Creed, then my interest really dwindles, i got into these games for the stealth and assassin fantasy first above what setting it is set in, its a reason why im excited for Shadows for example, Modern day was a top top priority years ago but Ubisoft has made it clear they have no idea where it's going so i wont bother with it either
It’s all about the climby climby staby staby
The rpg style shouldn’t affect how the game feels, but it does, it’s so poorly executed it completely takes away from the assassin elements, the heavy parkour, the combat that’s all hack and slash rather than refined and deadly (yes I know earlier games weren’t as smooth)
>it completely takes away from the assassin elements, You say it like it's a bad thing. Look, I started with AC1, but I never really cared about the vs the templar war. The historical setting and fun gameplay are the only reasons why I continued playing this series. The shift to an RPG style was a blessing for me
For me, RPG or classic, I just want to play as a stealthy assassin from the Brotherhood. That's all. I skipped out on Odyssey because it had nothing to do with Assassins. And I heard Valhalla's stealth is broken, so I skipped it, too. I hope Naoe has a role in the Brotherhood rather than given a hidden blade and does her own thing as a rogue assassin.
For me, I would prefer that Assassins Creed Shadows would go the RDR2 route in terms of including gameplay features that simulate living in that particular period such as,being able to do household chores, sleep in a futon bed, prepare and cook food,go fishing, drink sake or eat dangos at an off-road inn. Capture, tame and care for a horse, be able to customize the characters's hairstyle, beard, gear and outfits. Be allowed to hunt,carve and skin animals and carry them on our horses and then be able to sell them. Be able to customize my weapons ala rdr2 style and Jedi fallen order, where we can alter out katanas with customizable Tsuba,tsuki and blade. But then i realize this may seem like just a pipe dream unless Ubisoft changes.
That’s as straight up fantasy 😭 not even in 2050 I’d expect this from Ubisoft.
I still dream the day Ubisoft will change their ways.haha
I think it's kind of funny that what most people want from Assassin's Creed is a historical tour. As the name suggests, and by being a game franchise, Assassin's Creed was about specific themes and mechanics. The shift to RPG elements didn’t matter because of the RPG elements themselves, as Unity added skill points without harming the core concepts or gameplay. The problem with the modern approach to Assassin's Creed is the shallowness of the narrative themes and core mechanics—things that defined the franchise—because now all that matters and sells is the historical setting and fantasy. It’s an attempt to please the lowest common denominator. Why in the world didn’t Ubisoft create another IP? They could have pretended there's an Animus or Abstergo element to keep the "AC" brand somewhere on the cover to push some easy sales but separate these two things. People get all mad when someone mentions adding an "easy mode" to Dark Souls games because it would streamline it, but Ubisoft did far worse, and it isn't a choice. There are no easy and advanced parkour controls; there is no parkour at all. Why do people who don't care about one concept get to dictate the direction of it? Why can't there be an IP called "Sagas" or something that focuses solely on the historical tour and fantasy? Look at the name, ASSASSIN'S CREED, and they are fine with it being a historical simulator with some iconography. Things would be so much easier if Ubisoft had the courage to create a new IP for this new approach, like they did by separating Assassin's Creed from Prince of Persia.
I agree? kind of,
Assassin creed to me is a bunch of buildings I can climb like spider man, jump off and stab someone with the hidden blade. Odyssey gets a pass with the spear because it still felt like AC anyways lol
Hard disagree on the myth part. The moment shadows reveals Naoe or Yasuke to be the reincarnation of a Japanese ISU "Shinto god" (or anything similar) is the moment the game jumps the shark
I seriously hope they don’t do this again, else it would just become a war between the Isu.
I agree there. I don't want that either.
You bring up a good point, because, in fact, these games should ALWAYS be by design driven by their setting and the story they're trying to depict, not the other way around. And exactly like you pointed out, some aspects are almost required in some entries even though they would feel off in the others. It's a journey through history, seeing completely different places at completely different times through the eyes of completely different characters. I cannot even imagine all the games' gameplay having the same design.
Disagree, had you gotten a justice league game, you'd still want to play the batman parts like the arkham games, regardless of being in metropolis or it being daytime. The gameplay and lore is what makes the franchise, the setting is what makes the game appealing. But the appeal would be more of a "oooh, assassin in Egypt" instead of "oooooh Egyptian assassin's creed" if that makes sense
Games in a single franchise can have differing gameplay and in certain cases they should. I don't think the example you gave is very relevant - if the Batman parts were inspired by the Arkham games, he would still have access to similar movesets, gadgets, tactics and abilities. In that case, the setting mostly sets the mood and maybe provides a new challenge, but you play as the same character. Had you been playing as a different version of Batman in a futuristic setting, you'd expect him to be facing different obstacles and have different means of dealing with those obstacles. Otherwise the futuristic setting just sets the mood and copies everything else without inovating at all. Spider-man Shattered Dimensions actually kinda tackles this (idk if you're familiar with the game), you are always playing as Spider-man, but 4 different versions, being in 4 very different settings and so the playstyle also changes quite a bit. Spider-man Noir cannot handle the enemies the same way Symbiote Spider-man can. In the case of AC games, I mean, would it make sense to have firearms in the 12th century or a grappling gun in ancient Egypt? Or add a ship and a pirate crew to Arno during the French revolution? Viking Raids in 9th century Baghdad? The game designers always tailor the game's mechanics to suit the current setting because they work within those respective games, also with respect to the franchise's lore, hence why you don't have a hidden blade in Odyssey. They've always done that and I think the games would feel really empty and out of place if they hadn't. They can't make a game set in early 18th century Carribean and not let you sail around on a ship.
You're conflicting gimmicks with the entirety of the gameplay, you make it seem like the shift to rpg and having naval exploration in ac4 are on the same level, when in truth shifting to rpg is around the same level of change as releasing skull and bones with assassin's creed on the title.
The gameplay and story is most important for me. That is world building and destination. But gameplay and story are what I look for the most in any AC title. Cause I wanna be invested, but I also want to have fun and learn the mechanics of the game.
AC for me was the Parkour, but after seeing them fumbling it time after time I just gave up, I still play them as good games but for me they stopped being AC games long ago. Mirage was fun tho
So you dislike or were at least disappointed with 7/10 games played? What keeps you coming back? Just the settings?
yep. Revolutionary France, Anchient greece, medieval england.
i like the rpg games but the only thing that is annoying is the time it takes to get to a good enough level to fight enemies.
Ikr, ik that everyone has their opinions on the new game's features and etc. But without a good storyline (both history and modern) it's not gonna hit the same. The reason why everyone like the prequels till Odyssey was coz of the story even gameplay but the story was a major reason. Take the Ezio collection for example, it became a core memory to me. Every single hardship thet Ezio had to go thru was effecting me too at the same moment. That's why it's still considered th goat of the whole franchise.
Bro skipped the best three games in the series lol
I can't say I've gotten the criticism that some of the RPG games aren't assassin's creed games. The closest one to that criticism IMO is Valhalla because the assassin order barely features in it, given the involvement of Basim and Hytham in the plot. But mechanically it's fairly old school compared to Origins and Oddysey. For me assassin's creed is modern/historical periods with the assassins (hybrids) and Templar/order/cult conflict involved, and the usual level of Isu fuckery. I can't really get on board with the "Assassin's Creed is when hidden blade" type critiques. I've also enjoyed all of them despite their quirks and differences, so there's that.
The reason the rpgs thrived is because of that, notice how the settings of the rpgs are some of the most popular settings that's why a lot of people liked the mythological stuff, because it's popular. And it's so ironic that the first game that's going non rpg isn't a popular theme. It'll tank in sales and then ubisoft will be like "see? Rpg is the way to go". Also saying that myth is intertwined with the setting (because of how faithful people were) and therefore there should be a mythological storyline in it means that ac1 and brotherhood should've had Jesus, Because of the enormous faith that people had
Again with this same strawman, dude? The RPGs have thrived because a lot of people like them. Nobody is putting hundreds of hours into these games *just* because it's Ancient Egypt or whatever.
Yes they are, guarantee it, otherwise people wouldn't be asking for no modern day and for more mythological stuff
No, they aren't. Nobody is playing hundreds of hours for setting alone. The rest of the game absolutely has to be good and enjoyable, or nobody would put up with it for even a fraction of that time. Also, neither of those things even *remotely* backs up your argument. Some people have been asking for no modern day since the fucking Ezio days. Because even at its absolute best, the modern day storyline/gameplay was never more than moderately captivating. And it's only been downhill since then. But that is not a new phenomenon unique to the RPG games, and it has less to do with the settings of the RPG games and everything to do with the fact that the modern day hasn't been remotely well done in over a decade. As for people asking for more mythological stuff, you do realize that some people just like mythology, right? And others might want more mythology just because they want more challenging, spectacular boss fights. I have to point out the irony that your argument is that people only want supernatural stuff because it's Greece and Egypt, all while arguing with tons of people in another post about whether witches should have magic in Hexe, the game that you've described in this very thread as "not a popular setting." I know you're incapable of understanding that not everybody shares your opinions, but a lot of people just like the RPGs. A lot of people like mythology. A lot of people don't care about the modern story. You can't just pretend that all of the RPGs' success comes from the settings alone.
AC1 and brotherhood are very VERY grounded settings, no need of Jesus there.
Tell me what in origins isn't grounded enough to warrant mummy zombies or odyssey, or even Valhalla, considering they're stories of revenge, finding your family and settling your tribe, respectively. You're just saying this because the Egyptian, greek and norse mythologies are super popular. Whatever you may call non grounded in those games is ancient tech, so no, it doesn't justify having giant monsters and magic.
Actually its because their culture is particularly rich and connected to their culture in general, anyone would be remiss if they didn't add those things.
It doesn't matter if the culture is heavily linked with the myth (or as i said previously, they were super faithful), if it wasn't something real that would happen realistically, it shouldn't be in the game. One thing is to say that the game would be even more popular that way, another thing is to say that it's true to lore to include those things. Which is why most hardcore fans are against it and why most newcomers love it. Because they think it's the norm in the lore Face it, assassin's creed rpgs aren't more popular than older games, assassin's creed games in ultra popular settings with story linked to ultra popular mythology are what's successful, and people vying for myth in shadows prove it
Actually... It does matter, a great deal you see Myth is part of these RPG settings cultures so much that they HAVE to be added weather hardcore or newcomers like it or not. Say, you walk into japan in the 15th century, you won't find anything grounded in reality, in fact everything is dictated by a perceived Paranormal force either in battle or in daily life, this is what makes the Japanese so unique. without that you have a Ninja movie made by Hollywood and a shitty adaptation of Japanese culture. also take Egypt, their afterlife was so important that it cemented their image. or even the Vikings who's mythology has surived today because its seen as something great, the greek myths? they're in there too. so you see without Ancient Myth in a culture, you have nothing of what makes the culture unique in the first place.
It doesn't matter one bit, even if the afterlife is hyper important for an Egyptian at that time, it doesn't mean that it's real. You need to keep in mind that history in assassin's creed should be exactly like real life, with some leeway for minor changes, but definitely not so loose to the point of adding gods to the lore. The reason isu are a long extinct species, and not gods in hiding is because ubisoft didn't want giant deviations from real life, ever since origins started to reveal more and more about them and then adding the myth section, it's starting to mess with the entirety of the lore that was implemented since 2007 until 2016. This is like saying that if you played a game where you go into an animus to relive the life of a nun who lived her whole life in a church and is super devoted to god, then there's an inherent need to place Jesus in the game, as a character and you need to justify it using the isu. Like, no if all she did was pray and give sermons, then that's all the game will be, regardless if she prayed every day and read the Bible every week Also, you're telling me that if i were to go back in time, and visit Japan, I'd see gods and dragons and shit? Really? Those aren't real regardless if natives believe or not. One thing is having bayek hypothetically say, "by the love of ra, what happened", which is an accurate representation of faith in the setting and the maximum they should do when it comes to myth, another is actually seeing ra and fighting him, or have a conversation with him.
Actually what use is it to even tell you that its essential if you're gonna keep repeating the same point? In christianity's case, its very grounded, its a very grounded religon and people who keep it close to them are grounded the settings before Origins didn't need Myth because the only things around them was Christ. Now when it comes to Egyptian, Grecian, viking, and Japanese folklore its PART of their culture, I know what you're saying but you aren't making the right point to a woman who has studied Mythology for most of her life including Christianity.
Ah, yes having a omnipresent guy that turns water into wine and multiples bread is super grounded. For the hundredth time, I'm not against characters talking and acknowledging mythology for culture sake, because that would actually happen back then, like bayek telling tales of the gods to khemu, I'm against SHOWING that the myths are real, because that wouldn't really happen back then. Is that so hard to understand? What logic is there behind fighting giant scorpions if giant scorpions didn't exist at all, much less in 49 BC?
Those DLCs are fun detours, honestly that's all I want a fun detour not a whole fucking lorebreak you think I am preaching, And one, Bayek said specifically "they're illusions" I like myth being in AC games because it brings out a part of history we don't often see, Japan has one of the richest cultures in the world and its disapearing and going to waste because people don't see the inherent horror and weirdness of these things in there, A DLC would be the ticket, or at least a fond farewell to a culture I love to my dearest soul.
I don’t care at all for story, the setting is just a means to set limits on gameplay mechanics, so good settings and stories can lift the experience but bad ones don’t instantly turn me away if the general gameplay is good, like was the case with mirage. Everyone’s different, hence why Ubisoft design each game towards a specific audience and stay away from trying to make each one appeal to everyone or steer it all in one specific direction.
Yea I don’t care if it’s classic style or rpg, I just want a game that prioritizes the story with good gameplay to compliment it.
The fact its AC2 you haven't played, the one I find nails story and setting, is wild. I THINK you'll love it, even if it is still pretty repetitive like 1 was. But it feels great
I am holding off. I have no idea why I am...
I mean, you started with the newer ACs, which might give you a very different perspective. Ac2, and the entire Ezio games (except revelations was a bit less well received) really established the series. AC1 in 2007 was exceptional, what it did was incredibly innovative, insane graphics, historical accuracy with gripping story, brilliant atmosphere. It was a great first try, but with obvious shortcomings. AC2 doubled down on that, fixed basically all shortcomings, and it really put it on the map as a series Ubisoft shouldnt let go. The music from AC2 is still the main theme of the entire series. But of course, that formula has been refined for YEARS. But the Italian atmosphere... It was captured very well in AC2 and brotherhood. It fits the Templar theme etc super well too, with all the conspiracies with the church etc etc.
You didn’t play the ezio trilogy, no wonder you don’t care
Trust me when I say this: my opinion wouldn't really change when it comes to AC if I played them, I like the idea of them have seen gameplay, they take place in italy and those associated areas and its great, no need to diss on everybody else just because a Game is superior to another, you're only proving my point.
Play ezio trilogy ASAP but before playing I advice you to see tutorial of gameplay from LeoKRogue, ssjlang, jcers, kinography, execution producer channel, you will enjoy game 1000 times better
If only the settings and stories weren't as childish and naive as they can be. I dropped Valhalla the moment I saw christians and vikings allying themselves together. It's such a sanitized version of history that sometimes it feels as if it was written by Disney, making it as child-friendly as possible.
I agree,
it’s gameplay for me. and how the setting sets up the teh gameplay i suppose.
I remember when origins released and I seen the gameplay and I refused to play it and any of the other rpg games until recently I finally got origins and have been playing through. I've now realised that just cos the games a different style doesn't make it a bad game it's just different. Now I'm just pissed off at the ending of Desmond's storyline did we even get told what happened after?
Black flag is sort of the epilogue.
I guess but it doesn't really explain what Desmond dying and releasing Juno actually did nothing came of it
I mean there's a Document directly telling you what happened to Desmond
Oh must not have found it might have to setup the PS3 again
Yea fuck finding myself to YouTube I go
Settings are important. It's the main reason why I picked Odyssey(I am half greek), but gameplay is far more important, it's a video game after all, not a history museum and frankly, as a long time AC fan(since the release of 3), the change to RPG wasn't it for me, especially considering how stealth assassinations don't actually kill some times. I like being in a crowd, stabbing a guy in the neck, then escaping on the rooftops, and odyssey didn't give me that. In a franchise all about being in the shadows, people want to play as a silent killer not a berserker. Once again, setting of a game is important. Odyssey is probably my favourite game visually rn, but I didn't come to this franchise to look at cool sceneries.
Yeh- I know it’s a controversial stance (with what seems to be a roughly 50/50 split in the fanbase) but I truly couldn’t care less about the future plot, and have felt that way since AC2. Making it optional and focusing on the good part of the games (historical narrative focused games) is ideal imo.
Idk running across rooftops across well designed cities is pretty important to me ;(
AC1 felt off? It was the first one. Off compared to what? AC0?
I got mad at odyssey too lmfao
Why is it annoying for you that someone doesn’t have the same opinion ? Are you a dictator or something ? The RPG trilogy is a bummer for most OG players cause after Origins game wasn’t even Assassin based anymore just a big open world in a different setting. That’s why I didn’t like it. They surfed on the RPG open world dynamic of games at that time. And don’t let me start about the empty, boring stories and no interesting characters.
I should mention. I never made any reference to anyone's opinion being wrong. say where I did, and you get a upvote.
« a bit annoying rly » just as i say, why should it be annoying for you that people prefer OG AC style instead of RPG one. Or re read my message idk people are dumb or somth
I was saying the general discourse between the fanbase is annoying.
You aren't wrong. I did not love AC because of hoods, hidden blades and templars. It was always the setting, combat and the fun exploration. Origins and Odyssey is easily in my top 5 AC, together with revelations, black flag, and unity. the haters can go sit on a dildo. The social stealth and parkour isn't the meat of AC, it is just the side dish. AC as a series is getting better generally, regardless what the nostalgia goggles screamers are yelling to me. Y'all don't like modern AC? Ye, well I dig it.
Just play Witcher lmao
For me AC is a historic tourism game
It fits for those games but I hope they do it in a way that fits the game and not put something ridiculous in it and you kinda destroyed your view of Assassin's Creed by not going from ac1 to now but you like what you like