Assassin's Creed [Day 60/72] Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - Sequence 08 - 'Adrift' |
- [Day 60/72] Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - Sequence 08 - 'Adrift'
- AC should take on Ivan the Terrible
- Assassins creed game set during the Mongol conquest?
- My Brief Retrospective of Assassin's Creed 1
- Replaying Unity Years Later.
- My God Damn Lion ate Gotarzes
- Something to Learn From Each Character
- Okay, I just found this weird symbol in Assassin's Creed Syndicate. Does anyone know what this means?
- Assassin's Creed 1 and repetitive content: is it a necessary problem in order to create varied, emergent gameplay?
- An Assassins Creed game set during the Great Jewish revolt against Rome?(66-73 CE)
- Drunks in AC1 are the worst part of a great game
- The Eventuality of Assassin’s Creed Plague
- Black Flag 4 Ending (SPOILERS)
- Imagine the next AC game would have an "Honor system" (RDR2 Spoilers)
- AC game set in 17th Century India would be awesome !
- How do I not be spotted in assassins creed odyssey?
- Time anomalies vs modern day segments
- Please bring back the old combat system
- Is there any way to enable subtitles in Assasin's Creed 1?
- Lynx killing timed questgiver in Hyderabad
- Haven't played since the Ezio trilogy, did they actually abandon the "real" plot to the series?
- Social Treasures For assassins Creed 4 Black flag?
- Assassin’s Creed Set During The First War For Scottish Independence?
- The hidden blade mechanics
- I am confused. Ac odyssey
| [Day 60/72] Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - Sequence 08 - 'Adrift' Posted: 08 Dec 2019 06:00 AM PST AC Marathon 2019 - Day 60Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - Sequence 08 - 'Adrift'Welcome back, Assassins! Sequence 8 is an action packed day, as we will be escaping a burning town in one of the game's most exciting set pieces, and engaging in battle with a slave ship. The sequence ends with us stranded on an island, with Vane gone insane. Today's Target: Charles VaneDAILY OVERVIEW1 - Do Not Go Gently... DISCUSSIONShare your feelings about today's sequence in the comments below. What did you think? Talk about what you liked, what you disliked, and your general thoughts. Feel free to engage with others and ask questions of your own! Being active in discussions will make you eligible for an official Marathon giveaway. More info in the 'Giveaway' section below. Featured Video: Black Flag - Havana Contracts StealthRECORDED PLAYTHROUGHSHere are the playthroughs that Marathon streamers have pre-recorded and uploaded: No HUD Playthrough by /u/MegaBoschi - 1:26:29 WALLPAPERSMake sure to download the official Marathon wallpapers for Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag! Desktop 1920x1080 || Desktop 1920x1200 || Mobile FAN CREATIONSHere is today's Fan Art of the Day for Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. SCHEDULE
GIVEAWAYThis year we are giving away a set of prizes. These include a copy of the new Essential Guide, a digital copy of Assassin's Creed Odyssey Gold for the platform of your choice and an Art Commission done by NightFell. TOMORROWTomorrow, on Day 61 of the Assassin's Creed Marathon, we will be learning Hornigold's secrets and befriending the Sage, as part of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag - Sequence 09! Follow us on Twitter || Follow us on Instagram || Marathon Megathread & FAQ[link] [comments] | ||
| AC should take on Ivan the Terrible Posted: 08 Dec 2019 03:19 PM PST Look, the chances of this happening are pretty slim, but I'd still love to see it happen. During the 1500s, Ivan the Terrible became the first Tsar of Russia. Before and after his rise to power, the courts were flooded with distrust, blackmail, scheming, and most importantly, assassinations. Ivan didn't trust anyone, and for good reason; everyone was trying to kill everyone else, and as the first Tsar of Russia, he was a prime target. But read between the lines, and you have the perfect setting for an AC game. Ivan would make an incredible and memorable villain, one with a tendency not only toward chaos and fear but toward mysticism and magic, making him a perfect fit for the fantastic side of the AC story. You could also easily imply the Templars put him into power, so the Assassins v. Templar plot could work here, too. The setting would be unique. The cities and palaces of the first Tsar would be memorable locales AC hasn't really explored outside of the chronicles, and they're expansive enough that we'd get to see the crummy slums and luxurious palaces for plenty of diversity. The characters write themselves; Ivan's family and fellow politicians were all larger-than-life characters with plenty of diverse personality. The weapons would probably be unique, your abilities could expand to include things like blackmail, poison, and rumor-spreading to add to the political intrigue of the era, and many of the kills you'd complete could be based on real historical assassinations. Again, there are plenty of reasons this won't happen. It'd be a callback to the parkour and stealth-focused games of the past, not the combat-centered titles they've released more recently. It would move beyond epic drop assassinations and blurring swords to politics and conniving. It would be a return to Russia, which they covered in an AC Chronicles game (albeit during the 1900s, 400 years after Ivan the Terrible). It would be a significant jump forward from ancient Egypt, Greece, or Scandinavia. It would require a decent shift toward dialogue and the inclusion of non-blade-based assassinations, such as poison, smothering, faked suicides, and more. It wouldn't include the mythology options of the more recent ancient games. But then again, aren't those all great reasons to do it, too? I'm not saying there's anything wrong with recent titles - I happen to love Odyssey - but maybe a break from magical monsters and brutal weapons would be worth it for the political intrigue of the first Tsar's court. [link] [comments] | ||
| Assassins creed game set during the Mongol conquest? Posted: 08 Dec 2019 05:40 AM PST In my eyes this would be pretty cool, like having it take place in Central Asia opens a variety of possibilities. Key figures such as genghis khan would be nice to see. It's probably never going to happen but what do you guys think of it? [link] [comments] | ||
| My Brief Retrospective of Assassin's Creed 1 Posted: 08 Dec 2019 10:59 PM PST I recently finished up AC 1 on the Xbox One X. I played AC 1 years back on the PS3, and I'll admit that it didn't quite grab me back then. I only went to finish it after I saw how great AC II was. This time around though, I finished it 100%. The PS3 version, and I'm told the PC version, don't have trophies/achievements. The Xbox version does though, and I wanted to clear it. This time around, AC 1 thoroughly grabbed me. I marathon ran it, using this map site to keep track of the metric ton of flags and Templars needed to 100% the game. Yeah, AC is famous for having a lot of collectibles, but there's hundreds of flags and 60 well-hidden Templars to kill. I even had to do a lot of backtracking to find missing Templars. This part wasn't fun. AC scaled back the collectibles in future games, and tagged them on the map (until the Helix shop offered those maps for a price, that is). The gameplay does show its age. Combat is tricky. People claim that 'counter kill is OP', but not so with this game. Enemies, even regular ones, can steam-roll late game Altair if given the chance. They can get through the block to do some damage. The actual knights are difficult to take, which is why the last fight has Altair taking on a whole group at once. I'll admit, I ran in circles while waiting for my health to regenerate. Parkour is fun as always, but I ran into these parts while climbing, thinking to myself "Ezio could make that leap climb no problem". The story missions involve investigations, to get intel on the target, then the assassination itself. You need to do 2 or 3 out of 6 before the assassination mission unlocks. I did the full investigation, which was cool. Gather intel before going in. Most are eavesdropping, pick pocketing, or interrogations, but there are these informer parts where you either need to take out some targets without getting caught, sometimes with a time limit, or 'capture the flag' in a time limit. Those weren't fun, especially if a target is in an area where you just left bodies and the mission resets if you get caught. I actually had to leave the animus and go back in to get that area to reset. The world itself is great to look at. It's large with interesting areas to poke around in. Masyaf's garden area is beautiful. That view is incredible. Kingdom is great to look through too, but by end-game, guards come after you en mass, and for no reason. Xbox One X upscales the graphics, which I quite liked to see. It's a beautiful, if a bit dated, game. We need that remake. The story is still cool though. That holds up. Altair starting off as a reckless punk and slowly becoming the master we know him to be. Al Mualim's boss fight is still epic. Desmond's time in captivity, talking to Lucy and poking around the office, opening up more places to look like the conference room and the laptops is interesting. That adds to some lore. Warren Vidic is a grade A d-bag though. Lucy is definitely Project Siren though. Looking back, she's really good at lying. All said, Assassin's Creed 1 does show its age, but it's still a great game to play. It's the first game in a legendary series. If you're going for 100% and all the achievements, use a guide. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 08 Dec 2019 05:52 PM PST I recently got a computer upgrade, so now my computer can run Assassins creed unity: and I forgot how good this game was, I only played through it once. but man Im having a good time with it and enjoying my new graphics card.. the game looks beautiful... its been years since I played this game... it looks like trash on ps4/xbox. but on PC it looks fuckin beautiful [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 08 Dec 2019 09:52 PM PST I went to rescue Gotarzes from the mutiny in Odyssey during the mission "Lost and Found." I had an Alpha Lion named Lionel Messi with me. As I was fighting the mutineers, fucking Lionel and the hapless captain mixed it up. I kept trying to talk to Gotarzes to get him to stop, but it was no use. Lionel scored. Does anyone know how to stop a tamed animal from devouring civilians, or worse, idiot captains with very angry pirate sisters? Any help would be appreciated. Stupid Messi. [link] [comments] | ||
| Something to Learn From Each Character Posted: 08 Dec 2019 11:31 AM PST This franchise stands out to me in ways more than it just being a video game. This will a be a long post so be prepared. Assassin's Creed has always been a video game about two opposing factions vying for control over the course of history. Its been a staple in the industry for a little over 10 years. But that's not what this post is about. This post is about what each character learns and what we as players can learn from these characters. Altaïr learns humility, honour and wisdom. He became a master Assassin a very young age and brought him to arrogance. After breaking the tenants he was put on his path for redemption. In doing so he learns to humble himself, be wiser and more honourable. Ezio learns wisdom. As a young man he was mostly oblivious to his father being an Assassin. As he matured as an Assassin he learns that he wasted his younger years doing many dumb things and learns to value those he cares about and to not become consumed by his vocation as an Assassin, in the end, leaving it all behind. Conner learns patience. While largely oblivious the Assassins, he eventually learns about their history through Achilles and becomes one. Conner always had a hot temper due to his mother dying and his father being the very thing he opposes and his village being sacked. He tries hard to due right but doesn't fully understand the value of patience. By the end he learns patience and that makes him grow as a person and an Assassin. Edward learns humility and empathy. Edward is probably my favorite character. He was a man driven by greed and ambition and glory. So much so he pushed away everyone who ever loved and cared about him. Even admitting it himself, he realized everything he had done was selfish and also realized that everyone he also cared about was gone. He learns humility by admitting his mistakes and works hard to make amends, and empathy for those who still remained after everything was all said and done. Edward probably showed the most growth as a character. They show us man hellbent on glory and money, but then show us the repercussions of that and then show a man who realizes everythe had done and works to make it right. Shay is a hard one. I can't quite find anything he himself learns since he switches sides I can't quite place it. Arno I can't quite say either since I just didn't like Unity. Evie and Jacob learned to value each other since for most of the game they are at odds with each other and learn to work together despite their opposing differences. Bayek is another one of my favorites, but I can't quite pin down what he learns either. Probably leadership and Wisdom. Kassandra and Alexios are also hard ones to pin down too since their personalities are literally shaped by the player.. This is everything I managed to analyze from each Assassin's Creed character. If you think of something the characters learned better drop it down on the comments. I think this will be a very interesting discussion. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 08 Dec 2019 03:01 AM PST
| ||
| Posted: 08 Dec 2019 09:52 PM PST Hi, I run a fledgling YouTube channel called Worthwhile Content, and I'm beginning a retrospective of the Assassin's Creed series. I'm tackling them all in release order, so I've started with the first, and I have some questions for it's community. For me, the biggest hangup I had with Assassin's Creed 1 was repetitive content. It felt like much of its content was copy/pasted throughout its map and many of its missions were extremely similar to each other, like they were popped out of the same mold one by one. At the same time, a lot of the joy of these games is emergent gameplay; the player experiences unplanned "stories" from the way they tackle missions that might be wholly unique from those of any other player. Having repetitive content allows there to be more content in the game, and thus more opportunities for emergent gameplay. However, the repetition still often left a bad taste in my mouth by the end of the game. What do you think is the best balance between creating emergent gameplay and limiting repetitive content? Which Assassin's Creed games handle this issue particularly well? How long would you consider the ideal Assassin's Creed game to be? I appreciate all your feedback, and I'm looking forward to playing the rest of the series! [link] [comments] | ||
