AC4 Combat: Stubborn Ubisoft?

[dpodblood]

To be honest I was hugely let down by Assassins Creed 3 and was not at all interested in picking up 4 even though the pirate theme is appealing to me. I just felt that the series is stagnating.

This morning I watched/read a couple of the reviews for AC4 and the game actually looks really good. Good characters, a lot of variety, side content, and a decent fast travel system. But reviews are mentioning that combat is still basically the same as every other AC game. Squishy and heavily reliant on counters.

Every review has complained about this since the release of the first game, and yet the combat has never been updated. In fact in the 4 subsequent games it's barely changed at all. Why are the AC developers so stubborn about keeping combat the way it is? It seems like everyone is asking for it to be changed and would be an easy way to improve the game, but they just leave it the same year after year.

 

[Dankk]

Assassin's Creed is Ubisoft's Call of Duty. It's cash-cow franchise churned out and rehashed on an annual basis.

I'm guessing the reason why they don't change it is because they don't feel like they need to. Also, time constraints.

 

[dpodblood]

It's alright imo for a game to release frequently (though annually is a bit much) as long as they are making improvements and changes in the series each time. I was so looking forward to the new environments and mechanics in AC3, but unfortunately the game turned out to be a buggy slog of a game.

From the reviews of AC4 I still have hopes that it could turn out to be a decent game. I just wish they would do something to improve on the combat as I have since AC2.

 

[mmntech]

Assassin's Creed's combat consists of counter kills. That's it. Once you've mastered that, that's all there is to learn. Mind you, the point of the series is to stealth kill enemies, not get into all out brawls with the guards.

I wouldn't say the games are Ubisoft's Call of Duty. The stories are quite well done (except for AC1, that was rubbish), and there's a lot to explore. Though gameplay hasn't changed much since AC2.

 

[cbrunny]

Simple. It doesn't need to. I love the combat. While I agree with you that it really isn't deep and really hasn't changed, it is still great fun. Look hard, play easy. Isn't that the addage?

 

[dpodblood]

Simple. It doesn't need to. I love the combat. While I agree with you that it really isn't deep and really hasn't changed, it is still great fun. Look hard, play easy. Isn't that the addage?

Personally I would prefer they add some depth and challenge to the combat. There is really very little incentive to upgrade weapons or do anything but counter since it's so effective against all enemies.

I remember a moment in AC2 where there was an armored enemy you needed to dodge and attack from behind. I was lost as to how to defeat the enemy for a while since the game had been conditioning me to simply counter, counter, counter for so long.

 

[cbrunny]

Personally I would prefer they add some depth and challenge to the combat. There is really very little incentive to upgrade weapons or do anything but counter since it's so effective against all enemies.

I remember a moment in AC2 where there was an armored enemy you needed to dodge and attack from behind. I was lost as to how to defeat the enemy for a while since the game had been conditioning me to simply counter, counter, counter for so long.

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying adding depth is a bad thing. I'd like to see some added depth as well, but status quo simply will not stop me from buying this game.

Also, I must say that I had an incredibly enjoyable experience with AC3 on PS3. I didn't find it to be buggy or bad at all. I actually was hoping they'd continue that character story onward.

 

[dpodblood]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying adding depth is a bad thing. I'd like to see some added depth as well, but status quo simply will not stop me from buying this game.

Also, I must say that I had an incredibly enjoyable experience with AC3 on PS3. I didn't find it to be buggy or bad at all. I actually was hoping they'd continue that character story onward.

I loved the setting and the history, but I ran into several scripting errors in the game that forced me to replay sections. I also found there was just way to much time spent walking from place to place with nothing to do.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Assassin's Creed is Ubisoft's Call of Duty. It's cash-cow franchise churned out and rehashed on an annual basis.

I'm guessing the reason why they don't change it is because they don't feel like they need to. Also, time constraints.

The sad part to me is that I enjoyed the lore and the story of the end of the world and the whole eden conspiracy with Minerva etc. I also enjoyed the history presented as you explore a city with architectural marvels. Who built it, built for whom, burned down and rebuilt when etc.

Now that is largely gone and it appears they are happy to drop the mythos side of it in favor of a yearly action game release reliant on gimmicky combat and pseudo stealth missions.