Assassin's Creed 3! - Page 3

I wish I was a marketer for this game because I'd probably be playing it right now.

Ton of new game play vids on IGN today. These just help confirm that this is truly a Game of the Year contender. October can't come soon enough.

http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/09/24/watch-a-ton-of-amazing-assassins-creed-iii-videos

Holy crap this looks amazing! I wish there were a Pirate game with this kind of graphics and action.

Yeah. I started replaying AC2 this past week in anticipation. Intended to make my way back through Brotherhood, and to give Revelations another shot (didn't like what I played). But by the time I got ten hours into AC2, I realized how idiotic an idea that was. These games are huge.

I may jump ahead to Brotherhood and finish off some 100% sync areas I never got around to. But I think I'm just going to skip Revelations altogether. Doesn't seem worth it. Besides, I don't want to get sick of the series right before AC3 comes out!

Looks to me to be GOTY material. Gonna have to jump into this franchise finally.

I know there's some strife with being able to kill colonials, but damn if this doesn't look like a very interesting take on a time period that is all but absent in video-games.

Do we know if colonial Boston and NY are actually places we get to visit?

(Also hoping Bethesda comes to NE for Fallout 4, as NV was kind of drab and boring.)

I've never been interested in the other two AC games, but the commercials for this one have me intrigued to say the least. And it takes a lot for me to even notice a new game these days, let alone take an interest in it.

I'm pathetic like that.

Out of curiosity, what's kept you from the series this long?

And I don't think many gamers are truly upset about killing colonials. It's not like you go around killing civilians or anything (you're an assassin, not a serial killer). Everyone was a subject of Britain. It was the British fighting the British. I'm sure that's a big reason why the developers chose a mixed-race protagonist--someone who stands both outside and inside the conflict.

I have enormous respect for how the series deals with history, politics, and different groups of people. It's a series about the struggle against all types of oppression, surveillance, and unwarranted policing, irrespective of who's in control. The series is predicated on the idea that the (endless) battle for freedom transcends any particular national, ethnic, or religious creed. Frankly, I'd find it a much more patently offensive game if it singled out redcoats as the only bad guys.

Also, yes to Boston and New York (and Philly). It's going to be awesome.
Edited by confidenceman - 9/25/12 at 9:54am

I know I'm probably in the minority around here on this issue, but as a vegetarian, I'm actually put off by the prospect of killing animals in ACIII. I wouldn't mind so much if it was just one or two little side missions, but from what I've heard, it seems like an integral part of the game's economics (how you earn money to buy upgrades and whatnot). I don't question the realism aspect of including it, given the time and place the game is set. It does make a lot of sense for it to be there. I just personally don't get off on stalking and killing animals for food or sport in games any more than I enjoy killing innocent humans. I hope once the game comes out and I get a better idea of how essential it is to progressing the story, I can pick up ACIII anyway, as I'm big fan of the series (I even liked Revelations!).

With that, I'm actually more interested in Liberation than ACIII, though I don't own a Vita and wouldn't buy one just for one game. I hope Liberation gets ported at some point, though I realize that could be 2-3 years from now if it ever happens.

If you got a problem with killing digital animals, I'm not sure how you're a videogamer. 95% of games involve killing digital people...

I don't think "but they deserved it" is a good rational excuse there. reminds me of the jokes about the poor storm trooper bob just doing his janitorial job on the Deathstar.

Just a thought...

I know it sounds like a strange position, but let's just put it this way, I'm not any more drawn to a game in which my character is required, on numerous occasions, to hunt, kill, and skin a harmless rabbit or a deer than I am to a game where the main character is a serial killer who has to frequently abduct, kill, and dismember small innocent children (not that a game like that exists--just as an extreme example). I just can't disassociate emotionally enough like I can in a kill-or-be-killed situation, as when a main character is defending the interests of innocent people from attacking enemies.

And to make it clear, I'm not saying killing animals is wrong or bad for anyone else (either in real life or video games), it's just something I personally don't enjoy doing.

I got ya. Personally I just find that extra stuff mindless and time wasting, and it doesn't add much to the gameplay IMO. It's the new form of "collect all the items" to pad in additional gameplay hours, taken from the SIM's games to give different objectives and gameplay to draw a different group of gamers. I mean, Skyrims big DLC added a house / homestead too that a good housing keeping gamer can now take care of in the virtual world. If you're going to add hunting, I'd hope it was a bit more like the real thing and not too easy to preform. Battling with a moose hand to hand is a bit, out there!

Good question, without a good answer. I was big into MGS4, and AC hit right around when games started getting good. I did watch a friend play some, but being a trophy whore, and seeing the multiple collection/packages achievements, kinda put me off. They're still on my list / backlog, but unfortunately it;'s just been growing.

You bring up a good point. For a series that has always been good about making every killing have a consequence, it's surprising that they'd be so cavalier--even if it is "just" animals. I've been an off-again-on-again vegetarian for most of my life, so I understand the point (currently, I don't buy meat for my house, and I only eat humanely raised animals sparingly when I go out).

And perhaps even more annoying is to think about why this happens only now in the series. Why is it that when a game depicts a Native American protagonist, hunting animals suddenly gets tossed into the equation? Every culture eats and/or uses the killing of animals for something. It's a subtle kind of racism that people casually use to describe Native Americans all the time (often also perpetuated by native peoples themselves). "You know, they're like native, primitive people, so killing animals is just, you know, a way of life or something. They're more in tune with nature, man."

Knowing the series as well as I do, though, I hope there's more to it than that. For example, I've seen in interviews them talking about how domesticated pigs will wander the city streets (with clipped ears to identify them). So the treatment of animals in AC3 could be part of their overall characterization of early American culture and life--both in the Native and European contexts. Hell, it's possible that you've actually picked up on one of the game's underlying cultural critiques! Anyhow, I'll reserve judgment for when I actually play the game. And you can probably also tell I think about the tiny details in this series a lot. Maybe even too much.

I'll definitely be interested in hearing your feedback, then, on this game, as it sounds like you'll be getting and playing it on day one.

Even if you could chalk the hunting up to a survivalist thing given the setting, like in Fallout 3 or the upcoming Tomb Raider, it does seem odd that there was never any issue of where Altair or Ezio's next meal was coming from. I mean why not just hire thieves or pickpocket to get the resources you need? It worked fine for Ezio. But then again, perhaps, the developers wanted to do something different that was unique to the new setting (the American wilderness that was reputed for having such abundant flora and fauna).

You seem to be following it closely. Is the AC1 "Hardcore" mode making a new appearance in AC3? Everything I've read states it's the only way to play it, and gives off a totally different vibe, because it forces you to make use of the subtle systems they designed the game around originally.

Another way of looking at it is that with the Ezio series (AC2, Brotherhood, and, to a lesser degree, Revelations), they built a sub-system based on the thematics of the game. Buying and trading goods and making money is a key part of what the Ezio games are about. Not only is Ezio the son of a banker, but the entire AC2 series is built around the cultural and historical transformations that banking brought about (colonial expansion, secular law, the seeds of the middle-class revolutions, etc). So even though the buying-selling systems in the game weren't always "fun" or "necessary," they fit well with the character and in the game's bigger themes. Hell, even going back to the first AC, the series was already interested in these massive cultural transformations; the Templars, after all, invented modern banking during the Crusades--which were also a key historical moment in the development of European colonial expansion. And clearly, the same central issues--the rise of industrial capitalism, class revolution, and colonial expansion--will be in play in AC3.

All a long, convoluted way of saying: I hope they've similarly thought through the sub-systems in AC3. Hunting shouldn't just be something "fun to do" if it's anything like the other games. In fact, judging by the other games, it may not even be a very fun part of the game. But I hope it will at least be interesting part of the game and fit into what the game is "about." (As an aside, it's this focus on being smart and interesting rather than fun that I think got the first game in trouble with so many gamers. But they seem to have learned to put the fun stuff front and center, and to relegate the smart, interesting stuff to the sidelines.)
So far, it looks possible. But by the time they got to making Brotherhood, they had figured out how to roll the "hardcore" mode into the main game, and stack the 100% sync idea on top of it. Not sure about Revelations. Only played it for a few hours before giving up. It's clear that the core team went from Brotherhood straight into AC3. Revelations was a collaboration between all the sub-teams, and it shows in the sub-par result. The team hasn't said much about the specific systems in AC3, at least not that I've seen or read.
Edited by confidenceman - 9/25/12 at 2:28pm

Hmm... how about a game like Tokyo Jungle, where you are an animal killing other aniimals?

Only if I could beat the game playing as a Pomeranian or a chick.

I'm fairly certain they stated the core team went to work on this right after AC:2.

The party line is that they started working on AC3 in "January 2010." But production probably ramped up slowly over 2010 and didn't need many people at first. Just pre-production creative work (art, story, etc). Then as Brotherhood got closer to launch, they probably started phasing A-team people over to AC3 production while the army of B-teams finished up Brotherhood (which, as a result, has some ugly performance issues, despite some awesome game design), and then those same B-teams got to work on Revelations.

But there's been so much turnover during the series' development that I'm not sure exactly what it means to say the "A-team." Also, many of the big design leads in the series left Ubisoft to join series creator Patrice Desilets' new team at THQ (I think his non-compete agreement expired in 2010, just as AC3 production was beginning). The only person working in a leading role on AC3 who also worked on the prior games is the lead writer (Corey May). The new creative lead (Alex Hutchinson) worked on Army of Two and Spore. So, honestly, I'm not sure what to expect from AC3. It could be a return to form for the series after the misstep of Revelations, or it could just be another bloated, over-hyped sequel to a series that's already past its prime. I'm hoping that the series has already established so much "heft" that it has a kind of life of its own, so to speak, and makes AC3 good despite any developer shortcomings.

We'll know in a month!

EDIT: A couple corrections. Turns out Patrice left Ubisoft in mid-2010, and his non-compete was up in mid-2011. We also know that a handful of key folks ultimately left Ubisoft to join him at THQ shortly thereafter, and that Ubisoft tried unsuccessfully to sue THQ for "poaching" those employees. After more than a decade working with the same core people (Sands of Time and then the AC series), Desilets had some very loyal talent working for him, and some left Ubi to join him on his new project. Point being, this all happened during that transitional period between 2010 and 2011. So again, not sure who of the truly talented folks from AC1 and 2 are left at Ubisoft working on AC3.

Ugh. I realize now I'm kind of talking myself out of my excitement for the game. Guess if I can manage to lower my expectations, I can be more pleasantly surprised if it's awesome, right?
Edited by confidenceman - 9/25/12 at 10:20pm

^^^ Eh, I don't really care who made it. What I've seen so far looks amazing.

Yeah, I'm a bit of a gaming dork. Like movies, I tend to follow particular studios and creative talent rather than particular genres or series. Usually a game is good because it's made by profoundly talented people, so I tend to follow the people rather than the IP. But sometimes a game is just good because a lot of semi-talented people threw enough hard work into it and a publisher threw enough money at it.

And like I said, the AC series already has so much weight behind it, so much built-up mythology and story, and such great development tools (animation, traversal, environment design, etc.) that it could be good despite any hiccups in its development history.
Edited by confidenceman - 9/25/12 at 11:12pm

I was going to post this one yesterday but now it totally fits in:

http://www.startribune.com/local/165598126.html?refer=y

Not too far out there...and I imagine a moose would end people.

Deer end people. Moose obliterate you.

Grizzlies won't even tangle with one unless it's visible sick, injured or young enough to take.

Moose are the wooly mammoths of the modern age.

Not to get back on topic, but it was just announced an Ezio trilogy is being released for the PS3 exclusively for $39.99 for those who want to catch up on ACII, Brotherhood, and Revelations. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like it includes the DLC for Brotherhood and Revelations (just ACII), and it actually hits stores after ACIII releases on Nov. 13.
http://blog.us.playstation.com/2012/09/26/exclusive-assassins-creed-ezio-trilogy-to-launch-on-ps3/

Maybe they're hoping to sell as many standalone copies of Revelations as possible before AC3.

EDIT: A quick peak at prices around the web shows that surprisingly AC2 is the big bonus in that package. It's the priciest of the three to buy new ($20-30).
Edited by confidenceman - 9/26/12 at 2:58pm

On Amazon the list price for ACII is $19.99 and is currently selling for $17.40; about the same for Brotherhood. Revelations is $25 (list=$29.99).
The trilogy is a great deal any way you slice it, even if you only get the ACII DLC, which normally runs $11, and is pretty decent, though overpriced at that price IMO.

With that said, I think they missed an opportunity by not including all DLC for Brotherhood and Revelations and selling for $60, thereby inducing many current owners of the three games to rebuy.

Just doing a quick average around the net. AC2 seems to be the more expensive of the three. I see AssBro for $10-15 new, Revelations for anywhere from $18-25, and AC2 for $20-30 (maybe because it now includes the DLC?). Haven't checked Steam prices. And didn't most of the AssBro and Revelations DLC involve multiplayer? That might be why it's not included.

Regardless, yes, you save some money by buying all three together (if you need them new), especially for those who have yet to play them.

I couldn't go back to those crowded cities after seeing the frontier's wilderness and more open nature of Boston. It'll be so nice not to feel confined at street level. Although I do hope they find a way to incorporate some platforming levels like the tombs and shrines of the previous games. Those are really fun and remind me of the Prince of Persia days.

Btw, Assbro? That sounds like a porn site. Lol.

That open-ness is a real paradigm shift for the series. No more rooftop-to-rooftop parkour. At least, not as much. They've said that this one is more about how you navigate and sneak through open areas, and larger crowds of people. Hopefully it works. I know I'm ready for something different.

As for "AssBro," when in Rome...