| An Assassins Creed game set during the Great Jewish revolt against Rome?(66-73 CE) Posted: 08 Dec 2019 08:58 PM PST During Roman rule over Judea a group of Jewish Zealots known as the Sicarii, Latin for dagger men carried out public assassinations against Roman officials and Jewish collaborators, they were known to dress in plain clothing, utilized concealed daggers, blended in with crowds in order to successfully kill targets and then would disappear into crowds to escape. Given the similarities in tactics between the fictional Assassins and the Sicarii, and how one of Bayek's Lieutenants (Kaywab) mentioned that he was going to Judea to help oppose King Herod(Romes notoriously tyrannical Client King) during the Hidden Ones DLC,(which implies the Hidden Ones were active there around the time period) What do you guys think about the potential for an Assassins Creed game in this setting? [link] [comments] | ||
| Drunks in AC1 are the worst part of a great game Posted: 08 Dec 2019 11:43 PM PST Seriously, fuck these guys. I can hide from guard patrols just fine, but there's literally nothing I can do to stop one of these assholes from shoving me into a guard. It's especially infuriating during informant missions, because those require you to stay undetected. If you get detected, you have to either fight off every guard in the city or spend five minutes running around the map trying to find somewhere to hide, and then you have to restart the whole mission, and you'll probably get shoved and exposed by the same drunk asshole. [link] [comments] | ||
| The Eventuality of Assassin’s Creed Plague Posted: 08 Dec 2019 01:09 AM PST I've been speculating for a few months now that following Assassin's Creed Kingdom/ Ragnarok/ Vikings, rather than move to a far east Asian setting like so many people desire, we'll be seeing a title set in high medieval Europe at the height of the Black Plague. The recent 4chan "leak" or rumor that said Ragnarok's map would be all of Northern Europe also mentioned that the next title would be set during The Plague. While the "leak" is almost certainly fake, I wanted to discuss why I do feel that the Plague will be the next setting after Vikings due to Ubisoft Trends, the inevitable disappointment by Ragnarok, and why we'd see the Plague over other settings. A common complaint about Assassin's Creed Origins was how many players didn't feel like they were in "Ancient Egypt". While the excellent world design felt Greco-Roman and Egyptian, it didn't feel ancient, because it was only 44BCE. When people hear Ancient Egypt they think about 3000bce-1500bce, the building of the pyramids, the great kings of Tutankhamun or the almighty Ramses. I am sure that many players will feel the same way when they hear "Assassin's Creed Ragnarok takes place within the heart of Medieval Europe at the height of the Viking Invasions" (or whatever similar-sounding sales pitch Ubi will obviously say). Since Unity and the famous Battle of Paris sequence, fans have been begging for a return to the medieval period, and showing what Europe was like in the way only Assassin's Creed can. Understandably so, as the medieval periods are fascinating times, that have left fans of the fantasy genre enamored with for years, due to the massive amount of work that takes place in the era. Arguably, fantasy itself - with the mythicization of the Arthurian Legend by Gregory of Monmouth in the 12th century - was popularized and romanticized during the medieval period. I want you to close your eyes for a moment and imagine what medieval Europe would look like. I'm sure most of you thought of large sprawling castles, bustling cities made of wood and stone, upper stories jettying over the sides creating overhangs. Massive cathedrals, rose windows, flying buttresses and arches, knights in shining armor, and princes saving princesses. Maybe even a few of you thought of dragons, trolls, and witches. The truth is that much of that did exist to some extent, and I'm sure most people want to see a historical recreation of it. So when you hear that Assassin's Creed Ragnarok will be in the medieval period, you think about that romanticized fantasy medieval period, and instantly pre-order. But when you buy it and play it, will only be disappointed. See, the Viking era, especially England and