Assassin's Creed Creator Prefers Freedom of First Game

Cognimancer

Imperial Intelligence
Jun 13, 2012
1,906
0
0
Assassin's Creed Creator Prefers Freedom of First Game



They just don't make assassins like they used to.

"Everything is permitted." This is not only the philosophy of the eponymous Assassins of Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed series, but also a pretty good summary of the games' design as open-world sandboxes. Former creative director Patrice Désilets agrees, but feels like the later games have strayed from that creed.

Désilets, who left Ubisoft during the production of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, enjoyed the freedom of the earlier games in the franchise - an aspect he feels was lost as the series progressed. "I like the first Assassin's Creed because it's the purest one," Désilets said. "There's a bunch of stories that you can have, but it's all in your head. You have to create your own adventures. Whereas in Assassin's Creed II, we created the adventures for you and you're following them.

"For me, the first one is an amazing toy. The second one is the real game with rules and missions and it's really precise. But personally I like the poetry of the first one. It's pure."

The original Assassin's Creed certainly had plenty of room for self-directed adventure. The game spanned three sizable cities, along with the rural countryside in between, in contrast to the narrower focus of later games which generally confined the player to one city. Désilets believes that there was ample opportunity for emergent gameplay - had players taken the time to notice.

"Out in the kingdom, with your horse, there are so many places with little setups with Crusaders where you can tell a story," he said. "With Assassin's Creed, our problem was we never actually asked anyone to do it. Most of the players just pass by those setups. But in Assassin's Creed II, we had a mission for all of them."

It's a tough tradeoff: the more freedom you allow the player, the more likely they are to miss out on some great moments. Assassin's Creed took a lot of heat for its repetitive mission structure, though it seems like the game wasn't intended to be a straight run from one objective to the next. Many gamers might prefer a more open-ended style, a la Thief, but the Assassin's Creed series has evolved to follow a more linear, though far more cinematic, design. The upcoming third installment (or fifth, depending on how you count them) has been described as "90% a new game" [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/118625-Desmond-Miles-May-Leave-Assassins-Creed-Soon] by current creative lead Alex Hutchinson, so we'll see where it falls on the scale of freedom vs. direction.

Source: Edge [http://www.edge-online.com/news/assassins-creed-creator-first-game-purest]

Permalink
 

Imperioratorex Caprae

Henchgoat Emperor
May 15, 2010
5,499
0
0
Ok. AC1 had more of a sandbox feel, but there wasn't a lot of leeway with the actual game itself. The missions prior to the Assassinations were awful and repetitive. The actual Assassinations though were pretty damn cool.
I would like to see a bit of a mesh between AC1 and the current gen of the series, but then I like the way AC3 seems to be going as well so I won't complain much.
 

Daaaah Whoosh

New member
Jun 23, 2010
1,041
0
0
I agree with this, AC1 gave you freedom to do what you wanted. Some people may have forgotten, but during the assassinations, you had a choice of how prepared you could be. Doing more of the follow/pickpocket/eavesdrop missions meant that you had more infrmation and resources at your disposal for the job ahead, while doing less of them meant you would be going in blind. In the other games, you only did what the game wanted you to, and you never needed any information to get the job done: it was all clearly laid out for you. Given the choice between the two, I would always choose AC1's way.
 

tautologico

e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0
Apr 5, 2010
725
0
0
amaranth_dru said:
Ok. AC1 had more of a sandbox feel, but there wasn't a lot of leeway with the actual game itself. The missions prior to the Assassinations were awful and repetitive. The actual Assassinations though were pretty damn cool.
I would like to see a bit of a mesh between AC1 and the current gen of the series, but then I like the way AC3 seems to be going as well so I won't complain much.
That's what I was going to say. The extra freedom in AC1 is nice, but it doesn't make up for the gameplay problems it had. The assassinations were great but the stuff before them were dreadfully boring. It would be interesting to have an open sandbox like in AC1 but with more things to do and better associated gameplay.
 

tautologico

e^(i * pi) + 1 = 0
Apr 5, 2010
725
0
0
Daaaah Whoosh said:
I agree with this, AC1 gave you freedom to do what you wanted. Some people may have forgotten, but during the assassinations, you had a choice of how prepared you could be. Doing more of the follow/pickpocket/eavesdrop missions meant that you had more infrmation and resources at your disposal for the job ahead, while doing less of them meant you would be going in blind. In the other games, you only did what the game wanted you to, and you never needed any information to get the job done: it was all clearly laid out for you. Given the choice between the two, I would always choose AC1's way.
Except that doing more of the investigation stuff didn't change much in the end. If you go into the same assassination after doing just the bare minimum, it plays out basically just the same as if you go only after doing all the investigation available. The only difference is that the investigation missions were incredibly boring and repetitive, so doing the bare minimum was best.

I like open worlds too but I don't think AC1 had a well-done world.
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
I too liked the first Assassin's Creed. You had to scope out your targets, learn about them and where they are, learn their plans, and then finally create a plan of your own and act on it.

Kind of like, you know, an assassin. The investigation missions and everything could have been a bit more varied, but I enjoyed myself.
 

bafrali

New member
Mar 6, 2012
825
0
0
I liked the first one too but because of different reasons. In the first one, i felt like i was killing leaders to make a difference for the people, not out of revenge or anything. Creed seemed like a genuine organization in that game rahter than shady individuals coming along once in a while like in the second one and escape music kicked ass...

captcha: later gator...

Well it was obvious that captcha was a back stabbing enthusiast
 

Azure Knight-Zeo

New member
Jun 7, 2010
281
0
0
Daaaah Whoosh said:
I agree with this, AC1 gave you freedom to do what you wanted. Some people may have forgotten, but during the assassinations, you had a choice of how prepared you could be. Doing more of the follow/pickpocket/eavesdrop missions meant that you had more infrmation and resources at your disposal for the job ahead, while doing less of them meant you would be going in blind. In the other games, you only did what the game wanted you to, and you never needed any information to get the job done: it was all clearly laid out for you. Given the choice between the two, I would always choose AC1's way.
I agree, while playing AC2 felt like I was on auto-pilot, being draged from mission to mission, while in AC1 I felt more like I was myself, exploring to rooftops, juping down and beating up thugs tormenting civilians like a middle ages Batman, disrupting army formations while on my way to the next town. All of these things I missed in AC2.
 

antipunt

New member
Jan 3, 2009
3,035
0
0
Oh my... I remember AC1.

...

My roommate would spend an hr riding his horse around the fields knocking down civies...
...

>_>
<_<
 

Jack Rascal

New member
May 16, 2011
247
0
0
tautologico said:
Except that doing more of the investigation stuff didn't change much in the end. If you go into the same assassination after doing just the bare minimum, it plays out basically just the same as if you go only after doing all the investigation available. The only difference is that the investigation missions were incredibly boring and repetitive, so doing the bare minimum was best.

I like open worlds too but I don't think AC1 had a well-done world.
It didn't change where the target was but gave you the opportunity to go prepared. I spied, pickpocketed and beat information out to learn my targets whereabouts and guard positions. I could go to the scene beforehand and check the place out. I liked that, it felt more like being an assassin. When the day came I would knock all guards down first (at least the ones needed) to get in place unseen and escape easily. I knew where I was and had planned a little of my escape route. Escaping was much harder in AC than in any of the later games.

In later instalments I was merely following a story. I didn't have any info beforehand, I couldn't go and check the place out first. And after AC2 I was only following the games instructions on how to do the kills. I really don't like the sync function. I wouldn't mind it as extra challenges but they shouldn't be part of the standard playthrough. I know I don't have to do as the challenge sets, but I really hate seeing that big red "failed" sign flash...

Don't get me wrong, I do love all the games and can't wait for AC3 to come out. But I do wish they would revert more back to what AC1 was.
 

Baldry

New member
Feb 11, 2009
2,412
0
0
What I really hate about the newer instalments is the "do this for 100%". Ruined the games for me since I didn't get to do what I wanted, how I wanted, get rid of that and it'll be better. Make me feel like more of an assassin.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
AC was good, but it was repetitive. you have to do always the same things to get enough info before you can start your assassination. AC2 was better with that since not every mission was the same.
but yes, i do agree, some more freedom how you want to perform you kill would be nicer. AC 3 seams to have this promise. otherwise dishonored will do the trick from what i have seen so far of this game.
 

Saucycarpdog

New member
Sep 30, 2009
3,258
0
0
Am I the only one who wants the talking moments after an assassination from the first game put back in? These may be a little annoying to some but I found them to be insightive in seeing into the minds of the enemys and why they did what they did. It just made the assassination feel that more real in the end.