Was Assassin's Creed Ever NOT "For Casuals?"

[Something Amyss]

Okay, so a different kind of AC thread. I've noticed a few YouTube comments referring to the "dumbing down" of AC titles, or that they're pandering to "casuals," or whatever, specifically in relation to the new title, Unity. I also saw this a couple of times before Unity was announced, one I particularly remember was Mutahar from SOG saying something along the lines of them no longer making the games with "him" in mind but rather the casual market.

Thing is, were AC games ever hardcore? I don't remember it. AC 2 was pretty easy, and I'm curb stomping Brotherhood. Those are the second and third titles. I didn't finish the first one, but that was mostly a combination of the controls being rougher and not giving a damn about the story. Hell, the biggest challenge in 2 and Bro-Hood is an issue of control. I can walk through the games without issue, unless Ezio decides to jump in the opposite direction from where I was aimed, or decides to jump over the obvious perch and to his death, or something similar.

One of the big changes I've heard about from the newer games is better controls and better parkour mechanics, and I'm kind of wondering if that's the issue, because the responses I saw largely came about after the "parkour up/parkour down" buttons were talked about. And that's not even an entirely new thing. I've tried to query whether this is about control, but since this is YouTube, there's a 99% chance my questions ended up in the autospam filter.

But that's another topic.

I'm curious, though, as to where this idea that AC was a "core" game or that it's been "casualised" has come from. Was the first one really that difficult, and I don't remember? Is this pointless nostalgia, or something to that effect? Is it just an issue that "not controlling like crap" equals difficulty?

Captcha: It's So Miami. You heard it here first, folks. The next AC game will be in Miami!

 

[Foolery]

Well, I always thought it was for casuals. I have a cousin whose staple games are AC and Call of Duty on his Xbox. The first one was piss-easy, just like the rest.

And there's nothing wrong with that. I've enjoyed them. Mostly II and IV. It's a series I play when I just want to chill, enjoy the scenery, and maybe stab a few dudes. The controls in IV did not feel as tight as II, though. That was due to an engine change, along with more simplified controls.

But I suppose they could maybe implement a hardcore mode in the future. If enough people are into that. Or at least a crouch button.

 

[nomotog_v1legacy]

Well it has been over 6 games now. You think they could take off the training wheels. Maybe? I mean do we always need a tutorial on how to use stores in every game, or do you think they trust us that we know how to shop by now. The real problem is how the real game kind of has to wait till after it re-teaches everything it told you last year. It's not horrible, but it dose delay playing the fun part farther and farther back. It gets a little worse in each game because they keep adding things too. (This isn't really an AC only problem though.)

 

[megaflash]

From my experience of playing AC:Bro-Hood, I don't think it was ever that challenging. The parkour is pretty much automatic, point in direction, press run. The combat wasn't ever hard (for me), even with a ton of enemies. You could beat everyone just by countering and not attacking.

But really, what is hardcore? Whenever I hear that, all I think is more challenging controls, or 1-hit KO's from enemies?

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

AAA games are rarely hardcore. They're designed to appeal to the widest possible audience. But gameplay is the only thing that is casual in AC. The themes that the series deals with are anything but. The story might be a hit and miss from time to time but it's still very good.

 

[Zhukov]

Well, the first one was a bit harder than all those that followed.

- The timing on the insta-counter-kills was a bit trickier.
- Guards were a bit harder to shake.
- You couldn't slurp health potions in mid combat.
- You didn't have like a million devices to use (no smoke bombs, explosives, money throwing, crossbows, guns, duel blades etc etc), just one hidden blade, a sword, a long knife (which was functionally the same as the sword) and some throwing knives (which were pretty OP back then too).
- You couldn't summon underlings to shank people for you.
- No chain-kills.

That said, it certainly wasn't some sacred bastion of hardcore challenge, passable only to the most dedicated of button-mashers. You still won fights by standing still and waiting for enemies to politely attack you one at a time so you insta-kill them with a flashy counter. Or by climbing a ladder and throwing them off the top as the they climb up after you one at a time.

Anyone who thinks AC is being dumbed down is kidding themselves. The series was about as "dumb" as it could get from the get-go.

 

[gargantual]

Thats what you get when your interaction system is designed mainly around thumb stick proximity to surfaces, and qte and. If I could give a driving analogy to AssCreed. The transmission has to go from automatic to manual. Add in some repetitive missions and a certain player could easily tune out.

The older resident evil games and control schemes had time sensitive actions too, but some important things were still button combination dependent, meaning the onus is more on the player, than how forgiving and cooperative the play environment is.

 

[Casual Shinji]

You could argue the fact yearly releases were possible only because of mainstream or "casual" appeal, but whether or not it (or any other game) actually was is just arguing lines in the sand.

Honestly, I never found Assassin's Creed casual, because that would mean anyone (with proper hands) could pick it up and play it. If I let anyone in my family play this game, you can bet they wouldn't make it past the first objective on their own.