Scandinavia which are the rumored settings, was not known for the traditional fantasy tropes. Castles weren't popular in England until the 12th century after William the Conqueror took the crown. While a few motte and bailey castles existed, the traditional Hogwarts or Disney-esque castles didn't exist at all. The Normans had largely been fans of a simple Stone Keep, in which a lone Keep (or Donjon) which is essentially a stone tower sits in the middle of a large bailey (or courtyard) and is often surrounded by some low walls. The Tower of London (or White Tower) is probably the most famous Stone Keep and was commissioned by William the Conqueror in 1067. Eventually, the Keep would be replaced by the Concentric castle that really picked up in popularity in the 12th century. These are your more traditional castles (the Alcazar de Segovia was built during the period and inspired Disney castles such as the one in Cinderella), containing outer curtain walls and extending the main Donjon and defensive towers into the inner walls and fortifications. There are many variations of the design that especially differed by region though. Knights were nearly unrecognizable, being the main calvary for French forces, and were slowly becoming a social class during the Viking era. Cities were mostly small, especially in England, with London having only about 5,000 people. The largest English City was York with about 15,000 people. Paris had about 25,000 people. The largest Scandinavian city was Hedeby with 1,000 people. Cities were only just starting to be built up during the Viking period, with most buildings 1 story tall and generally timber-framed with wattle and daub filling. This version of England and the middle ages sounds tiny and dark, which is partly true. Europe was largely recovering from the fall of Rome and the great migration. It took a few hundred years to recover, which was partly helped by the Viking raids. The Black Plague, however, in the 1340s took place during the 100 years war. Castles were large and being expanded upon due to threats from opposing states. Brittany was in a civil war, France was invaded by England, and the Holy Roman Empire was at war with itself and surrounding states. Knights were necessary, and early versions of the traditional plate armor were just being invented. Architecture was at an all-time high, creating gothic churches like Notre Dame, and taller houses in the cities. Paris had over 225,000 people, and London had 50,000. By the end of 1350 that population in Paris had dropped below 100,000. The disarray in the HRE created a feudal state between princes, England was amidst a bastard feudal state, and the French Monarchy was divided between the duchies. This late medieval period is everything people think of when they think about the middle ages. The Viking period does not contain any of it. While I'm sure Ragnarok will be good in its own right, I am sure that the lack of that traditional medieval fantasy will disappoint many. And as a result, I fully expect in the following year for Ubisoft to release that epic medieval fantasy, to show how great the setting is before shifting over to East Asia. This also really fits with the trend that Ubisoft established. Most AC games MASSIVELY borrow from one another.
And that's all obviously excluding gameplay systems that carry over. Right now, rumors suggest Ragnarok will take place in Scandinavia and England. For those that are unaware, this means very few art assets will be able to carry over from Origins/ Odyssey to Ragnarok. England did take a lot of architectural cues from France though, and they share a similar climate and geography as well (as does the Holy Roman Empire), meaning more assets could be shared. As we see, Ubisoft never releases a title by itself and always reuse assets. Asset flipping like this saves a ton of development time, resources, and manages to get more games out faster which equals more money. I cannot see Ubisoft skipping this period and the opportunity to make more money while having another team create the next really new and innovative title. But why the Plague over other settings? Well, the biggest reason is that it was in a survey from Ubisoft in 2017 about where we'd like to see future settings. So obviously the rise of the Roman Empire in the Mediterranean was shown in Origins and the Peloponnesian War was in Odyssey. The Viking era (793-1066ce) also covers two settings; the Norman Invasion (William the Conqueror) and Great Heathen Army (Viking great army). Both of those events had Vikings very heavily involved and both centered around England. We can be reasonably confident that the next game will be about Vikings, and I'd wager one of those two settings (most likely GHA). If that's the case, I'd also be confident in believing a second medieval European game would be coming. So that would entail (from the list); historical King Arthur, Black Death/ Joan of Arc/ Hundred Years War, and Spanish Inquisition. I'll start off with the Spanish Inquisition, as I would love to see it in a full game. And to be fair I think a duology about assassins during the Reconquista and then see the descendant of that Assassin with the conquistadors in Mexico could be really amazing. That said, the Moorish influence on Iberia created a byzantine and Arab inspired architecture, combined with the Mediterranean ecology and warmth, it would feel vastly different and require very different assets than other central and northern European settings. There's also a lot of lore issues between the movie and AC2: Discovery already that could really muddy lore and make parts of it difficult to navigate and create an interesting narrative. That leaves King Arthur, which is by far the best known historical character among most of the listed settings. That said, there is a lot of misinformation about him due to the legends, and many people don't even believe he was real. To be fair, his existence, while canon in lore, is a highly debated topic. I have no issue with a game centered around Arthur, his sword of Eden, and his rise and fall as a high ranking Templar. That said, I don't believe Romano-Briton England during the invasions of the Angles, Saxons, and Picts is the best setting for gameplay. For most players, it'd likely feel like a step backward. While it might introduce super-powers like Odyssey (as Arthur was described in a few legends to being gifted power from God), it would end up reusing the same or a very similar map from Ragnarok, but with smaller cities. Now every town was one story high and made out of wattle and daub with thatch roofing exclusively. Roman forts would be in better condition, but ornate palaces and castles wouldn't exist at all. Allegedly there was a game in the works set in the Roman Empire but was canceled due to feeling too similar to Odyssey. With the recent failure of Breakpoint and reportedly Yves forcing all games to pitch why they're unique, I cannot see a King Arthur title surviving and feeling unique enough from the Viking title. At least for now. Thus, the most logical conclusion is that the next title after Ragnarok will be set during the Hundred Years War. Now, this is a 116-year conflict, and two major sections are stated. The first is the rise of the black plague which occurred at the end of the Edwardian Phase (1337-1360). Joan of Arc was important from 1429-1431 and started the French Resurgence that helped them win the war by 1453. This was part of the larger Lancastrian Phase (1415-1453). Joan of Arc, unfortunately, has the same issue as the setting of the Spanish Inquisition by having too much lore. Her life was detailed in the canon novel Heresy, in which we see her and her cousin close together for years leading up to her joining the French Military due to her Sword of Eden and connection to Consus until she was captured in 1430. A friend of hers took her place and was executed for her, she escaped, and remained in hiding, eventually severing her connection with Consus and letting Templars gain the sword. A game in the Lancastrian Phase would likely not please audiences as much due to it focusing too much or too little on her, and again could create retcons. While Ubi clearly isn't against retcons, I think it may still provide a few challenges with telling a unique story. I do think the Lancastrian Phase has a few interesting battles like Orleans, Paris, and is a major part that ends the hundred years war and helps lead to the War of the Roses (another interesting setting that I don't expect any time soon). Alternatively, they could tell a story during the Edwardian Phase, from the Battle of Crecy in 1346 to the Battle of Poitiers in 1356. These were the two major battles that England won and helped bring about the end of the first phase in 1360. It contains several notable characters such as Edward The Black Prince, John of Bohemia (a blind son of the Holy Roman Emperor who died at Crecy), Geoffrey Chaucer (was a child but might be seen as a reference), Phillip VI, Charles V, Charles IV of Bohemia, Philippe de Vitry, Guillaume de Machaut, Jean Buriden, Nicole Orisme, and Guy de Chauliac. While none of them are as recognizable as Joan of Arc or Arthur, they are interesting characters and the setting itself more than makes up for that. By this late in the first period the English were invading large parts of France, Brittany had erupted into a civil war known as the War of Breton Succession, and the Holy Roman Empire was collapsing into feudalism by the desire of the regional princes. The Black Death only exacerbated issues, with fears and threats of witches exiling hundreds if not thousands, burning bodies, mass killing of Jews in Germany, and some hospitals disposing of over 500 dead bodies daily. At this time in AC lore, we have Jacques de Molay publicly executed and the Knights Templar "officially" disbanded. Molay called a curse upon Charles' family, and now 40 years later the plague is coming, mass panic, mass war across Europe, and rumors are reaching Assassins that a sect of Templars is in Germany and France still operating in secret. The conspiracies and story can write themselves in this dark setting. Besides that, not only has the 100 years war and medieval Europe been a popular request but the Black Death in particular, with many hoping it can combine the darkness of games like Dishonored with Assassin's Creed. I for one, would absolutely love this setting, as the size would allow is to feel more like classic Assassin's Creed with the gameplay, I think it'd be far more satisfying for a medieval period title, and it just makes sense with the way Ubisoft generally releases AC. Do you think the Black Death would be a good setting, and do you think Ubi will release it after Ragnarok? [link] [comments] | ||
| Black Flag 4 Ending (SPOILERS) Posted: 08 Dec 2019 05:28 PM PST I know theres tons of ending explanations in this sub. I understood everything at the end but not the theater scene. I know its where we start ACIII and that the kid is Haytham, but who is that girl? And how sis he get that rich? Is it from the pirating? [link] [comments] | ||
| Imagine the next AC game would have an "Honor system" (RDR2 Spoilers) Posted: 08 Dec 2019 11:16 PM PST One of my disappointments in Odyssey was how affiliating Kass/Alexios to a particular army (Athens or Sparta), ultimately had no impact on the story. Seeing how AC is currently heading towards an RPG route. Imagine an honor system, similar to RDR2, in the form of a scale: Athens and Sparta on opposing sides. Through the protagonists' actions (killing leaders, raiding fortresses, fighting battles), their indicator would lean towards one of the sides. By the end of the game, depending on where the protagonist's morality is more concentrated, the SOCIAL outcome would be different i.e would not affect the character themselves What do you guys think? [link] [comments] | ||
| AC game set in 17th Century India would be awesome ! Posted: 08 Dec 2019 07:47 AM PST How awesome would it be if there was an Assassins Creed game set in 17th -18th Century Maharashtra, India. The protagonist would be a soldier under the leadership of Great Marathas such as Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj or Some of the valiant Peshwas ( such as Bajirao I , Sadashivrao I , etc ) who basically captured all of the India from evil Mughals. These all Marathas were both brains and brawn, using cunning tactics and expert terrain navigation to capture forts. Ubisoft needs to consider this and also I want all of the world to witness the glorious history of India and Marathas. [link] [comments] | ||
| How do I not be spotted in assassins creed odyssey? Posted: 08 Dec 2019 12:50 PM PST Some missions will infer or sometimes directly tell you that you should not be spotted. What does it mean to be spotted in this game? If you get seen but combat does not initiate, were you "spotted"? If you kill them while their alert indicator is yellow are you "spotted"? I'm not sure exactly how to be stealthy and what I can and can't do. Can I use the Rush Assassination ability on multiple targets? Can I shoot people? [link] [comments] | ||
| Time anomalies vs modern day segments Posted: 08 Dec 2019 07:50 PM PST Time anomalies where introduced in unity featuring some breathtaking linear set pieces which i loved . Syndicate supposedly expanded them creating a small open world for them . While i really enjoyed those as well , they weren't as cinematic and bad ass as those in unity . On the other hand you have the modern day segments that are basically the strand that connects all the games and creates an overarching narrative. Now with unity , syndicate , origins and Odyssey it is made quite clear that we can have only one or the other (i mean playable modern day). I would like to know what you prefer from the above . Unity time anomalies vs syndicate time anomalies vs Layla's story (which hasn't ended yet and could lead to something amazing (see my "could she be alive" post)). [link] [comments] | ||
| Please bring back the old combat system Posted: 08 Dec 2019 05:54 AM PST Am I the only one that liked the old combat system (ac4 and below) rather than the new one? I like it when I could kill multiple low-leveled enemies with ease and feel all badass afterwards. I thought Origins would of been a great game if they didn't have that shitty ass new combat system. [link] [comments] | ||
| Is there any way to enable subtitles in Assasin's Creed 1? Posted: 08 Dec 2019 07:23 AM PST Hi. This is my first Assasin's Creed game. Are there any subtitles? I am not a native speaker so it will not be the most optimal situation without subtitles. I have checked the menu and there doesn't seem to be an option for subtitles anywhere [link] [comments] | ||
| Lynx killing timed questgiver in Hyderabad Posted: 08 Dec 2019 05:28 PM PST I've seen the post before about a huge pack of lynx killing a questgiver in the thermal springs before anyone was able to get to her. I took my time and shot all of them from a distance hidden behind the mountain and was able to save her. As soon as all the lynx were dead though she was no longer giving a quest?!?? WHAT [link] [comments] | ||
| Haven't played since the Ezio trilogy, did they actually abandon the "real" plot to the series? Posted: 08 Dec 2019 05:24 AM PST Please keep answers light on spoilers, because I do, hopefully, intend to get back into the series. I was always very interested in what I felt was the "real" story to the series, the fight between the assassins and templars of the future, but I accidentally read somewhere that they practically abandoned the plot. Is that accurate, or were they just trolling? [link] [comments] | ||
| Social Treasures For assassins Creed 4 Black flag? Posted: 08 Dec 2019 01:06 PM PST Hey y'all, I have a Question, So I started replaying assassins creed 4 today after a long time and was wondering where to find White whales and social Treasures because I'm having some trouble searching. Any help would be great [link] [comments] | ||
| Assassin’s Creed Set During The First War For Scottish Independence? Posted: 08 Dec 2019 03:39 PM PST This is a setting that I really have never seen been mentioned before. I've seen India, Japan, China, Russia, Germany, South America, but never England/Scotland. I feel like this would be a perfect place for an Assassin's Creed game. I don't think that any comics or novels even go into detail about this event in history despite it being one of the biggest losses that led to the "disbanding" of the knights templar. Before the wars started, Scotland was separate from England, but after King Alexander III of Scotland died, the Guardians of Scotland (William Fraser, Robert Wishart, John II Comyn, James Steward, Alexander Comyn, and Donnchadh III) called for the 3 year old heir to the throne, Margeret (A maid of Norway). She died on the way to Scotland, leaving the political situation in Scotland a mess. Robert Bruce's claim was closer by degree, but through a female ancestor, while John Balliol has the most lawful claim, as he descended from a male ancestor of Alexander III. And while they were arguing over who was the rightful heir, they asked the king of England, Edward I to mediate the succession of powers, but he demanded to become lord paramount to Scotland, and he picks John Balliol to be the king. In 1294, war broke out between Britain and France, and king Edward I tried to force the Scottish to fight the war, and after refusing and allying themselves with France, king Edward sent troops, including the Templars to overthrow the guardians. And in 1296 the war starts. I feel like this setting would give people that medieval Europe setting they want, if the whole map is England/Wales/Scotland. And if they have the right protagonist, he could theoretically be ages 17-40 during the main game, and show up as an older, wiser figure should they decide to have a game during the 100 years war between England and France, while he's in his late 50's to Late 60's. And they could give him an actually ending, as he could die during the Black Death in 1349 at the age of 70. I wrote a basic outline for a story a while back just for fun, and I had the main characters name as Iolaire (Eel-or-ray) MacCelland (1279-1349), Robert Bruce was supported by the assassins, and I had John Balliol, John II Comyn, and Alexander Comyn as Templars, as they were supported by king Edward of England. And Robert Bruce ended up assassinating John Comyn in 1306 anyway, so I felt like that worked out. [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 08 Dec 2019 04:44 AM PST So I've seen multiple recreations of the hidden blade but I think that using some sort of springs and pulleys using the same muscle flex is possible to do. Please comment what you think [link] [comments] | ||
| Posted: 08 Dec 2019 06:51 AM PST Sry for bad english So i am pretty much at the start of the game. If i want to fight for sparta. Do i still need to put down the sparta fortresses?( same goes for athen) Do i need to decide now for which i am fighting for or can i still change sides later? Is there a good and a bad side? (Like a hero or villain run in infamous) [link] [comments] |
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/e0qbu56d5e341.jpg){kind=link}
| You are subscribed to email updates from Assassin's Creed. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment