It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Bloat(59 posts)(59 posts)
(59 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Posted January 06, 2013
The best thing about AC 3 is by far the MP. Honestly, what Ubisoft put out there in terms of gameplay, story, presentation and simply awesomeness is impressive.
Posted January 06, 2013
avatar
StingingVelvet: That's what it has become, IMO. Sending assassins across the world, tower defense, naval combat, crafting and hunting... it's all mini-games, or at least things well outside the realm of stabbing dudes and exploring ancient Jerusalem, which is why I loved the original.
Agreed. I must admit that I was also part of the crowd that complained about AC1 being too monotonous but heck, my real problem was that already in the first game there was too much sidequest shit that follows a few simple and boring patterns - if the game had just been the main missions with this great writing and taking place in these beautiful locations it would have been perfect, the same way Mafia was a brilliant game without being bloated with optional bullfuckingshit. But of course the brilliant solution the designers came up with was adding even more non-sense based on simple recyclable patterns - instead of just focusing on the part that everybody loved: the plot-driven action.

I mean, AC1 was a great plot-driven action game (although it could have done even better) but a horrible sandbox - so it obviously owed its success to the plot driven stuff. So why on earth would those fucktards think that investing so much time and effort into elements that only distract from the game's best features would improve it???

avatar
SimonG: The best thing about AC 3 is by far the MP. Honestly, what Ubisoft put out there in terms of gameplay, story, presentation and simply awesomeness is impressive.
I hope this time they wouldn't get an F in geography. It's the only thing I really know about any AC's multiplayer. :P
Post edited January 06, 2013 by F4LL0UT
Posted January 06, 2013
avatar
F4LL0UT: I hope this time they wouldn't get an F in geography. It's the only thing I really know about any AC's multiplayer. :P
That isn't part of the MP ;-P.

But AC multiplayer (havning finished AC:R multiplayer and currently playing AC III MP) is really well done. Surprisingly so. And they interview it with the storyline brilliantly.
Posted January 06, 2013
avatar
SimonG: That isn't part of the MP ;-P.
Oh, okay, either facts were mixed up in the review where I read about this for the first time or my mind did so all by itself. Both things are just as plausible. :P

avatar
SimonG: But AC multiplayer (havning finished AC:R multiplayer and currently playing AC III MP) is really well done. Surprisingly so. And they interview it with the storyline brilliantly.
Sounds good but by the time I pick up any AC with a multiplayer mode the servers will either be empty or dead (and I just presume that you can't simply host a private session with friends on a LAN - how I miss those days...).
Post edited January 06, 2013 by F4LL0UT
Posted January 06, 2013
avatar
F4LL0UT: Oh, okay, either facts were mixed up in the review where I read about this for the first time or my mind did so all by itself. Both things are just as plausible. :P
To be fair, I made the exact same mistake while actually playing AC SP. Never understood that "sending Assassins away" concept properly.
Posted January 06, 2013
While I haven't played the games you mentioned but I totally agree with your point. "more content" or "more stuff to do" definitely lowers the gaming experience per hour if those content are blend/bloat. It was alright at one point in gaming where people only had a few games to play and people would always complain about a game been too short. But playing some of the games from that era I always felt developer added content/mission for the sake of adding more hours to the game rather than to improve the games (for example I would have given 8/10 to a recent rts I played instead of 7/10 if it cut its 24missions to 12 mission.). In today's situation where most gamers have like huge backlogs add bloat to make games last longer is totally unnecessary and lower overall true joy per hour (some may feel good because they got "better value").

So IMO with few exceptions of grand games most games would be more enjoyable if they were shorter and cut to their core/best parts.
Posted January 07, 2013
avatar
StingingVelvet: That's what it has become, IMO. Sending assassins across the world, tower defense, naval combat, crafting and hunting... it's all mini-games, or at least things well outside the realm of stabbing dudes and exploring ancient Jerusalem, which is why I loved the original.
I agree that tower defense style missions and naval combat missions are annoying distractions in games that aren't tower defense games or naval combat games, if they are mandatory for the story to progress. That's why I don't think Saint's Row 2 is a good game - it forces you to do several mini-missions to earn "points" so you can unlock progress in the main story. However, as optional side missions they can sometimes be a nice change of pace, and you can choose which ones you want and don't want to do.

However, it wasn't naval combat and tower defense I missed in AC1. It was more varied mission locations. For example, let me sneak into a ship to kill the captain, and on the way there, have me steal a key from someone or blow up a lock or something. You know, just make the missions more... missiony.

Oblivion actually had a few pretty cool assassination missions. In one of them I had to kill a dude and make it look like an accident (, so no stabbing, that never looks like an accident), and in another I had to sneak into a house and kill the people in there without any of them seeing me killing any of the others.
Posted January 07, 2013
avatar
Reveenka: However, it wasn't naval combat and tower defense I missed in AC1. It was more varied mission
locations. For example, let me sneak into a ship to kill the captain, and on the way there, have
me steal a key from someone or blow up a lock or something. You know, just make the missions
more... missiony.
Exactly. But for some reason the developers interpreted all the complaints on any AC game that said "it's too monotonous/repetitive!" as "fuck the plot-driven missions, give us more random sidemission shit!". God, such stupidity makes mo so angry...
Posted January 07, 2013
avatar
F4LL0UT: Exactly. But for some reason the developers interpreted all the complaints on any AC game that
said "it's too monotonous/repetitive!" as "fuck the plot-driven missions, give us more
random sidemission shit!". God, such stupidity makes mo so angry...
Actually, they put optional stuff on top of some very improved main story missions. The only mandatory part is the tutorial of said optional missions. Doing them makes the game easier, but AC games are very easy to start with, so that really isn't a concern.

Personally, I hated the TD games and hardly did any. While naval combat in AC III is awesome. Similarly I completely avoid the weird crafting stuff. I make more than enough money with hunting, which is fun.

People fail too understand that this optional stuff is only important for achievements and some ingame "cheating". (Somewhat related to the weird OCDs were people need every coloswap DLC to have a "full game feel).

My main gripes with AC III are the buggines, the weird story and the weak characters. If they would have took the mind numbing repetitiveness of AC I into the mix, I wouldn't bother with the game at all.
Posted January 07, 2013
avatar
F4LL0UT: Exactly. But for some reason the developers interpreted all the complaints on any AC game that
said "it's too monotonous/repetitive!" as "fuck the plot-driven missions, give us more
random sidemission shit!". God, such stupidity makes mo so angry...
avatar
SimonG: Actually, they put optional stuff on top of some very improved main story missions.
Well, perhaps it's true by now. As I mentioned before, I quit the series during AC2 where I felt that the main missions had not improved since AC1 at all. I felt that the only attempt at improving the original game was through ridiculous amounts of repetitive optional stuff. Well, guess I'll have to give it another try - but only once I've beaten Arkham City which in my opinion is a perfect example of how AC should have been done.
Posted January 07, 2013
avatar
F4LL0UT: Exactly. But for some reason the developers interpreted all the complaints on any AC game that said "it's too monotonous/repetitive!" as "fuck the plot-driven missions, give us more random sidemission shit!". God, such stupidity makes mo so angry...
That tends to be the problem, yes. Instead of making a game consisting of a great main story and cool side missions, developers often implement side missions instead of improving upon the main story. I haven't played any of the AC sequels, but I get the impression that that's what has happened there.

EDIT:
Totally unrelated, but what's up with the quoting system today?
Post edited January 07, 2013 by Reveenka
Posted January 07, 2013
avatar
F4LL0UT: Exactly. But for some reason the developers interpreted all the complaints on any AC game that
said "it's too monotonous/repetitive!" as "fuck the plot-driven missions, give us more
random sidemission shit!". God, such stupidity makes mo so angry...
Exactly.
Posted January 26, 2013
Necroing this for another thing: Collectibles. Seriously, why do they have to push it with them? It was bad enough when Max Payne 3 had a story that pressed you to rush and save the lady, while at the same time encouraging you to explore the level to find the golden weapons. But now... Brothers in arms??? I'm supposed to look for the three killroys on each level, on a game meant to display war realistically and make me care for the characters? For real?
Posted January 26, 2013
avatar
StingingVelvet: The first game I played when I got home from a year overseas was Assassin's Creed 3. I was in the mood for it. I posted a couple days ago that it was fucking awesome in the beginning. And it was to some extent, very impressive visuals and the early missions had some traditional AC gameplay that was great.

Now though, now it is terrible. Why? Bloat.

Endless side stuff. Mini-games, collections, whatever. It goes on forever, it never ends. I don't mean normal side quests that use the normal game mechanics, those are fine. I mean the completely new mechanics they introduce or focus on every five seconds that totally take away from the core game experience. I already thought the AC2 games were bad at this but AC3 takes it to a new level. I am finally at the point where it is done making me do random side bullshit and can just run around the city killing fools and climbing buildings... it took me NINE FUCKING HOURS to get to that point.

Consumers seem to want this. AC1 focused on the core gameplay and people called it repetitive. GTA4 removed the bloat that was in San Andreas and people said it was boring. People seem to want endless side distractions that puff a 12 hour game up into a 40 hour game.

I do not. I miss games that didn't have all the bloat taking away from what they were really about and really good at.
I am sorry to say this,but I rather take bloat over Tacked- On multiplayer. But anyways bloat is just another way to Increase the Replay Value of games, it is very, very difficult to release a AAA game that does not have these things.

Why else Half-Life 3 is not made yet, the only way for it to be made is too tack-on Co-Op or make it a Far Cry 3 clone.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Bloat(59 posts)(59 posts)
(59 posts)