Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
^Doesn't change the fact that Valve is on a game ending in 2 with every single IP they own.
Also I think you're taking it more seriously than we are ;P
Valve games are srs bzns
Might make a longer post later, but the short version is that I think it might be my favorite game in the series so far.
Also, the series might be in my top five of all time.
I can't really comment on it overall, but my early impressions are that I don't like the changes they made to the PC control system and they forgot how to make tutorials not suck.
On the plus side, the hook blade is pretty cool.
Also, I felt like the tutorial stuff didn't drag on as long as it did in Brotherhood or 2.
There were a lot of little things that added up to making gameplay a lot more fun, though. Hookblade is the obvious one, since longer grab reach and faster climbing and hook-and-run and ziplines are awesome.
I liked that I could go anywhere in Constantinopole from the start. One of the most annoying things in Brotherhood, IMO, was how I was constantly running into big white walls when I was busy trying to collect or explore.
The fact that you could go on missions with your Assassins went a long way to making me actually feel like the Grand Master and a mentor. And leveling the recruits didn't feel nearly as grind-y.
Bombs were a lot of fun, and plenty useful.
You can get maps of the collectibles, so that's not really as much of a chore if you want to go down that rabbit hole.
Den Defense or whatever was really stupid, but I never had to play it after the tutorial, so it didn't bother me. Plus I can sort of see what they were going for, even if it kind of sucked in execution, and I can't really fault them for trying something different.
Also Janissaries are like the worst enemies ever. Absolutely no fun to encounter.
Also the story was probably my favorite, too. The stuff with the sultan and Prince Ahmet was pretty interesting but really nothing too special (more interesting than Brotherhood anyway), but the Altair memories and Ezio talking to Desmond made everything totally worth it. The Desmond sections were kind of uninspired gameplay-wise, but I really liked getting the info on Desmond's backstory.
A couple really cool set pieces here and there too, dumb dragged-by-a-rope thing notwithstanding.
The music was great too, as always.
True, but in those games it was kinda integrated into the story, while Revelations tends to go "STOP EVERYTHING. Tutorial time."
What's the new control scheme on the console version? Because the new one on the PC version gave me the impression that they dropped the marionette system from the earlier games, which is just kinda depressing to me. But I couldn't tell for sure since that system is pretty much designed around the console controller layout.
Reasons why MC Hammer should not design games.
Left control stick is Eagle vision.
A is fast walk/free run.
X is main weapon (hidden blade, sword, etc).
Y is secondary weapon (gun, darts, etc).
B is basically the hookblade button.
RT still basically acts like a shift key.
LT is target.
LB is call assassins.
RB is to bring up the weapon wheel.
Fuck, I was right T_T
Having Y basically control the head is cool in theory, but having my gun be Y and independent of my sword is a lot more useful in practice than having Eagle Sense there.
Yeah, fair enough, but I really liked the old system.
They could have set hookblade to "off hand while jumping" and secondary weapon to "off hand while in high-profile."
I've said it before and I'll say it again: AC could do without the whole Desmond angle. I think it's perfectly interesting just within the historical bits, and going outside of that to play Desmond's part just feels jarring to me. Like I'm slipping into a different, worse game.
Although the whole AC series feels like it missed a beat somewhere, at least to me. The concept is brilliant, and lots of the execution is great; the music hits its moods gracefully and the results of the visual aesthetic are often stunning. Even the worst moments of gameplay are pretty tolerable, but most of the general playing experience is really smooth.
But that can't hold back the niggling feeling that, underneath all that, there's a little too much crazy under the hood and the games might benefit from being a bit more straight forward. The original AC was repetitive to the point of being boring, which is a shame given that it succeeded on the levels of aesthetic and core gameplay. While the later games went a long way towards fixing this, there was the side effect of shifting our focus on the other flaws -- such as Desmond's dreadfully boring story when compared to a Renaissance assassin who channels even parts Batman, Wolverine and Zorro.
I feel more could be done here. As comparably interesting as the Ezio story is, there isn't much actual assassination going on. For a game about assassins, that's a bit of an issue. As the series progressed, I was envisioning something more akin to a Renaissance tactical insertion game. You know, doing recon and getting the plans of a particular building where a particular person is staying, carefully plotting your course with other assassins and that kind of thing.
Is the story of Assassin's Creed more or less good? Sure. Gameplay? Yep. Music? Love it. Aesthetic? Top-notch. But I think it ultimately fails to transcend and become something that is, to me, highly memorable. There's no doubt it far exceeds the average game out there in terms of quality, and there's some great ideas and creativity that have been put into every iteration. Somehow, though, I don't think it's pulled itself up to the status of a classic. There's just something missing, and I think that thing is ultimately focus. There's lot of characters, a lot of locations, and a lot of story beats, and I don't think they add up as well as the developers thought they would.
