Assassin's Creed thread

  • 🔎 If you see an alert for analytics.usips.org, this is a self-hosted system I am running as a test. It is GDPR compliant and collects no invasive information.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Chiyome apparently joins the templars in ubisoft canon. Wasn't one of the mainstream ones tho.

Who tf knows what characters will appear in this game though. There's such a large pool of historical characters to choose from.
 
I expect day one mods to color correct the nignobi.
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
I liked Ghost of Tsushima but it's hardly a replacement. That was just one island, had a variety of environments, but still one island. Major point of Assassin's Creed, for me anyways, is historical tourism. I'd want to see at least a major city like Kyoto and preferably a full map of Japan in miniature like the Egypt, Greece, British Isles, or Caribbean we've gotten.
Click to expand...
problem is ubisoft has one good idea (education mode) and then have to fuck it up, and at the very least inject their pozzed shit into it.
 
I've bought every main AC game so far, even the shitty RPG ones with retarded combat and mechanics, just because I like the scenery and the stories etc.

I won't be buying Niggers Creed Red. Ubisoft is fucking retarded for this and I hope it's the worst selling game of all of them. It's legitimately not even that there's a nigger protag - Freedom Cry was a fun expansion and I liked Adewale, his character made sense.
Niggers in Japan running around as expert ninja make no fucking sense. Yes I'm aware of the "Yasuke" thing, I don't care. Make it with Japanese protags or shove it up your woke rotpockets, ubisoft.
 
Started taking my Rogue break because the game is okay enough to finish but too mediocre to play continuously to end without stopping for other stuff. Got to the Albany part. I'm really not seeing the cult classic that the fans saw. It seems like people were just so hyped about Black Flag they'd suck off anything with that brand of gameplay. It's fun, sure, I like the North Atlantic, but I really don't like the River Valley. They weirdly smashed together the Hudson River and St. Lawrence River watersheds, jumbled it all up like a bunch of islands in a big lake, and then played down the Indian stuff while adding in uncreative "gang" stuff that plagues every open world game (muh bandits). I'm not a fan of New York, either. I don't know what it looked like in real life but my recollection of AC3's rendition of it was that it was a lot more realistic feeling than Rogue, Rogue is set several decades earlier and yet it feels like a city already industrialized, even having early proto-factories. Was it so big in the 1750s?

Great-Lakes-St-Lawrence-River-basin.png

This could have been a much better map for the "inland" portion of the game. Nobody really fought on it with ships (well, for one, there's a giant fuck-off waterfall, Niagara, that pretty well prevents that), but heck, it could have had two ships in the game, and riverine warfare wasn't much of a thing either. Just have the seven great waters, a wide swathe of Indian country in a state of war, Montreal, and say some five-ish major landmasses (Upper Peninsula, Lower Peninsula, Upper Canada, Lower Canada, Iroquois Country). War canoes would have been cool.

The North Atlantic map was also sort of weird. I was curious enough to go look up each location on it and map it out on Google Maps. It turns out they were pretty much on the money with it, and it plays well, it's accurate but stylized like Black Flag is. But there's a strange fantasy world in the northeast corner. It seems that what they really wanted was to have a zone themed like polar exploration, but couldn't fit it in properly. One location corresponds to Labrador. It would have fit well with a third map based on the Hudson Bay and Baffin Islands.

Ubisoft could have made a much better game than they did. It's just a shame, because the Ezio Trilogy (II and Brotherhood, I didn't play Revelations), III, Black Flag, and Unity were all awesome, but then you've got this one really mediocre one (and the production value of it with things like voice acting and plot is bottom of the barrel) standing out, rank, among them. Syndicate didn't come out great either, but at least it had a genuinely fantastic world. Truth be told, AssCreed may have whored itself too much, but I don't think they ever put out a straight up bad game.
 
So far, all the AssCreed games I've played (with exception of the Ezio trilogy) have one fatal flaw - they cram so many side activities (especially, as I've noticed with Origins), that I actually get used to the gameplay loop and I start to notice all the downsides of the game. This leaves me with a bitter aftertaste, as they could've otherwise gotten me to like the game much more otherwise.

Is it really going to be worse in Odyssey and Valhalla?
 
Vince McMahon said:
So far, all the AssCreed games I've played (with exception of the Ezio trilogy) have one fatal flaw - they cram so many side activities (especially, as I've noticed with Origins), that I actually get used to the gameplay loop and I start to notice all the downsides of the game. This leaves me with a bitter aftertaste, as they could've otherwise gotten me to like the game much more otherwise.

Is it really going to be worse in Odyssey and Valhalla?
Click to expand...

The ratio of main to side content in both games is preposterous. If you didn't like that stuff in the OldCreed games, don't even bother with the new ones.
 
So, I've played several of the AssCreed games myself; 3, 4, Rogue, Unity, Origins, and to some extent, Odyssey. 3 wasn't all that great in my opinion, but I still had some fun with it. 4 and Rogue were the ones I enjoyed the most, and playing as a pirate/privateer was a blast. Unity was alright, and I'm actually planning on giving it another shot before I really give my final verdict, but so far it's been lukewarm; not bad, but also not my favorite. Origins was... fairly solid, but it didn't exactly feel like an AssCreed game. Same with Odyssey.

So, I have my eyes on the Ezio Trilogy, Syndicate, and Valhalla as my next potential AssCreed games. I admit, I tend to enjoy both the historical settings and the gameplay more than the overall story, so... how do the above games compare? From what I've heard, the Ezio games tend to have a solid story and apparently good gameplay, but how have they held up for modern systems? Valhalla seems like it's a good Viking game, which I am admittedly somewhat interested in, but it's a poor Assassin game and apparently has a lot of wokeshit thrown in. Syndicate I haven't really heard much about; some are saying it's apparently pretty good, but others are saying that it's extremely bad.

What are you guy's thoughts on these games?
 
Scream Aim Fire said:
So, I've played several of the AssCreed games myself; 3, 4, Rogue, Unity, Origins, and to some extent, Odyssey. 3 wasn't all that great in my opinion, but I still had some fun with it. 4 and Rogue were the ones I enjoyed the most, and playing as a pirate/privateer was a blast. Unity was alright, and I'm actually planning on giving it another shot before I really give my final verdict, but so far it's been lukewarm; not bad, but also not my favorite. Origins was... fairly solid, but it didn't exactly feel like an AssCreed game. Same with Odyssey.

So, I have my eyes on the Ezio Trilogy, Syndicate, and Valhalla as my next potential AssCreed games. I admit, I tend to enjoy both the historical settings and the gameplay more than the overall story, so... how do the above games compare? From what I've heard, the Ezio games tend to have a solid story and apparently good gameplay, but how have they held up for modern systems? Valhalla seems like it's a good Viking game, which I am admittedly somewhat interested in, but it's a poor Assassin game and apparently has a lot of wokeshit thrown in. Syndicate I haven't really heard much about; some are saying it's apparently pretty good, but others are saying that it's extremely bad.

What are you guy's thoughts on these games?
Click to expand...
The fact you don't like 3 already shows you have shit taste, and it and Unity are the closest to a normal Assassin's Creed experience, so going off that you wouldn't like the Ezio games as much. Rogue is actually trash, it's just trash that has to suffice because they never made any other Black Flag-like games. But the Ezio games - moreso II and Brotherhood - are generally considered top quality. Wide variety of maps (in those days they didn't really have the overworld maps like the Frontier and Caribbean, but you got more small cities to go with big ones), gameplay wasn't quite as corrupted with power creep and dumbed down, especially the parkour (you actually had to find a way up a tower). You can collect artwork, the brotherhood in Brotherhood is the best implementation of that mechanic (you train up assassins you save into super elites and send them on missions). There's a lot of missions that involve exploring monumental, fantasy-like environments that take advantage of the Renaissance architecture. I haven't played them again since I did as a teen but they were good at the time. Unity felt the most like them.

Syndicate was a decent game in some regards but it had very little history and was very bland/soulless in a lot of ways. The core combat has no weight to it. There was still some value in its novelty, London is portrayed well, the carriages and trains are fun sometimes.
 
Scream Aim Fire said:
So, I've played several of the AssCreed games myself; 3, 4, Rogue, Unity, Origins, and to some extent, Odyssey. 3 wasn't all that great in my opinion, but I still had some fun with it. 4 and Rogue were the ones I enjoyed the most, and playing as a pirate/privateer was a blast. Unity was alright, and I'm actually planning on giving it another shot before I really give my final verdict, but so far it's been lukewarm; not bad, but also not my favorite. Origins was... fairly solid, but it didn't exactly feel like an AssCreed game. Same with Odyssey.

So, I have my eyes on the Ezio Trilogy, Syndicate, and Valhalla as my next potential AssCreed games. I admit, I tend to enjoy both the historical settings and the gameplay more than the overall story, so... how do the above games compare? From what I've heard, the Ezio games tend to have a solid story and apparently good gameplay, but how have they held up for modern systems? Valhalla seems like it's a good Viking game, which I am admittedly somewhat interested in, but it's a poor Assassin game and apparently has a lot of wokeshit thrown in. Syndicate I haven't really heard much about; some are saying it's apparently pretty good, but others are saying that it's extremely bad.

What are you guy's thoughts on these games?
Click to expand...

At least go back to 2 and Brotherhood, they were the best in the series. 1 is little more than a tech demo. Constantinople in Revelations is a boring city, and I didn't like where they expanded the gameplay, primary on gadgets. Syndicate is basically a more refined Unity, so since you liked the bit of that you played I'd rec that over giving Unity another go.

Valhalla is the purest distillation of everything everybody hates about Ubisoft they could have made. 95% of the game is bloat. The game's most boring character is the one you're interacting with at the moment. You'd probably more pissed off than drawn in by the setting, because they do nothing with it.
 
No idea why I can't reply to you, @Super Hans v2, but... thanks for the input. I'll certainly be picking up the Ezio trilogy sometime; the Collection is available on PS4, so I'll give them a look when I can. Also, thanks for the recommendation on Syndicate; I admit, I'm still a little bit on the fence about it, but I'll reserve judgement until after I give it a shot.

Disappointed about Valhalla, though; I admit, I think a Viking Assassin game could have been done well, but a lot of the shit I've seen about it only makes it look bad. Sad, but what can you do?
 
White Devil said:
Stopped reading after this because it shows you are legitimately retarded. The only good thing about 3 was the axe kill animations.
Click to expand...
Frontier exploration with big caves and tree climbing
Forts and battles
Warships
Musket bayonet combat, axes, clubs
Could start riots in cities
Could lynch redcoats
Brutal double kills
Interesting setting rarely if ever explored in video games

There are lots of reasons to like Assassins Creed III.
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
Frontier exploration with big caves and tree climbing
Forts and battles
Warships
Musket bayonet combat, axes, clubs
Could start riots in cities
Could lynch redcoats
Brutal double kills
Interesting setting rarely if ever explored in video games

There are lots of reasons to like Assassins Creed III.
Click to expand...
The only reason to like 3 would have been if you were Haytham the entire game. Haytham was like a 1700s Darth Vader just going around wrecking shit.
 
Ughubughughughughughghlug said:
I liked Connor okay but he was a bit too angry and one note.
Click to expand...
I didn't like Connor at all, he was one of the worst and one dimensional protagonists of the whole series. That being said, this argument has been done to death. The setting for 3 was cool, it was just everything else they did with it that sucked.
 
Last edited:
@Scream Aim Fire What put you off Unity, was it glitches? It seemed like I had the best luck in the world that my first play through was one of the most STABLE games I ever played, but when I started up (didn’t get far in) a second it was way less stable.

It had some flaws, but all told it was about the only pre-RPG game with any challenge in its combat and handled really well I thought with wonderful scenery. But I hated that they took all the interesting events and missions and made them co-op.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom