• Breaking News

    Saturday, March 14, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Assassin's Creed Changing the Level Scaling down to Light in AC Odyssey New Game + is the Best Decision I have Made.

    Assassin's Creed Changing the Level Scaling down to Light in AC Odyssey New Game + is the Best Decision I have Made.

    March 14, 2020

    Assassin's Creed Changing the Level Scaling down to Light in AC Odyssey New Game + is the Best Decision I have Made.

    Changing the Level Scaling down to Light in AC Odyssey New Game + is the Best Decision I have Made.

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 11:20 AM PDT

    I started a new game+ is AC odyssey because I wanted to replay the story and reach 100%, and I trialed the game by switching the Level Scaling to Light (enemies can be as low as 4 levels under you) and upping the difficulty to Nightmare.

    This was the best decision I have made. For one, the lower levels help with assassinations and not having to critically assassinate your way through forts. Additionally and as obvious as this sounds, upping the difficulty makes the combat much harder in which you will want to the stealth your way through everything. In turn, by changing 2 settings, you have changed your game from being a RPG, full-out assault game into a more stealth-based approach since your assassinations will be more successful than your combat. Add some engravings that boost your assassination damage and you will rarely have to deal with combat unless you make a poor stealth decision in guarded areas.

    I am one of the critics against partial damage assassinations (should always be a one-hit assassination imo), but I implore you to adjust the level scaling to light. This doesn't make the game easier as you can still get devastated in 1v1, 2v1 combat, but it pushed you to focus on stealth which is one of the biggest complaints of AC Odyssey. If you are a player who also was against the stealth, try adjusting the settings and see if it makes the game more enjoyable.

    One more thing: New Game+ has allowed me to enjoy the main campaign without having to do the side questions and etc. I realized I missed a lot of cool details, and I just got to the part where you meet Hippocrates (no spoiler here, just meeting a known character from Ancient Greece). If you have the time while hiding from the virus, I recommend a New Game + with the adjusted settings.

    submitted by /u/Ar3mianK1d
    [link] [comments]

    Huge discount on all AC games on uplay!

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 01:27 AM PDT

    Just thought i'd let ppl know, maybe not everyone is aware. They are doing some kind of spring sale and you can get that pack with all AC games for like 130 euros/dollars/pounds.

    submitted by /u/johnny_bernaz
    [link] [comments]

    [ELI5] So what is the endgame of Assassin's Creed?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 06:35 PM PDT

    I'm pretty new to the series, I've fully played Black Flag and Odyssey so far. So this is what I know:

    I get that the Assassins and Templars are both secret organizations trying to control the course of the world throughout history. The Assassins favor a more free spirited approach, while the Templars favor a more dominant one for society. People from the future access the lives of these legendary Assassins through the Animus.

    Then there's the ISUs, who are god-like beings with differing agendas. Some like humans while others are only looking out for themselves.

    So what do the ISUs want from the Assassins & Templars and how are they connected? What is the end goal for Assassin's Creed? If there ever was one.

    submitted by /u/Atom-O-Tronic
    [link] [comments]

    Rewriting World War II in the AC lore

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 11:24 PM PDT

    I know how the universe currently treats World War II, and I'm not impressed. To the best of my knowledge, every world leader from Winston Churchill to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin is a Templar, and the war is being fought as a ruse to reign in a new Templar order or some stupid shit.

    While I appreciate the surface-level attempt to not make the war a black and white conflict of Assassins vs Templars, it's not done very well. It makes the entire thing feel pointless if the Allies were scripted to win from the very beginning.

    If I had the ability to retcon this, possibly in a game or a comic book, I would sort of follow from the World War 1 mission in Assassin's Creed syndicate. That mission portrayed World War I as a conflict between the assassin backed entente, and the Templar backed Central Powers. This makes it analogous to the Seven Years War between assassin France and Templar Britain, but with a very different outcome.

    At the end of World War I, the Assassins win a pyrrhic victory. They barely maintain their political influence in Europe while high-ranking Templars like Kaiser Wilhelm are forced into exile.

    Meanwhile, Templar bankers in the western world band together to build a front company to finance further Templar operations. Eventually they would become Abstergo Industries, but in 1923, they are Abstergo Holdings LLC. In its early years, Abstergo engages primarily in money laundering for the mob. Its actual products are cheap and borderline useless, but it excels at moving money around and hiding it in the stock market. You probably know where this is going.

    The Assassins recognize the ploy within only a few months, and launch an operation to bring down Abstergo from the inside. This fails spectacularly, but it does cause a majority of the stocks Abstergo owns to plummet in value.

    The resulting economic crash destroys what little remained of the Assassin friendly world leaders in the West. The Assassin backed Weimar Republic, who until then had most feared infiltration from Templar monarchists, falls to a group ambivalent to the cause of either side in the 2000 Year War.

    Assassin and Templar agents alike are subject to political purges by the Nazi government, which knows full well of their existence.

    To this end, World War II represents not a consolidation of power, but a loss of it. Templar and assassin alike are sent back to square one. The newly rebranded Abstergo Industries makes a small fortune developing radar systems for the allies, which the assassins reluctantly let slide.

    The only hope for either side is the allies. An unwritten rule comes to be that any activities against the other side must not negatively impact the Allied war effort. This means the Assassins allow abstergo to freely sell military equipment to the Allied governments, and Templars allow Assasins free movement across the battlefields of Europe. If a high-ranking Nazi General turns up dead, it's a boon to everyone.

    This all comes to a head on July 20th, 1944. Long-time Templar infiltrator Claus Von Stauffenberg smuggles a bomb into Hitler's bunker, unaware of the fact that the Assassins had already killed and replaced Colonel Heinz Brandt, and were planning to poison Hitler on the same day. After stauffenberg leaves the room, the Assassin casually moves what he thinks to be an ordinary briefcase while he closes in on Hitler for the killing blow. The two independent attempts on Hitler's life accidentally foil each other. The Assassin is immediately killed in the explosion, while stauffenberg is arrested and executed soon after. Hitler remains unharmed and unpoisoned.

    Both sides interpret the other's actions as an act of sabotage. The gloves start to come off across the battlefield. For the last year of the war, the news is peppered with strange accounts of friendly-fire by Allied troops. By the time World War II actually ends, the assassins and Templars barely notice. The long war picks up right where it left off.

    submitted by /u/mandaloredash
    [link] [comments]

    I love a Rogue

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 04:17 PM PDT

    I definitely appreciate the argument that Rogue is more of an add on to Black Flag in terms of gameplay and content but the themes, writing and overall tone of the story blows me away every time I play it.

    I love that it unapologetically challenges so much of the rest of the series and Shays story is right up there with Connors in terms of emotion and actual depth. Rogue is easily my favorite of the series. What's your guy's?

    submitted by /u/PaulyNewman
    [link] [comments]

    How Assassin’s Creed could reintroduce multiplayer: Assassin’s Battle Royal. Fully fleshed out idea, please read.

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 10:16 PM PDT

    TLDR: A huge map, with snow, trees, cities, mountains, at least a little bit of every terrain. Players mainly use stealth to take out other enemies. Bushes, foliage, trees, bays of hay, crowd assassinations, door assassinations, everything. Full on Assassination Battle Royal. Maybe make it so time hidden builds a damage buff to encourage players to use stealth. Add modes like Assassins Hunt Templars and a Pieces of Eden mode.

    Guys, I hit idea jackpot. Please take this seriously, I know it's easy to read that title and think "14 year old kid wants AC to hop on Battle Royal/Fortnite bandwagon".

    This idea popped up when I asked myself "if all the Assassins were dropped in a map, who would come out victor?" And I proceeded to think about each Assassin and how'd they play it.

    Then, that led me to the realization that Assassin's Creed could make the literal BEST Battle Royal game mode in video games.

    You start off with nothing but a hidden blade and which branch of assassin you are/which brotherhood you belong to. There are Colonial, Pirate, Italian, etc all having different bonuses. Colonial can climb trees faster and use firearms. Pirate are better with boats and ocean combat.

    You can find weapons, spears, axes, tomahawks and swords. Ranged weapons like throwing knives, bombs, bows, and firearms are accessible. Players can climb, hide in bushes and bays of hay, swim and do anything else an Assassin can.

    Gameplay is the exact same as the old multiplayer modes from Assassins Creed. Except maybe add the ability to counter an assassination from anywhere except the back. Side assassinations give a .5 second window whereas front assassinations give a 1 second counter attack window.

    Players can now engage in combat, so that would need to be added. Maybe even add different modes like hunting First Civilization artifacts with their abilities (Apple of Eden freezes players, Amulet makes player immune to ranged attacks, Cloak can make a player invincible unless assassinated, Sword of Eden fucking slays, etc). Or an Assassin vs Templar mode where it's a small team of Assassins sent to hunt the scattered Templar's who must quickly team up and form an escape plan.

    submitted by /u/meme_abstinent
    [link] [comments]

    (spoilers) Fate of Atlantis: first quest confusion

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 09:35 PM PDT

    I know I'm late to the party, but I'm just starting Fate of Atlantis and I've completely lost the plot already.

    I just arrived in Elysium and Persephone sends her goons after me. Enter Hermes.

    "Sorry bro, that's Persephone; she doesn't like outsiders. Best way to get out? Help her out. You can probably talk to her, but let her cool down first. Or find her advisor, see what they say. Even better though, do get a solid and go deal with this troublemaker."

    So off I go to deal with this troublemaker and get on Persephone's good side. Except in the way I pass a statue and get a hint that if I destroy the statute I weaken her hold. Why would I do they? Am I not trying to help her out? So I ignore it. Then I come across this weird glowing pillar... Another hint, "target the Apple to weaken Persephone's hold". Again, isn't that the opposite of what I'm trying to do?

    So I find the troublemaker. He says, "Persephone doesn't like me so she won't let me leave." I think, "Well I don't want to be stuck like yours guy, better not piss her off like he did."

    Next thing I know I have a quest that says, "Hermes sent you to Deukalion's Heritage to find out what the commotion is," which sounds like, "Go help Persephone deal with that troublemaker," but the objectives are all, "Weaken Persephone's hold on the area."

    Why are the objectives a 180 from the quest text? And why did Hermes basically say I need to help Persephone only for me to now apparently be doing the opposite? Was I supposed to go somewhere else first to have this explained?

    submitted by /u/aeryxium
    [link] [comments]

    All Assassins Creed Games/ DLCs Are On Sale!

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 02:38 PM PDT

    On Xbox all assassins creed games are on sale and I finally got AC odyssey for £27 (GOLD edition) any way I made this post to make you guys aware

    submitted by /u/BengiBoi123
    [link] [comments]

    Any way at all to get out of those grabs before an enemy attacks?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 08:22 PM PDT

    In AC:B, I have gotten up to 80+ in the flawless all weapons. I would say I'm pretty good at the combat and know the ups and downs. I'm great with countering and can dodge when I need to.

    However, the game basically shuts you down completely with IMPOSSIBLE things to dodge. An example of these things is when an enemy grabs you; you're restrained and vulnerable, but as soon as he grabs you, an enemy begins his attack. The animation for breaking out of a grab is too long and won't let you counter the attacker. Therefore leading to a stupidly confirmed hit. Sad thing is, you literally can't dodge grabs from enemies.

    Another (but not as bad) is when an enemy runs at you and does a lunge attack which is hard to counter if you're not locked on, which is probably impossible in the .2 seconds you have to do so.

    Basically I'm just asking if you have any tips to avoid being grabbed. Any answer will be appreciated because i'm trying to get 100+. I looked this up and couldn't find anything about it that was useful.

    tl;dr How do I avoid getting grabbed by enemies?

    submitted by /u/omghibird
    [link] [comments]

    Assassin's Creed and philosophy - Carlyle's and Hegel's "Great man theory" and how Ubisoft has potrays this figures

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 05:42 PM PDT

    I know this is just a game for people to have fun but AC used to be more than side-questing and clering XXX amount of bandit camps. This series went from "We removed the crossbow for historical accuracy." and "We didn't want to make stereotypical pirates." to "You would be pretty dissapointed if you went to Ancient Greece and didn't see a Minotaur." (I'm pretty sure most ancient greeks never saw a Minotaur either). It had a philosophical side to it, even if some people find it very rudimental. I also thought it this would be a fun and different post.

    Want I want to discuss is the "Great man theory" (and woman, of course) :

    The great man theory is a 19th-century idea according to which history can be largely explained by the impact of great men, or heroes; highly influential and unique individuals who, due to their natural attributes, such as superior intellect, heroic courage, or divine inspiration, have a decisive historical effect. The theory is primarily attributed to the Scottish philosopher and essayist Thomas Carlyle who gave a series of lectures on heroism in 1840, later published as On Heroes, Hero-Worship, and The Heroic in History, in which he states:

    Universal History, the history of what man has accomplished in this world, is at bottom the History of the Great Men who have worked here. They were the leaders of men, these great ones; the modellers, patterns, and in a wide sense creators, of whatsoever the general mass of men contrived to do or to attain; all things that we see standing accomplished in the world are properly the outer material result, the practical realization and embodiment, of Thoughts that dwelt in the Great Men sent into the world: the soul of the whole world's history, it may justly be considered, were the history of these.

    No doubt we have met this men throught our AC games, from Julius Caesar to George Washington. But how does Ubisoft present this men in their games? Inspiring figures? Good people? Shockingly, most of the are presented as villains, even when it doesn't make much sense and the ones that are portrayed as good people are very gray. Althought there are some good people (like Leonardo Da Vinci and Hippokrates), sometimes, again, when it doesn't make sense. Let's see some examples:

    • Perikles. I'm not gonna take any side in the Peloponnisian wars, both sides did awful things but I'm gonna have to criticize with the way Perikles was portrayed in Odyssey. Did he stand for democracy? Yes, but he was an Alcmaeonid, one of Athens most powerful families and that allowed him to do as he pleased. When Sparta put their pride aside asked for Athens aid in some troubles they were having, Perikles was agaisnt it. While Címon went to help Sparta, Perikles plotted against him and ostracized him once he was back. Also, the Delian League was made as a defense pact against the Persian Empire and even when he achieved peace with them with the Peace of Callias, the League continued and Athens kept extorting money to their "allies" with the excuse "But what if they comeback?". He moved the treasury of the League from Delos to Athens and built a giant ass statue of Athena that even made the people of Athens say "Bro, is this really necessary?". When Samos was doing their own thing, Perikles didn't like it and overthrew their government. The trade policies he had made were so damaging to anyone that wasn't part of the Delian League that Corinth felt so offended that it might as well have been a war declaration. When Sparta asked to lift those policies, Perikles refused and war broke out. In one of his funerary speeches during the war, he pretty much said that a good woman is a silent woman and they shouldn't complain that their sons and/or husbands are dying in the war. In Odyssey, he is portrayed solely as a good person and that Deimos was really mean when she killed him when he was one the biggest instigators of the war.
    • Alexander the Great. His story in AC lore is really confusing - we that from Odyssey that The Order of the Ancients was in control of Persia, therefore making Persia villains. Sure they had their bad apples, like Cambyses II and Xerxes, the latter working with the Order but does someone really believe that Cyrus the Great and Darius the Great were working with the Order? Cyrus is known as 'messiah' to jews, having granting them freedom from their babylonian opressors, ruled out slavery and and woman had more rights. Darius followed his footsteps (althought the way he got into powers is dubious, if he was telling the truth, then he did the right thing by taking power). Shouldn't this mean the Order can be benificial to the people when they want? I'll leave that to your opinion. Fast forwarding to Alexander, he conquers Persia and therefore, the Order, right? No. Apperantly, he also worked witht he Order. So the Order worked with the Order to defeat the Order? Very messy. Also, and even though he tried to be a benelovent ruler, promoting a shared culture between persians and greeks, keeping old rulers in the same positions and adopting persian habits to better integrating him and his peers in persian society instead of forcing his greek habits, being seen as a liberator by the egyptians and showing a lot of love to his friends (see Hephaestion), this was still considered a sin for the proto-assassins who promptly murdered him. What we got next? A period of wars between his 'successors'. Bad move of the proto-assassins, in my opinion - they just created suffering and misery for no big reason.
    • Kleopatra VII. You know how some people really dislike in how some media portrays Kleopatra as seductress that fucks her way into power? Well, Ubisoft apperantly isn't one of those people because their Kleopatra was very close to that. I mean, I liked Kleo in Origins and they played more with her manipulative side than her 'nymphomaniac' side, but, by the end, she was seen as villain by our protagonists, to the point she was murdered by on of them? Why? Everyone who has studied Kleopatra knows she cared deeply about Egypt and her people and did everything in her power to keep them safe. In the end, she saw that the only way to do that was to ally herself to Rome and the Order. The Hiddens One response to this? Aya muders her. What follows next? Rome's conquest of Egypt. Sure, some of the Order members were bad and corrupt (I still don't understand what the Order expected to gain with the Lizard poisoning Memphis, I just don't) but there were also good people - the Scarab had a nice project in rebuilding Letopolis and giving people a new home and simply couldn't allow anyone to interfere and the Hyena just wanted her child back. Hell, even Medunamon was important since by keeping some power in the Oracle of Amun, it prevented that all power concentrated too much in the hands of the pharaohs, that could easily become despots. Ptolemaic Egypt was once a prosperous kingdom and was still relevant in Kleopatra's time. In their fight to rid Egypt of tyrants, the egyptian Hidden Ones did the exact opposite and worsened the situation. Again, bad move from proto-assassins.
    • Julius Caesar. This one is bit more controversial but since some people think he's just a genocidal dictator (although I have consulted many professors in my college and they all said that that's and exaggeration. If he was overly cruel to the gauls? Yes, but he never intended to wipe them from the map and only did things the way he did to have their total submission. He later compensated them by giving citizenships and places in the Senate.) For people who have studied the Roman Republic, the Republic has had been sick for a long time since Tiberius Sempronius Gracchus lynchment, Gaius Marius many consulships and Sulla's dictatorship. Rome needed and strong hand in order to be saved and that hand was either gonna be Pompeius Magnus or Julius Caesar. Our boy Julius got lucky in their battle and started accumalating a lot of power. He used that power to help the roman people and plebeians. Senators and patricians didn't like this. Two patricians, by the the name of Cassius and Brutus plotted his assassination because they thought Julius was becoming a tyrant, even after themselves followed another aspirant to tyrant and their nemesis showed them clemency, treating one of them as his own son. "The tyrant is dead!" they claimed, as the body of the man that had fought by a better Rome stood behind them, bloodied and betrayed in the ground that supposed to be sacred. Unfortunely for our "heroes" the people of Rome was horrorized by this and declared them enemies of the state. Today, according to Dante, they're in deepests pits of hell suffering for eterenity besides another great betrayer, Judas. Result of this assassination of Caesar? More war and Augustus becoming the very thing they feared and worse. Another big fail by the Hidden Ones. Until now, Aya's and Bayek's efforts have put and Egypt and Rome in a worse situtation than if they didn't do anything.
    • Augustus. This is debatable. He stabilized the empire and if Caesar threatned the Republic, Augustus completly killed it and become the all-powerful ruler of an empire and he has to thank and Aya and Bayek for this - it would have been possible without them. Was he actually playing 4D chess and predicted all this? Maybe, who knows?
    • Genghis Khan. Ok, this one is even more controversial than Caesar - our boy Temujin killed A LOT of people BUT he allowed the reopening of the Silk Trade and ended Kublai Khan ended with the chinese isolationism. This guy was born in a shithole and fought hard all his lige to achieve his ambitions. He allowed freedom of religion and promoted a meritocracy. Law was equal for everyone regardless of birth and women had more rights (see Khutulun). His memeory was repressed whe communism Mongolia and now is a very important national symbol in Mongolia. Regardless, he was killed by Altair's son. With his death, the Mongolian soon divided itself and things returned more less to same state they were before. Years of progress now lost. Still, I don't have strong feelings for this ones, he did kill a lot of people.
    • Vlad the Impaler. Again, controversial but my brother's girlfriend is romanian and I've met her romanian family and he's almost as worshipped as Jesus in Romania. He was cruel to his enemies but he rewarded and cared for his people. Yes, he was templar but he did so to protect his home. He was killed by the ottoman assassin Ishak Pasha and Wallachia was then conquered by the Ottoman Empire. Hmm, almost as if the ottoman assassins had other interests other than people's freedom in mind. Not talk about the byzantine templars, that simply wanted to restore best boy/empire Byzantium but apperently, effectively ending the Roman Empire and let the Ottomans cut off Europe from Asia and monopolize the spice trade, getting super rich in the process was more juicy for the assassin and but apperently Vlad and the Byzantines being templars because they want to see their home free and independent, that's a big no-no.
    • Vasco da Gama. This ones bugs me. "In 1503, after Pedro Álvares Cabral's failure to eliminate the Indian Assassins, King* Manuel I of Portugal, influenced by the Borgia" let me stop you right there Ubisoft. The portuguese would have never been influenced by the Borgia and most likely despised them. Also the attempt to eliminate the indian assassins is probably due to the fact it was most likely them who murdered out of nowhere 50 portuguese man, who had already asked for the Calecut's ruler to be there. Why is the man that managed to reach Asia from Europe by sea a stop the Ottoman monopoly over spices considered an evil templat? His son also fought with the Ethiopians, who were completly alone and isoleted, against the ottomans other sultanates. In the assassins minds, Ethiopia should have been conquered? Were the assassins happy when Mussolini finally did it?
    • George Washington. This dude was responsible for the attack in Connor's village that gets his mother killed, that the templars were trying to protect, and for some reason he keeps helping them. What the fuck? Also, he laughably releases his slaves only after his death. Nice but did he really have to wait until he didn't need them anymore? Also, III's ending is hilarious: "We did it boys, we saved the natives." says Connor. "Did ya?" says the random guy he just met. Connor then comtenplates if he did the right choice. He surely got his answer after the americans start commiting one the biggest genocides in human history (more than 20 million natives killed in a century.) Also, the american assassin brotherhood was absolute trash that caused the death of thounds of people (see Lisbon and Haiti) and indirectly allowed the genocide of millions of people.
    • The French Templars. This dudes are the reason the Old Regime fell and democracy spread. They're reason most of us are not a bunch of peasants with no access to education and a lot of other things. Seriously, what the hell was Arno fighting agaisnt? The Rights of Men?
    • The British Templars. Ok, similar to the ottaman assassins, this guys only cared about themselves and Britain. I have no strong feelings with the twins taking them down.

    Seriously, most "great man" in Assassin's Creed are represented as evil simply because they were associated with the Templars and people, ok, I can see why people think they're good but are nvery morally gray, are represented as good. The only people that I felt that were truly well represented as they were were people from I, II and Brotherhood, suchs the Borgia, Machiavelli and Leonardo da Vinci and also Brásidas, Alkibiades, Hippokrates and Sokrates. There are more but I can't list them all here. After that, the series becomes the assassin's causing a lot of chaos and confusion simply because of their hate-boner to the Templars. This series seriously needs to reevaluate the way they deal with the relationship between assassins and templars - assassins shouldn't want to kill people for the simple fact that their templars but only when they truly deserve it. This series need more gray rather than the black and white we have now since the white they have been giving us is blinding. Assassins say they fight for the freedom of people but I'm sure romans didn't Julius Caeser dead and the byzantines didn't want to be conquered. I feel like as long Templars and Assassins exist, humanity will never truly be free. Also, just because a dude conquered someone he shouldn't be seen automatically as a bad guy as long as he respects the people he conquered (Alexander) and or when he want s the freedom of his people (Kleopatra). The Templars should have honourable ends but questionable means, and it's this later part that makes the assassins rise up to them but if the ends are achieved, that's not necesseraly a bad thing. For better or worse, this men shaped the world we live today.

    submitted by /u/DariusStrada
    [link] [comments]

    They should make an assassin‘s creed in Africa

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 05:42 PM PDT

    I just thought it would be a cool concept wearing African armor and perhaps paintings, masks etc.

    submitted by /u/big-chungus-is-a-bad
    [link] [comments]

    Assasins Creed Odyssey on ps4 can one change the controls required to parry to something other than the triggers?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 11:37 PM PDT

    I heard in a review that you have to push both triggers down to parry, and that would be difficult for me. This is a make or break decision on buying the game for me. Other than that, it looks like something I would love.

    submitted by /u/NjalUlf
    [link] [comments]

    Where would you like to see the series head next?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 05:05 PM PDT

    With Vikings likely coming up soon, it seems like a lot of the major eras and settings that people have been requesting have made it into the series. (Other than Japan I guess)

    Is there a location you have your fingers crossed for in the future?

    submitted by /u/klovolo
    [link] [comments]

    I think I've identified my issue with the Assassin's Creed 3 narrative. How'd this work as a change in the way the story was presented to improve the game?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 01:58 PM PDT

    I've recently been playing throughAssassin's Creed 3 with some friends. I really enjoyed earlier games in the franchise, but there are a couple things not clicking with this one for me. I have some issues with the frontier area, it feels empty and is much more visually muddles than previous areas. I feel the game is missing a certain level of verticality that I loved about the earlier games (colonial America just wasn't tall was it? lol). But I think the biggest issue I had with the game was a narrative one. I know most of the community didn't enjoy Connor as a protagonist as much as playing as Haytham and I think I figured out for me what the biggest issue there was.

    ​

    I actually don't mind Connor's personality as much as most. For me the issue is that the story is presented as personally as it could be. Connor doesn't have a personal relationship with Haytham the the stakes feel much more "stop the bad guys" than "I gotta kill my Dad to avenge my mother". Connor hates Charles Lee, that's pretty evident, but Haytham being the Grandmaster of the Templar's and being Connor's father wasn't a big reveal it was just knowledge that he had and in addition to that, he didn't seem to care that his Dad was leading the bad guys.

    ​

    I think that if Ubisoft had written the story so that either 1) there was a build up of a relationship between Connor and Haytham before Haytham leaves the family or 2) there was a use of dramatic irony with the Audience knowing Haytham was a Templar without Connor knowing it the story for 3 would be much improved.

    submitted by /u/cehteshami
    [link] [comments]

    Perspective of the Animus User.

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 01:52 PM PDT

    I'm kinda of new to the series (finished Odyssey, played 3/4 of Black Flag, And just finished memory 5 of 3 Remastered) and had a dumb thought: it's understandable why the HUD is there, since it's a machine so the user probably sees that, but with the games being memories, what is the perspective of the Animus user? First? Or Third like we see it? Thought I would post my thoughts here and see if anyone knew the answer. Thanks!

    submitted by /u/deadworrior14
    [link] [comments]

    Animals companions are horrible in AC odissey

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 06:16 PM PDT

    I usually try to get an alpha companion with me, either a lion, or a wolf or a big bear. And the bear is the worst. Why? Because, each time I try to be stealthy and invade a camp, I use nyx shadow and go to the tents where I murder sleeping soldiers or visit the chest and of course the animal will not leave a single centimeter between me and him. I got to climb over or release it...

    I got caught a lot of time because of them. Sometimes they are in my escape path when I am undetected and invisible and get caught...

    Why ubi didn't render them traversable? I lost so many companions to that.

    I would like to get companions in future games but it should be better. Also, they should only attack if ordered to. They often killed a merc or a a stratego I would like as lieutenant. My rant is over but willing to share on it

    submitted by /u/faratnight
    [link] [comments]

    Is Shay Cormac the most underrated assassin/templar

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 02:24 PM PDT

    Funny enough he is one of my favorite assassin's right next to Bayek.
    I mean he was well written and was likeable with a unique story to AC. He did a lot of bold moves and he had by far the most badass voice and line
    I MAKE MY OWN LUCK

    submitted by /u/bloodera1
    [link] [comments]

    Our Uni is closed down so I'm replaying my favorite AC game - AC Brotherhood

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 05:58 PM PDT

    And damn is crossbow OP

    submitted by /u/matianakin
    [link] [comments]

    AC Odyssey The Road to the Symposium glitched?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 08:26 PM PDT

    I recently started a NG+ and now I'm on the Road to the Symposium quest line. But there's a problem. It's glitched. The game won't let me progress to the symposium part. I finished all the missions Pericles gave me, and the ones Cleon gave me as well. I tried loading a different save from about 10 minutes before, meditating, reloading the game, etc. I've tried everything, but nothing seems to work. Does anybody have a solution that will help me?

    submitted by /u/oogaboogaNXS
    [link] [comments]

    [AC: Syndicate] Man I hate the hud of this game

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 07:14 PM PDT

    All the screen full of garbage, all i need is the minimap. Tried removing everything in the options, half of the stuff is still there, i know there is a mod that remove everything but without minimap will be pain in the ass playing this game. Any .ini modification can solve the problem?

    submitted by /u/capofudo
    [link] [comments]

    Why no multiplayer for rmastered games?

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 05:45 PM PDT

    I have been craving the enjoyment of ACs unique adversarial multiplayer. I wonder why they didnt include this with AC3, Rogue or even the ezio collection remaster? I have been playing Black Flag multiplayer lately but im getting absolutely slapped by lobbies filled with prestged players. Can anyone shed any light on this or have any helpful tips for BF? I really love AC Multiplayer.

    submitted by /u/adVANCE03
    [link] [comments]

    AC3 remastered makes my head hurt

    Posted: 13 Mar 2020 05:42 PM PDT

    Is there anyone else who starts getting a headache after playing AC3 for a while? It doesn't happen with any other AC game or normal game but whenever I try to play AC3, my head starts hurting like crazy and I get dizzy

    submitted by /u/M-o-r-p-h
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment