COD the same as Assasins Creed.
- Thread starter aba1
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I don't always feel that yearly sequels are a good thing, nor do I feel they're a bad thing. Each game does have its own merits and flaws. CoD has pumped out crappy sequels since BlOps/MW3, but its because they had a working model in MW2 even if some things were OP as far as the Multiplayer aspects go.
Assassin's Creed I enjoyed so far, all the way up through 3 and Liberation. Sure Revelations was a bit light on innovation/advancement but I've seen far worse games rushed through development and I did like how it wrapped up both Altair and Ezio's respective stories.
IV is one I am really hoping turns out well because I'm in love with the era it takes place in. I grew up in the Keys and our heritage down there is very tied into the whole Pirate era so... I am biased.
Assassin's Creed I enjoyed so far, all the way up through 3 and Liberation. Sure Revelations was a bit light on innovation/advancement but I've seen far worse games rushed through development and I did like how it wrapped up both Altair and Ezio's respective stories.
IV is one I am really hoping turns out well because I'm in love with the era it takes place in. I grew up in the Keys and our heritage down there is very tied into the whole Pirate era so... I am biased.
Meh. While the AC series has become something i increasingly roll my eyes at when theres a new one, i think it puts up a LOT more effort than COD. Every COD i played was pretty much like the last one with some _minor_ changes. The settings it provided never really felt different. Duty Calls (the Youtube Video) pretty much summed up what i think of most of the series. The only game in the series i really liked for its Campaign was COD 4.
AC on the other hand, at least to me, does the exact opposite. It tries to shove too much "Innovation" and extra bits into its content, instead of refining the stuff it allready had right. AC3 was a bloated mess, where i frequently stood around looking at the metric fu*kton of side activitys avaible and wasnt motivated to do even one. (Except maybe the Ship stuff, i hope they capitalise on this in AC4, might actually be interesting). The Changing time periods would have provided enough innovative freedom and didnt need 50 new side activities noone wants. Instead, they should've refined the existing aspects from AC2, focus around assassination, give you more ways to act than just handing you Bombs, Guns and the like. Improve the mechanics that are allready there, play around with the Story! You have Access to every damn time period and STILL you insist on stupid Tower Defense Minigames and Gimmicks? Currently it just seems they are writing themselves into a corner.
Oh, and they should drop the whole whacky future "Doom is upon us, fulfill the prophecy!"-stuff. I was totally content with two ancient Groups fighting for domination over each other.
AC on the other hand, at least to me, does the exact opposite. It tries to shove too much "Innovation" and extra bits into its content, instead of refining the stuff it allready had right. AC3 was a bloated mess, where i frequently stood around looking at the metric fu*kton of side activitys avaible and wasnt motivated to do even one. (Except maybe the Ship stuff, i hope they capitalise on this in AC4, might actually be interesting). The Changing time periods would have provided enough innovative freedom and didnt need 50 new side activities noone wants. Instead, they should've refined the existing aspects from AC2, focus around assassination, give you more ways to act than just handing you Bombs, Guns and the like. Improve the mechanics that are allready there, play around with the Story! You have Access to every damn time period and STILL you insist on stupid Tower Defense Minigames and Gimmicks? Currently it just seems they are writing themselves into a corner.
Oh, and they should drop the whole whacky future "Doom is upon us, fulfill the prophecy!"-stuff. I was totally content with two ancient Groups fighting for domination over each other.
CoD 4?Seeing as the 3 previous games(as well as the console and handheld spinoffs)and the one directly after it were all set during WW2 I'd say 4 stands out simply for being the first one set in a different eraJohnny Novgorod said:
What? In what way is Assassins Creed always the same?
Two was vastly different than the first one improving most aspects of the game.
Brotherhood introduced the mechanic of hiring and training assassins.
Revelations introduced tower defense, ok that one was shitty.
But 3 then introduced naval battles, which were awesome (Sadly the best part of the game, though).
I am not saying Assassins Creed is without flaws or über awesome or anything, but you cannot claim that it doesn't try to innovate. This is just in terms of gameplay mechanics here, i didn't even mention the different time periods.
Two was vastly different than the first one improving most aspects of the game.
Brotherhood introduced the mechanic of hiring and training assassins.
Revelations introduced tower defense, ok that one was shitty.
But 3 then introduced naval battles, which were awesome (Sadly the best part of the game, though).
I am not saying Assassins Creed is without flaws or über awesome or anything, but you cannot claim that it doesn't try to innovate. This is just in terms of gameplay mechanics here, i didn't even mention the different time periods.
Not in my experience.Adam Jensen said:
All Assassin's Creed did was reskin some buildings. Ok, 3 took it to America rather than the mediterranean. Its story too felt like it just dragged on with pointless drivel. And not in an interesting way. I'll read a 700 page book for fun, but I can't sit through the AC series. It bores me to tears. Especially with its fondness for long cutscenes. Its just another "National Treasure" lookalike, you hunt down ancient treasure following a set of clues. Oh, and there's a hostile organisation opposing you, and the world's going to end if you fail. No, doesn't sound familiar at all.
The difference is that you find yourself invested in and interested in the AC series, thus you see its differences as larger, whilst you're not interested in the CoD series, so you minimise its differences to reskins. Call of Duty has also included Historical Figures, and Historical events. Sadly both are as butchered as the AC series historical references.
And, I'm going to be honest here, I'm pretty sure if I played CoD 1, then CoD BO2, both Online and Campaign, I'd find it more different than AC 1 and 3. Can't say for sure, haven't played either series in its entirety, but that's where my money would be. Completely different time eras, for both development and in game. Fun fact; Kill Streaks weren't even in CoD until... 4 I think. The CoD series does change. The AC series does too. Neither, from my experience, changes that much.
Pretty much this. I love the series for its lore and for the unique way it uses History as a canvas. Not saying it can do no wrong, but it's far more engaging, narratively, than most of everything else out there. This, of course, being said after taking AC3's ending into account. All I'm hoping is that this will remain a one-time misstep in the series' history.Adam Jensen said:
Just want to say, they did tell you why Desmond stabbed her, he had a choice and he chose to do it. Gameplay wise you HAVE to stab her but Desmond himself had a choice whether or not to do it and he did it because he got a glimpse of what would happen if she lived (she betrays you for the Templars and gives them the apple) and to avoid that he acted.drummodino said:
OT: The reason i like AC is because they change the settings, improve the gameplay whether it be a few tweaks or add multiple things (AC3 is the only exception i have for this, new layout for the controls was horrible) and they keep it fun while maintaining at least SOME historical accuracy. COD may change the setting once or twice and i can only think of one instance where they actually changed gameplay but they failed to keep it fun IMO
Wait really? Did I miss that in Brotherhood or was that explained in 3? Because I swear I remember Desmond trying to resist it but failing.llew said:
While Assassin's Creed games are a bit better about innovating for their yearly releases, I'm pretty much done with buying AC games new now. The same happened to Call of Duty for me a few years ago, I just got tired of getting yearly releases. As of right now, Assassin's Creed IV could be truly amazing, but I probably will wait till I can get it at a lower price.
The series should get more flack for the yearly releases, but despite using the same model as Call of Duty, Madden, Fifa, etc., the franchise is still seen as good in the eyes of gamers.
The series should get more flack for the yearly releases, but despite using the same model as Call of Duty, Madden, Fifa, etc., the franchise is still seen as good in the eyes of gamers.
And why are people so silent about Justin Bieber?aba1 said:
I wish more people would hate on Twilight.
You may notice a pattern here.
Ubisoft's got a ton of crap in general. AC has taken a ton of crap specifically.
The only difference is scope. CoD BLOPS 2 sold more per platform than AC 3 sold total. People hate COD more because it is the more exposed property.
I just miss that they have become so weighed down with other things that it just doesn't feel like Assassins Creed anymore. I mean I watched the newest trailers for the new Assassin's Creed and you know what I saw? Ship battle (which is cool), explosions, a 1m chase, and action. Oh and a straight and narrow sneak section that was obviously linear.
Well, not in the sense that Battle Field is the same as CoD, but Assassin's Creed is pretty much Ubisoft's answer to the biyearly squeeze-out squeal cash cow machine.
When playing through Revelations I was thinking: Oh my Ubisoft, how Black Ops 2 of you...
I still think the AC games are more fun than CoD but they're definitely on the same path
When playing through Revelations I was thinking: Oh my Ubisoft, how Black Ops 2 of you...
I still think the AC games are more fun than CoD but they're definitely on the same path
I used to be a really big AC fan. I liked the first, absolutely loved the second. I found Brotherhood to be quite good actually, I felt like it had enough changes to it. Revelations was okay, but the story was the only thing keeping me going there, I was starting to get really bored with the gameplay. AC3 had changes, but it ended up turning out relatively the same as the ones before, though I had more fun with it than Revelations. I'm not interested at all in Black Flag though, not one bit, even though I really liked the naval warfare in 3. I don't know, it's annoying. I don't really have a problem with sequels not changing much, that's not a big deal, it's when they pump the sequels out yearly without changing much that annoys me. Ever since AC2, we've been getting an Assassin's Creed game yearly, and to be honest, it's getting really boring. Maybe it comes with the setting change too, Constantinople was shit, easily the worst setting in the series I think. Colonial America was interesting for a time, but nothing really captured me like Renaissance Italy, or heck, even the Crusades. The setting matters quite a bit, alongside the fact that, while I like Ezio, and think he's the best character in the series, he didn't need three games. AC2 and Brotherhood would've been fine, I actually found the Altair missions in Revelations to be the best part of the entire game.
I guess the tl;dr version is, COD gets more flack for being bigger than AC, but AC is just as bad about it as COD is. And, if you ask me, it won't be long until AC starts getting the same amount of flack that COD is. Ubisoft seems okay with running the fastest growing game series into the ground.
I guess the tl;dr version is, COD gets more flack for being bigger than AC, but AC is just as bad about it as COD is. And, if you ask me, it won't be long until AC starts getting the same amount of flack that COD is. Ubisoft seems okay with running the fastest growing game series into the ground.
llew is wrong. I have recently played through the ending of Brotherhood and Desmond spends the entire time fighting the control of Juno. He didn't choose to do it, Juno used his body as her puppet and forced his hands to do her will. Ref: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5DU8l4dgRcdrummodino said:
Well besides the sailing bits in Assassin's Creed 3 I could play any Assassin's Creed game from 2 onwards and the experience would hardly be any different. I do think that they change a bit more than CoD does but I hate how CoD just gets accused of being the same each time. Play World at War then Black Ops, then play Black Ops II and tell me it's the exact same game, so I can call you a liar properly.
Nonsense, the yearly Call of Duty sequels are at least stable and functional, whereas Assassins Creed adds only superfluous rubbish to each sequel and loses focus whilst also being increasingly more broken and buggy each year.