Assassin´s Creed III

[Anno_Domini]

Yah, his accent was different in Chronicles, Bloodlines and in AC1. I prefer the AC1 though, and the major consoles will actually be keeping that continuity as the same guy who voiced Altair in AC1 will be voicing Altair in Revelations.

 

[DACrowe]

I'll say this about AC1--it was a much better game in 2007 and 2008 than it is now. I was first attracted to the game because of the Crusades setting, which I still believe holds a wealth of potential that Ubisoft barely scratched the surface of (compared to how well they've mined the Renaissance for AC2 and ACB). Setting it during the Third Crusade was a stroke of genius and it was visually beautiful just a few years ago. This generation, including its sequels, has moved past it.

However, it was a redundant game for its time. There was no other game like it and the setting, as well as Altair himself, made most gamers finish it with mixed reviews, but it was still a compelling game. I'd still give it an 8/10 today. It's just that so many jumped on board with AC2 (the best in the series still, IMO) which lived up to the franchise's potential. That was a truly great game. Now, those who play that and then Brotherhood get around to the first non-Ezio game and are turned off after the first hour due to the repetition. While frustrating when the game first was released, the qualities of the controls, gameplay, story and visuals compensated. But with two games that vastly improve the gameplay already released, I cannot go back and play AC1 beyond maybe a few of my favorite assassinations (the big guy in Damascus, William de Montferrat in Acre and the archer guy on the boat in Acre). So, I understand the contempt newer gamers have for it.

I'll put it this way, AC1 was basically a demo of what the series could be and you had to be there to see why it was so great. Now we have the "real" games in AC2 and ACB. So much so, AC1 goes from being flawed, but very fun to being just a chore. Even so, I enjoyed that game so much in 2007 that I cannot join the bashing it now constantly receives. I think after AC3, Ubisoft should return to the Crusades at some point and try to do it better. Just my opinion.

 

[Anno_Domini]

AC1 can also be compared to Halo:CE. Graphics improve, and even though Halo went from Xbox to Xbox 360, graphics and gameplay can change within one generation console as well. And I wouldn't mind for a special edition of AC1 later down the line as well.

 

[ProjectPat2280]

AC1 can also be compared to Halo:CE. Graphics improve, and even though Halo went from Xbox to Xbox 360, graphics and gameplay can change within one generation console as well. And I wouldn't mind for a special edition of AC1 later down the line as well.

AC1 was always deemed a gorgeous game, there isnt any argument to the visuals. AC's problem was the structure. Ubisoft learned and we ended up with the amazing AC II and AC:Brotherhood.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Oh no, I was mostly mentioning a special edition with added tasks. Plus, even if AC1 being a very beautiful game, there was some aspects with the models of the characters that didn't look so beautiful. But, then again, Lucy never looked right, especially in AC2.

 

[SpideyVille]

I think the character models in each game have been the weak points in terms of graphics. The environments have been stunning, but the characters themselves aren't up to par compared to where most games are today, and I wonder if it has anything to do with how the games are released a year at a time. Aside from the environment and new weapons, I didn't feel like I was playing a new game with Brotherhood and it looks to be the same case with Revelations.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I don't think there should be an excuse of the face models between AC1 and AC2 because there was a two year difference. And, Lucy actually looked her best in Brotherhood. So maybe they're just a bit flukey when it comes to the characters.

 

[Paradox1]

I think the character models in each game have been the weak points in terms of graphics. The environments have been stunning, but the characters themselves aren't up to par compared to where most games are today, and I wonder if it has anything to do with how the games are released a year at a time. Aside from the environment and new weapons, I didn't feel like I was playing a new game with Brotherhood and it looks to be the same case with Revelations.

Its the game engine they are using which is the same from Ac2 or one I'm not sure when they started using the current one. In theory the same model you see in the CGI renders is the same model from the game. The only difference is the polycount. For CGI renders you can really have the poly count extremely high compared to a game engine.When they create a new game engine or make some adjustments to the current one you'll see a better result. From what I understand they already have with the face scanning tech that was recently used in LA. Noire.

Besides they have to be in compliance with PS3 and Xbox standards for the best use on their system. Which is already out of date compared with the newer graphic cards and processors currently on the market.

 

[SpideyVille]

Its the game engine they are using which is the same from Ac2 or one I'm not sure when they started using the current one. In theory the same model you see in the CGI renders is the same model from the game. The only difference is the polycount. For CGI renders you can really have the poly count extremely high compared to a game engine.When they create a new game engine or make some adjustments to the current one you'll see a better result. From what I understand they already have with the face scanning tech that was recently used in LA. Noire.

Well yeah, that's what I mean. The game basically looks the same because it seems like they are just tweaking and updating what they already have. I mean I just replayed 2 for the first time since before I got Brotherhood, and I really kept confusing certain parts of the game and story between the two because they both look and play the same.

I mean, I like how it felt starting off AC:B right where ACII left off and feeling familiar with the environment and controls, but I hope that by the time AC3 comes how it'll feel different and new, otherwise I'll just feel like I'm playing an extended DLC version of the game, which is what had me upset when I finished Brotherhood.

Besides they have to be in compliance with PS3 and Xbox standards for the best use on their system. Which is already out of date compared with the newer graphic cards and processors currently on the market.

True, but I mean you can look at a game like Uncharted which had stunning visuals in the first one because they almost maxed out the PS3's power. Yet, somehow they managed to improve it a great deal with the second, and even now with the third there's talk of how they managed to improve it even more.

 

[Paradox1]

The difference between Uncharted and AC graphically is the open world vs level based gaming. Level based gaming should be a step higher graphically because the engine isn't making as many calculations for renders, physics and etc.,etc. On the next console you'll see a big jump in the graphics for AC but for now they are only going to slightly better with each installment.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Revelations has a whole new animation system in this game.

 

[Paradox1]

you mean the full scan facial animation system which was used in La Noire?

 

[Wolvieboy17]

I don't know if it's that intensive, but they announced it a while back as a new feature.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Finished AC, and I've now started ACII. Already, ACII is AMAZING!!!

 

[Wolvieboy17]

Aw man, you don't realise how lucky you are.... That cliffhanger ending in AC was unbearable at the time! Being able to go straight to 2.... man, like I said. Very lucky.

I remember playing through AC a second time and just scrutinising over every single eagle visiony detail in the Abstergo lab, desperately trying to find some sort of clue or ANYTHING as to what happens next. Of course, stupidly, the biggest clue being Lucy's missing finger was actually there, all along, throughout the whole game. Man I love this series.

Actually getting my little sister (17) an xbox this weekend and helping her set it up and AC is going to be her first game. She played a bit of it with me a few months ago and was hooked. It's going to be cool to be the outside eyes, seeing her go through the game for the first time

 

[Anno_Domini]

I remember punching my 360 after seeing the ending of AC. Luckily I didn't break it. The console is definitely a fighter. Got punched and got water on it and I have yet to get any red circles on the power area.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

You punched your xbox? Maybe you need to play more relaxing games, like Viva Pinata :P

Although, still....... "Gahhhhhhhhhhhh, f***ing snake eating my candy toads!!!!!"

 

[Anno_Domini]

Viva Pinata? Like the cartoon?

 

[Spidey-Bat]

You're supposed to throw the controller, not punch your TV. They're more durable and cheaper to replace.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Not my TV. I said CONSOLE.

 

[Brother Jack]

The ending to the first Assassin's Creed was complete garbage. Fortuneately, they've gotten better at actually giving the games appropriate endings since then.

 

[Anno_Domini]

A game doesn't need "appropriate endings" if it's not going to be just a one and done game.

 

[Brother Jack]

A game doesn't need "appropriate endings" if it's not going to be just a one and done game.

The games are apart of a larger narrative yes, but they also tell their own stories and those deserve some sort of conclusion.

 

[Anno_Domini]

But Altair was very different than Ezio. He didn't need a clean cut ending for his part because his life was meant to be mysterious. Having Ezio search for answers on Altair is enough(with the Codex and then in Revelations).

But the whole Desmond finding out that someone is on his side and then receiving that Bleeding Effect ability...those were nice cliffhangers. AC didn't need a straight forward, giving you answers kind of ending at all.

 

[Brother Jack]

But Altair was very different than Ezio. He didn't need a clean cut ending for his part because his life was meant to be mysterious. Having Ezio search for answers on Altair is enough(with the Codex and then in Revelations).

But the whole Desmond finding out that someone is on his side and then receiving that Bleeding Effect ability...those were nice cliffhangers. AC didn't need a straight forward, giving you answers kind of ending at all.

Correct, but it did need an ending of some kind. Just having Desmond stare at a wall and cut to credits wasn't enough; it wasn't even really an ending. I'm fine with ambiguity regarding Altair, but the thread with Desmond was the worst kind of cliffhanger.