It's all a matter of perspective.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

I think it's silly to go around saying "this is for casuals, this is for hardcores". Let's do this objectively.
Comparing the first game to the second:

-Templar Knights are harder to fight and kill than anything that the following games throw at you, and there're a lot of them spread across the cities you visit. They will occasionally interfere in whatever you're doing if you're not careful.
-There're no insta-kill guns you can use (granted the 2nd game's are poor but by Black Flag it's a piece of cake).
-Beggars cannot be shunned by throwing coins on the ground.
-You cannot purchase ammo of any kind, you have to steal it.
-Generally speaking there're very little contextual actions.
-Blending in a crowd isn't contextual, it takes commands.
-There're no healing potions you can use while fighting.
-Targeting and countering are considerably delayed.
-You don't have that many weapons or armor.
-You only have one Hidden Blade.
-Water kills you.

A lot of these are simply problems that the second game fixes. But some of them - most notably instant healing potions - aren't solving any problem, they're simply making things easier to the point there's no way you can screw up in battle.

So are things technically dumbed down in the following games? Yes.

 

[Elfgore]

I don't think anyone has ever not said it was for casuals. I also don't think if it's for casuals are not matters. I mean, they have some content for the more hardcore players. Coming in the form of the collectibles. Which sometimes add story. But the series is definitely made for a very broad audience.

 

[Racecarlock]

Because people will literally find any excuse to ***** out players they don't think are skilled enough. I don't know why parts of the gaming community are so hostile to players who don't play for skill or competition, but they need to accept that some games aren't going to be for them.

Dark Souls exists now and so do many NES style games on steam. Dead Rising 2 is pretty hard too. Why does every single game need to be so hard that you have to try 352 times to get through one section?

 

[Random Argument Man]

I thought we were done with the whole "Casual vs hardcore" thing. As for AC, it's harder if you do the optional requirements for full synchronization. But honestly, can't have I just one game where I can run, jump around, be a badass in a historical setting without having to hear someone "Ewwww, it's casual ".

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

Was the first one really that difficult, and I don't remember? Is this pointless nostalgia, or something to that effect? Is it just an issue that "not controlling like crap" equals difficulty?

The 1st game wasn't hard but it was harder than the sequels. In AC1, you had to time the counter just right to insta-kill with the hidden blade. In AC2, you get dual hidden blades and are allowed to block with them so that high risk/high reward aspect is no longer there. I only ever felt badass in an AC game during the last section of enemies in AC1 where I just used hidden blade counters to kill everyone, which definitely had a degree of difficulty to it. In AC2, I only ever died when Ezio would stupidly jump to his death for no reason.

I also feel what made AC1 more hardcore was just the overall structure of the game. I would compare AC1 to Hitman but you also had to do your own investigations to get the intel needed to assassinate your target. The assassinations themselves were pretty decent and Hitman-esque. The assassinations were not nearly up to par with Hitman so AC1 was basically Hitman-lite. Structurally, AC1 was very much like Hitman. Now, I'm fully aware that the investigations were highly repetitive and mainly sucked, but instead of improving upon that and sticking with the same structure, the series went to a much more normal sandbox structure and became much more, as Yahtzee coined, faffing about. I played AC2, and quit the series because of the change in structure as I wanted AC to become closer to Hitman, but the series went in the complete opposite direction that I was hoping for.

 

[Something Amyss]

Or at least a crouch button.

Hey hey, let's not get CRAZY here....

Well it has been over 6 games now. You think they could take off the training wheels. Maybe?

They're pretty much never going to risk alienating or confusing new players or fans, so I don't see that happening. And to think, I was dumb enough to read the manual.

A lot of these are simply problems that the second game fixes. But some of them - most notably instant healing potions - aren't solving any problem, they're simply making things easier to the point there's no way you can screw up in battle.

I suppose that's fair enough, but I don't really recall dying in combat in the first game. And, I mean, I suppose that could be considered bragging except I never finished the game and I never thought of the series as particularly hard. It's not like I'm saying I beat Dark Souls without dying.

I take your points, though. And Zhukov's, though I didn't quote him because the line that got my attention was specifically yours.

Because people will literally find any excuse to ***** out players they don't think are skilled enough. I don't know why parts of the gaming community are so hostile to players who don't play for skill or competition, but they need to accept that some games aren't going to be for them.

Dark Souls exists now and so do many NES style games on steam. Dead Rising 2 is pretty hard too. Why does every single game need to be so hard that you have to try 352 times to get through one section?

Quite simply, we don't want to share our toys.

I thought we were done with the whole "Casual vs hardcore" thing.

I doubt we ever will be. I'm mostly bringing it up specifically because of the complaints, though, and I sort of wanted a gauge of how it was perceived. Most of the changes made sense to me from a design perspective, and whatnot.

As for full sync, it can be trickier, but I'm not sure it's unobtainable for most people. It can be frustrating, though. I've got to the end of several missions in Brotherhood where I did what they told me to only to get a "sync failed" message. Hell, I got one when using my recruits to kill people as required in a mission. My recruit kills the last guy? "Sync Failed."

I'm not sure I have the patience in me to go back and play those missions, but I think it's more time and determination than anything else. I mean, I have the same issue with Amazing Spider-Man, and I doubt anyone was praising its difficulty. It's more soul-crushing, tedious, and sometimes arbitrary than truly hard. But then, I don't remember trying to full sync AC 1, so I don't have a metric there.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

A lot of these are simply problems that the second game fixes. But some of them - most notably instant healing potions - aren't solving any problem, they're simply making things easier to the point there's no way you can screw up in battle.

I suppose that's fair enough, but I don't really recall dying in combat in the first game. And, I mean, I suppose that could be considered bragging except I never finished the game and I never thought of the series as particularly hard. It's not like I'm saying I beat Dark Souls without dying.

I take your points, though. And Zhukov's, though I didn't quote him because the line that got my attention was specifically yours.

The only two instances of hardened combat in the first game are fighting Templar Knights (the dudes with the red helmets) and the final stretch of the game. You can cheese the combat any other time, but the game is at its "hardest" in these instances.

Anyway I think the AC games aren't "for casuals". They're for everybody. You can be as casual or as hardcore about them as you want to be. Try taking down the Legendary Ships in Black Flag. Even with a fully upgraded ship you'll die several times until you learn to read each ship's pattern and exploit it. Or try doing every mission 100% right, all optional goals included. Or for that matter assassinating every T. Knight in the first game.

The second game's probably the easiest of them all.

 

[Something Amyss]

Anyway I think the AC games aren't "for casuals". They're for everybody.

TBH, I think those are probably synonymous in the minds of the people concerned with "casual" gameplay.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

Anyway I think the AC games aren't "for casuals". They're for everybody.

TBH, I think those are probably synonymous in the minds of the people concerned with "casual" gameplay.

Even if "everybody" includes hardcore gamers, whatever that constitutes?

 

[briankoontz]

Can we separate the term "mainstream" from "casual", please?

Assassin's Creed has always been for, and played by, the mainstream. The part of the mainstream that buys $50-$60 games, anyway. The wealthy mainstream.

Casuals are people who play Candy Crush or Farmville, or Solitaire or Words with Friends, or minutes-at-a-time mobile games.

True casual gamers only rarely play Assassin's Creed because it benefits from a certain degree of immersion, awareness of non-simplistic controls, and appreciation for a narrative, none of which much interest casual gamers.

Casual gamers don't care about games as art. They think of them like a toy they pick up for a few minutes to have fun with. To them, Assassin's Creed is a toy that's too much of a pain in the ass to be fun.

 

[Netrigan]

One thing which got massively dumbed down was regaining anonymity. In the first game, when you took down your target you were a marked man. If you didn't give the guards the slip and hide out for a while, they'd keep coming. There was no fighting your way out of it, you ran and you hid and then you still had to try to keep out of sight because the guards were on alert and would start chasing you again if they caught sight of you for too long.

The second game introduced the concept of fighting your way out of an alert and since fighting has always been pretty easy in the Assassin's Creed Universe, there suddenly wasn't much of a reason to use all those hiding spots littered around the city. Cut down a dozen guard and you're magically in the clear... although, depending on which game it is, you might have to tear down some wanted posters to retain your anonymity.

Also in the first couple of games, there were more missions where you couldn't be detected. This could be really frustrating in situations where you kill your target, watch the cinematic, then find out you failed because a guard saw you a micro-second before your blade went into your target. These potentially frustrating scenarios have become rarer and rarer as the series progressed.

In addition to those two things, there is a tendency to simplify various aspects of the game. In the ACII, side contracts were pretty damn tough as you had to fulfill them under strict conditions, so you might have to take out three targets in three different locations within a few minutes of each other without being detected. Quite a lot of thought went into these contracts and there was a good amount of variety. In ACIII, you had a target, a location, and just do it however you like... it was only marginally better in ACIV.

The biggest sin in my eyes is the removal of the climbing puzzle areas. They started showing up in ACII and I rather enjoyed trying to puzzle out how to get to the top of a cathedral interior. These weren't super difficult, but it did require a bit of brain power to get through them. By ACIII, the puzzle rooms had become extremely linear with very obvious solutions.

Most of the other stuff is just the series reacting to criticisms. The combat has always been extremely easy and ACIII tried to remedy this by forcing the player to use different button take-downs for different enemies, which made the game frustrating if you stopped playing long enough to forget which take-down was used for which enemy. ACIV simplified the system a bit making it a bit more intuitive. At one point the armor and weapons degraded, so there was a point to improving it... but that got ditched and now you can spend a bunch of money on weapons that you don't actually need since you can take down whole armies with bare fists.