Like I said, for a series called "Assassin's Creed", there's not that much assassination. But there's an excess of quasi-time-travelling shenanigans, supernatural queries and managerial considerations. As much as the gameplay of the first installment quickly becomes boring through sheer repetition, I find it the most narratively compelling because of the focus that's missing from the rest of the series. If there's anything disassembling the likes of Zelda, Demon's Souls and Metroid has taught me, it's that video games absolutely thrive on strong focus. It's an absolute credit to Assassin's Creed that it's such an exceptional series of games despite lacking said focus, but it's that lack that keeps it merely exceptional rather than a set of absolute classics.
Or so my thoughts run.
I think they've announced that 3 will end the Desmond story and the series will continue without him from there.
i like the metaplot
Yeah, but if the series gets to 8 games or whatever and we're still doing Desmond's story, it will start being shit at some point along the line.
grrrrrrrrrr
otherwise, i agree. but grrrrrrr
I kinda liked it more than Altair's story, but that's just me. And I only played the one game, so.
Altair's story is probably the worst (relatively speaking) plotline in the series. Ezio is where the non-metaplot stuff really gets good.
Sorry, that was more to Alex than you. I wouldn't want it to go on forever.
yes
I kinda found the game repetitive, so I never bothered to play the later games. People tell me that they're better about it, but the games didn't give me much hope.
All of the other games are pretty much built from the ground up to not be repetetive because that's what people complained about with the first game.
Most people agree that AC was bad and overhyped. I would have checked AC2 but Arkham Asylum was there. And it was beckoning me. I could have bought it instead of Heavy Rain but the film major in me had to check it out.
Ever since then, I have been trying to beat the shit out of that douche.
I...can't say I agree with that. It was definitely overhyped, but if you avoid side objectives and just barrel through it, it's decent.
I don't think the sequel would have sold if most people considered it bad
I think that's broadly true. No doubt you can find exceptions to that, but it's a question of focus. Zelda games, for instance, are so strong partially because each one can be taken as its own complete story as unrelated or as related to the others as you like. The franchise sets down the basic rules and structure, but you're free to interpret each story as you like and experience as a singular narrative entity. This is what largely spares Zelda from serial fatigue.
And then there's things that work so beautiful as a singular release that sequels or other continuations are unspeakable. Take any Miyazaki film -- Spirited Away was fantastic, but a part of the reason why is its nature as a complete story and arc in its own right. I like to think that Chihiro went on to have a broadly happy life, but I don't want that story told to me because, from my perspective as a member of the audience, her character is complete to me.
And then there's stuff that really just outstayed its welcome. Choose a popular shounen manga or anime at random and you'll likely end up with one that moves from one meaningless narrative beat to the next, based mostly on the visceral appeal of graceful violence and attractive women. More locally, the Alien series just keeps hitting rock bottom; I take Alien 3 as a good film, but Resurrection never needed to happen, the Alien vs Predator films sent the series' integrity to hell and even Prometheus was wildly inconsistent and heavily flawed on a writing level. That's not to mention all the comic books and games associated with the franchise, few of which make any meaningful contribution or tell stories of any strength in their own right.
Sometimes, when something brilliant is made, it's best to let it lie. And if that's not going to happen, then there should be an end point in sight that wraps everything up and keeps it consistent.
I want to counter this by saying that Two Worlds 2 sold pretty well, despite the first game being universally regarded as complete garbage, but it seems that I can't find anything about how well it sold that doesn't come from the publisher, who is likely giving inflated numbers...
So nevermind?
True, but Two Worlds sold decently, while AC2 sold really well.
@Alex: But the thing is, the reason why most of those things to fail is not the longevity so much as the loss of focus, as you say. Is it more likely that as something becomes longer, it loses focus? Of course. But that's not a natural and obligatory consequence of longevity. It's the most possible one, true, but not the only possible one. Plus, even then, the new focus can still be resonant and fitting.
So, I've been playing Dungeon Defenders a lot recently.
This game is... some sort of odd combination of a hack-and-slash RPG and a tower defence game. You are given control of one of four classes (the Squire, the Apprentice, the Huntress and the Monk), and told to defend the Eternia Crystals. There's only one in the early levels, but as you get into later levels, the maps get longer, you have to defend more crystals (the last level has you defending three simultaneously, and the bonus level has four), the enemies get stronger, and the enemies get more numerous.
Each class has a unique set of summonable items and abilities that make them feel unique. The Squire has blockades and a small number of turrets; each of his blockades acts as a physical wall, not allowing enemies past, as well as damaging attackers. The Apprentice mostly has turrets, but also a single, low-cost wall that does not damage opponents. The Huntress has traps with a variety of effects, including slowing and damaging enemies, that are detonated either when an enemy walks into them or when a character detonates them. The Monk has a variety of auras with multiple effects (damaging enemies, slowing them down, and the like. My personal favourite is one that turns all monsters within it hostile to other monsters).
It makes each class feel and play very differently, which is good.
The maps get kind of repetitive after a while, but playing co-op, I haven't got bored with it yet, despite being in the end game and just replaying old maps on higher difficulties.
And there are challenges; things like a map where the crystal you have to defend constantly warps around the map, or a level comprised entirely of Ogres (minibosses), or a level in which you just have to kill everything as fast as possible, with no crystal to defend.
It's a lot of fun, really, considering it's such a simple concept.