FarCry imo is the only good one of the "Ubisoft Open World games"

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I've got a soft spot for "the Ubisoft game." I like the gameplay of the modern ones (Far Cry/Watch Dogs) rather than the period ones (Primal, AC) but that's kind of offset by the more interesting setting of the period pieces. And I have a tendency to forge my own canon as opposed to paying attention to the story, so the very poor writing choices that Ubisoft usually features really don't bother me that much. FarCry is nearly the worst written franchise of the bunch, but I agree I probably like it the most.

I really only have one problem with FarCry, specifically 3 and 4. One of my favorite things is taking strongholds. I love planning assaults, sneaking around, setting up traps... and having to change on the fly when things go wrong. That's some of the best stuff in the game. However, the result of taking territory is pacifying the surrounding area... and that takes out any challenge the game has. Random encounters stop happening and long drives become slogs through boring empty space where nothing interesting does or will happen. So the reward for the part of the game that is the most fun... is turning the rest of the game super boring.

The way i see It is most potentially wasted franchise i have ever seen

Far cry 1: Amazing game until second half, trigens came in. worst enemies of all time and ruined the entire game. thus making second half so bad that it even overshadow the good of first half. luckily crytek improve greatly on Crysis 1 and become one of the GOAT FPS.

Far cry 2: Poor mans Stalker. great idea. terrible execution. basically just maleria simulator with driving and driving.

Far cry 3: Show us Vaas as Next best thing as Villain. only end up secondary villain for first half and thus ruined the experience. plus too many long unskippable cutscene.

Far cry 4: FC3 copy and paste. lazy design

Far cry primal: again FC3 copy and paste but by removing guns and give stone and arrows.

PapaGreg096:
Apparently you never played Zero Horizon Dawn

That was Sony, not Ubisoft?

Kyrian007:
I've got a soft spot for "the Ubisoft game." I like the gameplay of the modern ones (Far Cry/Watch Dogs) rather than the period ones (Primal, AC) but that's kind of offset by the more interesting setting of the period pieces. And I have a tendency to forge my own canon as opposed to paying attention to the story, so the very poor writing choices that Ubisoft usually features really don't bother me that much. FarCry is nearly the worst written franchise of the bunch, but I agree I probably like it the most.

I really only have one problem with FarCry, specifically 3 and 4. One of my favorite things is taking strongholds. I love planning assaults, sneaking around, setting up traps... and having to change on the fly when things go wrong. That's some of the best stuff in the game. However, the result of taking territory is pacifying the surrounding area... and that takes out any challenge the game has. Random encounters stop happening and long drives become slogs through boring empty space where nothing interesting does or will happen. So the reward for the part of the game that is the most fun... is turning the rest of the game super boring.

That was done because you could not capture enemy holds in FarCry 2 and even after wiping them out at one time, they respawn later on which makes driving in FarCry 2 a constant danger.

The best comprimise is once you capture a stronghold it pacifies the area, but after a period of time it becomes under siege from enemies.

You are giving a time limit to make your way back to the stronghold to defend it, but if its too late its taken and you have to retake it for yourself agian.

Samtemdo8:

Kyrian007:
I've got a soft spot for "the Ubisoft game." I like the gameplay of the modern ones (Far Cry/Watch Dogs) rather than the period ones (Primal, AC) but that's kind of offset by the more interesting setting of the period pieces. And I have a tendency to forge my own canon as opposed to paying attention to the story, so the very poor writing choices that Ubisoft usually features really don't bother me that much. FarCry is nearly the worst written franchise of the bunch, but I agree I probably like it the most.

I really only have one problem with FarCry, specifically 3 and 4. One of my favorite things is taking strongholds. I love planning assaults, sneaking around, setting up traps... and having to change on the fly when things go wrong. That's some of the best stuff in the game. However, the result of taking territory is pacifying the surrounding area... and that takes out any challenge the game has. Random encounters stop happening and long drives become slogs through boring empty space where nothing interesting does or will happen. So the reward for the part of the game that is the most fun... is turning the rest of the game super boring.

That was done because you could not capture enemy holds in FarCry 2 and even after wiping them out at one time, they respawn later on which makes driving in FarCry 2 a constant danger.

The best comprimise is once you capture a stronghold it pacifies the area, but after a period of time it becomes under siege from enemies.

You are giving a time limit to make your way back to the stronghold to defend it, but if its too late its taken and you have to retake it for yourself agian.

I've always wondered if that was the intent, but I've never lost territory. Even if I completely ignore the attack on the outpost or stronghold I've never had the enemy ever retake territory. I've explicitly ignored attacks on outposts, and even purposefully triggered the attack by returning to the outpost, waiting for the attack to begin, then legging it... nothing. I don't think its actually possible to lose already conquered territory, I can't do it even when I'm trying to lose territory.

Samtemdo8:

No I was thinking of the newest Ghost Recon game which complete deviates from its roots.

Ghost Recon was supposed to be a essentially the more wide open battlefield version of Rainbow Six, a Tactical Squad based Shooter, now the newest game is this:

The last good Ghost Recon game was Ghost Recon 2 for the original Xbox. Heck same with Rainbow Six, the last good one was 3: Raven Shield.

Thats the only one I played, co-op granted, which always mediates a game somewhat (I did try singleplayer and my AI companions just kept blowing cover constantly then watching me get shot). AI aside the gameplays fine, but I'd be surprised if there even was an actual writer on the game staff to inject anything interesting into the dull flat "realistic" game.

My experience with Rainbow Six was back in the first one or two games, and I mostly just remember awful controls, terrible UIs, and gibberish AI. Perhaps the tactical squad sim-shooter genre isn't my cup of tea, or I'm just forever prejudiced from having been introduced to it in its awful infant days with R6 and SWAT.

Seth Carter:

Samtemdo8:

No I was thinking of the newest Ghost Recon game which complete deviates from its roots.

Ghost Recon was supposed to be a essentially the more wide open battlefield version of Rainbow Six, a Tactical Squad based Shooter, now the newest game is this:

The last good Ghost Recon game was Ghost Recon 2 for the original Xbox. Heck same with Rainbow Six, the last good one was 3: Raven Shield.

Thats the only one I played, co-op granted, which always mediates a game somewhat (I did try singleplayer and my AI companions just kept blowing cover constantly then watching me get shot). AI aside the gameplays fine, but I'd be surprised if there even was an actual writer on the game staff to inject anything interesting into the dull flat "realistic" game.

My experience with Rainbow Six was back in the first one or two games, and I mostly just remember awful controls, terrible UIs, and gibberish AI. Perhaps the tactical squad sim-shooter genre isn't my cup of tea, or I'm just forever prejudiced from having been introduced to it in its awful infant days with R6 and SWAT.

The 3rd game is where its at, the first 2 games at this point are dated as all hell, play the third game especially with the Raven Shield 2.0 mod:

I am pleasantly surprised and immediately suspicious of this mostly positive opinionivity towards these things that I also like. Primal seemed that a lot of people took it far more seriously than it took itself. Quite a tad entertaining for a bored insignificant mammal.

kilenem:
Have you tried Driver San Fransisco? It might be one of the most under rated racing games of last gen, its either that or Acvitivsion's Blur.

Was Blur open world like Driver: San Francisco was though? I played it a bit but thought it was a circuit racer- a glorious offspring of Need For Speed underground and Mario Kart.

Seriously though: Driver kicks so much ass.

Dalisclock:

Saelune:
...I like Ubisoft open-world games. No I dont have a gun to my head. Hell, the only reason I dont play AC anymore is because they ruined the plot they had going with AC1, 2, Brotherhood and presumably Revelations. Then 3 fucks it up and Im out...though the AC collection was on sale on Steam...and I did kinda... buy it...

Ubisoft games could be better...they could be worse though too. I think they should push more co-op fun.

So, out of curiosity, did you play Black Flag? I didn't see it on the list but that's the last one a majority of people will admit to liking(for good reason).

Black Flag is after they ruined the plot. I do own it though, but who knows if I will ever bother to play it. I worry the lack of investment in the plot will be too distracting.

Saelune:

Dalisclock:

Saelune:
...I like Ubisoft open-world games. No I dont have a gun to my head. Hell, the only reason I dont play AC anymore is because they ruined the plot they had going with AC1, 2, Brotherhood and presumably Revelations. Then 3 fucks it up and Im out...though the AC collection was on sale on Steam...and I did kinda... buy it...

Ubisoft games could be better...they could be worse though too. I think they should push more co-op fun.

So, out of curiosity, did you play Black Flag? I didn't see it on the list but that's the last one a majority of people will admit to liking(for good reason).

Black Flag is after they ruined the plot. I do own it though, but who knows if I will ever bother to play it. I worry the lack of investment in the plot will be too distracting.

My wish is Ubisoft Reboots this whole franchise and focus on what made Assassin's Creed good.

Focus solely on the assassinations and the historical settings, and cut out the whole Abstergo/Memories Sci Fi stuff right the fuck out.

I just really wish for an Assasin's Creed game that takes place during The Hundred Years War England/France.

Samtemdo8:

Saelune:

Dalisclock:

So, out of curiosity, did you play Black Flag? I didn't see it on the list but that's the last one a majority of people will admit to liking(for good reason).

Black Flag is after they ruined the plot. I do own it though, but who knows if I will ever bother to play it. I worry the lack of investment in the plot will be too distracting.

My wish is Ubisoft Reboots this whole franchise and focus on what made Assassin's Creed good.

Focus solely on the assassinations and the historical settings, and cut out the whole Abstergo/Memories Sci Fi stuff right the fuck out.

I just really wish for an Assasin's Creed game that takes place during The Hundred Years War England/France.

It certainly would be fine. The whole memory thing was a great idea...when it cared about its plot and was setting up Desmond eventually becoming a master Assassin in the modern world and trying to take down Abstergo/Templars once and for all...but nope. Kill him off and drag it out. We dont really need a memory thing as a reason to be a badass assassin in historical wherever.

Samtemdo8:

My wish is Ubisoft Reboots this whole franchise and focus on what made Assassin's Creed good.

Focus solely on the assassinations and the historical settings, and cut out the whole Abstergo/Memories Sci Fi stuff right the fuck out.

Why would you need a reboot for that though? You could just start making AC games that focus on that, you don't need to erase the series to achieve such a goal.

I'm fine with soft reboots in general, but am far more skeptical towards hard reboots.

Or you can just play Dishonored, it's everything a game like AssCreed should've been.

Saelune:
It certainly would be fine. The whole memory thing was a great idea...when it cared about its plot and was setting up Desmond eventually becoming a master Assassin in the modern world and trying to take down Abstergo/Templars once and for all...but nope. Kill him off and drag it out. We dont really need a memory thing as a reason to be a badass assassin in historical wherever.

My understanding was they killed off Desmond because he was hated by every living thing under the Sun.

Please don't go back to just assassination. The first game was too boring for words. 2 and Black Flag are where it's at.

Squilookle:

Saelune:
It certainly would be fine. The whole memory thing was a great idea...when it cared about its plot and was setting up Desmond eventually becoming a master Assassin in the modern world and trying to take down Abstergo/Templars once and for all...but nope. Kill him off and drag it out. We dont really need a memory thing as a reason to be a badass assassin in historical wherever.

My understanding was they killed off Desmond because he was hated by every living thing under the Sun.

Please don't go back to just assassination. The first game was too boring for words. 2 and Black Flag are where it's at.

They killed him off because the games were clearly leading to a 'modern day' AC and they didnt know how to add in modern weapons.

I find it funny nobody ever talks about Far Cry Instincts. It seems to be almost forgotten. That was actually my favorite of Far Cry games (I own the 360 version). I played Far Cry 2 and I didn't like it. I never bothered with the rest, because I swore off Ubisoft after the Rayman Legends fiasco. Plus, their game bore me.

Saelune:

Squilookle:

Saelune:
It certainly would be fine. The whole memory thing was a great idea...when it cared about its plot and was setting up Desmond eventually becoming a master Assassin in the modern world and trying to take down Abstergo/Templars once and for all...but nope. Kill him off and drag it out. We dont really need a memory thing as a reason to be a badass assassin in historical wherever.

My understanding was they killed off Desmond because he was hated by every living thing under the Sun.

Please don't go back to just assassination. The first game was too boring for words. 2 and Black Flag are where it's at.

They killed him off because the games were clearly leading to a 'modern day' AC and they didnt know how to add in modern weapons.

I thought they only put the modern day stuff in as a framing device because they thought players wouldn't be interested in a purely historic game. Then to their surprise everyone loved the historic stuff and hated the boring modern bits, so they dialled it back and eventually killed off the world's worst leading man. I'm not convinced the series was heading for a modern assassin role or they just would have straight up set the games there to begin with.

CoCage:
I find it funny nobody ever talks about Far Cry Instincts. It seems to be almost forgotten. That was actually my favorite of Far Cry games (I own the 360 version).

I played Instincts Evolution, but yeah. I loved it. HOWEVER, as I said above, that was more Crytek's thing than anything. Like an alpha of Crysis that was pretty good. The problem with those two games though is that you need an Xbox 360 at least to play them since they were never ported to the PC. I think that really hurt them in the end.

Arnoxthe1:

CoCage:
I find it funny nobody ever talks about Far Cry Instincts. It seems to be almost forgotten. That was actually my favorite of Far Cry games (I own the 360 version).

I played Instincts Evolution, but yeah. I loved it. HOWEVER, as I said above, that was more Crytek's thing than anything. Like an alpha of Crysis that was pretty good. The problem with those two games though is that you need an Xbox 360 at least to play them since they were never ported to the PC. I think that really hurt them in the end.

Actually, Instincts was developed in-house by Ubisoft. Crytek had nothing do with the spin-off.

I've only played Primal and I hated it. It takes an interesting setting and then proceeds to bore me to death. As opposed to being boared to death, which is more interesting but also more painful.

Squilookle:
My understanding was they killed off Desmond because he was hated by every living thing under the Sun.

That's not true. both of his fans greatly miss him.

Saelune:
They killed him off because the games were clearly leading to a 'modern day' AC and they didnt know how to add in modern weapons.

They still don't, evidently, given Origins.

Unless you believe the conspiracy theory....

I really dig Far Cry 5. The writing is rather weak, but otherwise the game gets rid of some of the series' worst tendencies and habits while keeping most of the good ones. I also love the setting, it reminds me of my childhood :3

Something Amyss:
Unless you believe the conspiracy theory....

Said conspiracy theory being? (For those who live under a rock...)

WRT AC, I've mentioned this in (an) other thread(s), but given how far back they've gone, they should've just dropped the AC tag and given it some other franchise title if they really wanted to go this route. BF was barely an AC game (awesome game, just not an AC game), and assassins/templars aren't even a thing in Odyssey. May as well call AC:Oy 3PS Far Cry: Hellenika.

I'd like AC to go back to the Crusades and have a game centred on Altair's sons, and it's high time the series went back to that era.

SckizoBoy:

Something Amyss:
Unless you believe the conspiracy theory....

Said conspiracy theory being? (For those who live under a rock...)

Yeah, I'd like to hear as well.

SckizoBoy:

Something Amyss:
Unless you believe the conspiracy theory....

Said conspiracy theory being? (For those who live under a rock...)

I'd like AC to go back to the Crusades and have a game centred on Altair's sons, and it's high time the series went back to that era.

I suspect it's the age old theory that all of the games are really being seen through the eyes of someone in the future and the modern day protagonist is yet another historical person. Kind of an inception mutiple levels thing.

AC Revelations did follow up on Altair's life after AC1 but for short 5-10 min segments centered around the assassin fortress in Syria, viewed through a series of Recorded memories that Ezio was collecting.

At this point, there's only one Ubisoft game(not counting games like Valiant Hearts which somehow get made every so often) and you just pick your particular perferred flavor of it. Personally the AC games always grabbed me more then the FC series but I suspect that's because I'm a history Buff.

I liked FC3 but the rest of the series hasn't proven that interesting to me.

SckizoBoy:

Something Amyss:
Unless you believe the conspiracy theory....

Said conspiracy theory being? (For those who live under a rock...)

Dalisclock:
At this point, there's only one Ubisoft game(not counting games like Valiant Hearts which somehow get made every so often) and you just pick your particular perferred flavor of it. Personally the AC games always grabbed me more then the FC series but I suspect that's because I'm a history Buff.

I suspect my interest in AC starts with being a mild history nerd (my dad is a history major and authored historical fiction I won't mention on here because enough personal info about me is online) and ends with just being a nerd and the Animus is one of the cooler framing devices. It's not quite a Stargate or the TARDIS, but it's a cool, if absurd, concept. My interest tends to wax and wane with the setting involved, though it's not always a given the games I like most will be the ones I am most familiar with the settings of.

I tend to tire of the Ubisoft formula otherwise. I've got a couple of the MP games (Wildlands, the Division) because my tolerance for a game increases when my friends are around to snark at it, but otherwise...I mean, even games I'd otherwise enjoy get bogged down by Ubisoft mechanics (the Crew is fun as an open world racing game, but towers? Really?), so AC being my jam is more or less my level of investment in the basic concept.

Dalisclock:
I suspect it's the age old theory that all of the games are really being seen through the eyes of someone in the future and the modern day protagonist is yet another historical person. Kind of an inception mutiple levels thing.

AC Revelations did follow up on Altair's life after AC1 but for short 5-10 min segments centered around the assassin fortress in Syria, viewed through a series of Recorded memories that Ezio was collecting.

Yeah, I remember those AC:R sections and they were good (not gameplay-wise, that side was a tad boring), but for the story, as it continued Altair's story and showed how much he was still badass in his dotage.

Having a game where you play as his son (Darim probably), with the tutorials as a kid under Altair's guidance, training alongside/competing with Sef, and charting his career to becoming Mentor in the Levant, including his reaction to Sef's death.

At this point, there's only one Ubisoft game(not counting games like Valiant Hearts which somehow get made every so often) and you just pick your particular perferred flavor of it. Personally the AC games always grabbed me more then the FC series but I suspect that's because I'm a history Buff.

Yep... with you on all counts there. I enjoy my history, too, so playing the ACII trilogy was pretty educational given the Renaissance is one of my weaker areas, and finding all the adjustments they made for narrative reasons (reasonable or otherwise... mostly reasonable) was kinda fun.

Something Amyss:

Erm... OK...?(!)

I suspect my interest in AC starts with being a mild history nerd (my dad is a history major and authored historical fiction I won't mention on here because enough personal info about me is online) and ends with just being a nerd and the Animus is one of the cooler framing devices. It's not quite a Stargate or the TARDIS, but it's a cool, if absurd, concept. My interest tends to wax and wane with the setting involved, though it's not always a given the games I like most will be the ones I am most familiar with the settings of.

I liked the concept too, but the execution can be hit and miss with the protagonist involvement with historical events. It's why I think that despite its endless flaws, Unity was pretty good in this regard, because it turned the idea on its head (as did Black Flag to a certain extent). Everything Arno does is merely an attempt to stop things from happening and he basically fails throughout the whole thing. It's why ACIII (well, one of the many reasons) and Syndicate bugged the hell out of me.

As for Odyssey, haven't got it yet, but I'm aware it goes into Greek Mythology mahoosively (plus one borderline egregious character-time displacement), so even though it has the tag, and given its vast differences from the last AC game I genuinely enjoyed (BF), I'm ignoring the name entirely...!

SckizoBoy:

Erm... OK...?(!)

Did you play Origins? If not, it probably makes no sense.

It's kinda lame, but it was more a footnote to Saelune's comment about an inability to handle gunplay.

I liked the concept too, but the execution can be hit and miss with the protagonist involvement with historical events. It's why I think that despite its endless flaws, Unity was pretty good in this regard, because it turned the idea on its head (as did Black Flag to a certain extent). Everything Arno does is merely an attempt to stop things from happening and he basically fails throughout the whole thing. It's why ACIII (well, one of the many reasons) and Syndicate bugged the hell out of me.

As for Odyssey, haven't got it yet, but I'm aware it goes into Greek Mythology mahoosively (plus one borderline egregious character-time displacement), so even though it has the tag, and given its vast differences from the last AC game I genuinely enjoyed (BF), I'm ignoring the name entirely...!

No arguent about execution. One of the biggest problems I've had with the series is less about the quality of the history or even the action, but just that if we're expected to spend hours with a main character, they'd better be tolerable. They seem to be 50-50 on characters I can get behind, which won't automatically pass or fail a game but can tip it if I'm close.

I bought Odyssey on the strength of Origins. I really, really liked Origins. I liked the framing (much as I ever have, anyway), liked the protagonist, liked the setting, and even liked the RPG elements they added. It was a huge world that was actually fun to explore, and the Ubisoft elements didn't really bug me.

What's killed Odyssey for me is the RPG elements. Origins introduced Animus glitches in the form of three "gods" you could fight, and I figured the ahistorical critters would be like that. That bugs me is that I seem to have offended RNGesus in the first game where that really matters. I'm overleveled for the area I'm in, and even with special abilities, headshots won't take down enemies 2-3 levels below me. Most of my gear drops have been Warrior or Assassin bonuses, which don't fit my playstyle (as you have enough power for assassinations and I prefer avoiding direct combat). Quests are grindy, enemies are damage spongy, and so I get bored fast. Since the game doesn't like you upgrading stuff, you need to replace your gear regularly to keep up, and it's just not fun when you lose the ability to play your way. So far, the story's been good, but the intervening stuff has not been. One of the things I buy Creed games for is having to play smart with stealth and killing people from the shadows. Origins slightly changed this, but Odyssey rewrote the book and it's just not fun to me.

I might go further, but at this point, I don't even know if ?'ll make it to the point where I see the magic beasts and find out what the dealio is.

I guess the problem is I felt that the mythology element cold be interesting, but the game pads itself out sop much I'll never find out. People call this the Witcher 3's successor, and I gave up on that game because it bored me, too. I guess this is what RPG fans want, though? 60 hours of busywork to pad out a 10 hour story.

Huh, totally missed this, 'cos notifications ain't working and I'm a lazy fucker... anyway...

Something Amyss:
Did you play Origins? If not, it probably makes no sense.

No I did not, hence, thanks for that heads up.

It's kinda lame, but it was more a footnote to Saelune's comment about an inability to handle gunplay.

I see... sort of, but again, thanks for the explanation.

snip the rest

Eh, the RPG elements were pretty divisive for Origins AFAIK, so Ubisoft doubling down on it was bound to ruffle a few (more) feathers. I don't mind it, and the lack of upgrading actually suits me 'cos I consider it red tape to gameplay and prefer loot-hunting. Still, I'll say right away that I will get bored/peeved of/with certain aspects and probably not finish it for some months after I get it as I'll stop playing it within a couple weeks, then go back to it. I have a weird relationship with games.

Weirdly, when I first played AC:BF, I got to Havana... like the first proper piece of civilisation in the game you actually encounter, started free roam and rage-quit...! Yeah... Then came back to it some months later and had a whale of a time. And it doesn't matter about genre either. I love Napoleon:Total War, but the second half of the Prussian main campaign inexplicably pissed me off so much, I uninstalled it. Anyway, my gaming ADHD leads me to suspect AC:Ody may be a similar experience.

SckizoBoy:
Eh, the RPG elements were pretty divisive for Origins AFAIK, so Ubisoft doubling down on it was bound to ruffle a few (more) feathers. I don't mind it, and the lack of upgrading actually suits me 'cos I consider it red tape to gameplay and prefer loot-hunting. Still, I'll say right away that I will get bored/peeved of/with certain aspects and probably not finish it for some months after I get it as I'll stop playing it within a couple weeks, then go back to it. I have a weird relationship with games.

I liked the RPG elements in ACO. I don't like them here because they make it more loot-heavy and you can get screwed by the RNG pretty easily. Looking online, I'm far from the only person finding themselves going more tan five levels without getting gear that fits the tree they want to focus on (Hunter in my case). It ends up with pretty serious detriments to your skills. Sure, you can keep respeccing your skills, but it costs money in a game that's already somewhat stingy and it makes gearing up quite a pain in the neck when it also prohibits you from upgrading the gear you actually want.

Part of the problem is that gear never really seems to do enough. I don't know if this is where I mentioned it before, but I was over the level cap in the area I was in by 4 with a focus on hunter (ranged) and found myself under-prepared to take out common soldiers with headshots--some of them were surviving headshots from my bow with my special abilities providing me large boosts. The gear I started getting was all assassin or warrior, and I do enough damage to most targets in assassination already, and I find similar issues with warrior in that speccing out a warrior build doesn't seem to greatly impact my time to kill someone in a direct fight. TBH, I don't find it much longer to take down mercenaries than your average soldier in a fight. Granted, I open with a non-assassinating-assassination, but still.

And the solution I see offered online involves builds that require me to get loot I am simply not getting from drops. The hunter tree can apparently be quite deadly with the right skills and gear, but...I'm missing half that equation and after a while that becomes a problem.

And I get that part of the problem is me. I could just spec all warrior gear, get slightly better time-to-kill, and go in guns-a-blazing, but the irony is if I wanted to go in guns-a-blazing I probably wouldn't have bought Assassin's Creed. The fun for me has always been trying to get that flawless stealth run or massacring the entire base without alerting anyone if all else fails. But I see a bunch of complaints online about getting the right gear, and I can't help but think the reason things are this difficult for so many people is to sell you the shiny legendaries not enough people bought in Origins because they weren't necessary (and in fact, could be founf in Heka chests for regular money--none of this orichalcum crap).

Even still, I'm used to loot-based games either being more specific (Rogue gear for Rogues, Paladin gear for Paladins) or offering much more loot (the Borderlands series barely let me leave the safe zones without me practically tripping over my next weapon, and I still had the vending machines as backup, or even the Division gave you lots of gear choices up to end game).

I think I'm just beating a dead horse at this point, but it's not the RNG. It's not the loot mechanic. It's the sum of all its parts, and I think that sum was specifically tuned for a store full of MTs.

Something Amyss:

SckizoBoy:
Eh, the RPG elements were pretty divisive for Origins AFAIK, so Ubisoft doubling down on it was bound to ruffle a few (more) feathers. I don't mind it, and the lack of upgrading actually suits me 'cos I consider it red tape to gameplay and prefer loot-hunting. Still, I'll say right away that I will get bored/peeved of/with certain aspects and probably not finish it for some months after I get it as I'll stop playing it within a couple weeks, then go back to it. I have a weird relationship with games.

I liked the RPG elements in ACO. I don't like them here because they make it more loot-heavy and you can get screwed by the RNG pretty easily. Looking online, I'm far from the only person finding themselves going more tan five levels without getting gear that fits the tree they want to focus on (Hunter in my case). It ends up with pretty serious detriments to your skills. Sure, you can keep respeccing your skills, but it costs money in a game that's already somewhat stingy and it makes gearing up quite a pain in the neck when it also prohibits you from upgrading the gear you actually want.

Part of the problem is that gear never really seems to do enough. I don't know if this is where I mentioned it before, but I was over the level cap in the area I was in by 4 with a focus on hunter (ranged) and found myself under-prepared to take out common soldiers with headshots--some of them were surviving headshots from my bow with my special abilities providing me large boosts. The gear I started getting was all assassin or warrior, and I do enough damage to most targets in assassination already, and I find similar issues with warrior in that speccing out a warrior build doesn't seem to greatly impact my time to kill someone in a direct fight. TBH, I don't find it much longer to take down mercenaries than your average soldier in a fight. Granted, I open with a non-assassinating-assassination, but still.

And the solution I see offered online involves builds that require me to get loot I am simply not getting from drops. The hunter tree can apparently be quite deadly with the right skills and gear, but...I'm missing half that equation and after a while that becomes a problem.

And I get that part of the problem is me. I could just spec all warrior gear, get slightly better time-to-kill, and go in guns-a-blazing, but the irony is if I wanted to go in guns-a-blazing I probably wouldn't have bought Assassin's Creed. The fun for me has always been trying to get that flawless stealth run or massacring the entire base without alerting anyone if all else fails. But I see a bunch of complaints online about getting the right gear, and I can't help but think the reason things are this difficult for so many people is to sell you the shiny legendaries not enough people bought in Origins because they weren't necessary (and in fact, could be founf in Heka chests for regular money--none of this orichalcum crap).

Even still, I'm used to loot-based games either being more specific (Rogue gear for Rogues, Paladin gear for Paladins) or offering much more loot (the Borderlands series barely let me leave the safe zones without me practically tripping over my next weapon, and I still had the vending machines as backup, or even the Division gave you lots of gear choices up to end game).

I think I'm just beating a dead horse at this point, but it's not the RNG. It's not the loot mechanic. It's the sum of all its parts, and I think that sum was specifically tuned for a store full of MTs.

I just want to say that Far Cry Primal is a great game, probably the best in the series, and you are missing out.

Have Noah Cadwell Gerveis convince you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwgEyjxcfoY

Something Amyss:
I liked the RPG elements in ACO. I don't like them here because they make it more loot-heavy and you can get screwed by the RNG pretty easily. Looking online, I'm far from the only person finding themselves going more tan five levels without getting gear that fits the tree they want to focus on (Hunter in my case). It ends up with pretty serious detriments to your skills. Sure, you can keep respeccing your skills, but it costs money in a game that's already somewhat stingy and it makes gearing up quite a pain in the neck when it also prohibits you from upgrading the gear you actually want.

Eh, I play enough dice-based games that I'm thoroughly accustomed to getting screwed by the RNG, but I get your point, even if I think it'll be less of an issue for me (as mentioned, this is a swings-and-roundabouts thing since I prefer loot-system over upgrades as it's, for me at least, less thinking on my part, something I want to do less of when gaming, it's why I play TW on easy and just build historically accurate armies, it's less thinking on my part!).

Part of the problem is that gear never really seems to do enough. I don't know if this is where I mentioned it before, but I was over the level cap in the area I was in by 4 with a focus on hunter (ranged) and found myself under-prepared to take out common soldiers with headshots--some of them were surviving headshots from my bow with my special abilities providing me large boosts. The gear I started getting was all assassin or warrior, and I do enough damage to most targets in assassination already, and I find similar issues with warrior in that speccing out a warrior build doesn't seem to greatly impact my time to kill someone in a direct fight. TBH, I don't find it much longer to take down mercenaries than your average soldier in a fight. Granted, I open with a non-assassinating-assassination, but still.

And the solution I see offered online involves builds that require me to get loot I am simply not getting from drops. The hunter tree can apparently be quite deadly with the right skills and gear, but...I'm missing half that equation and after a while that becomes a problem.

Since I didn't play AC:O (the setting didn't interest me and the more overt change to skills & levelling had me reacting with a 'whelming' meh...), I'm not entirely sure what I'm getting myself into with AC:Ody, but given that I suck (Hunter is probably my worst class of the three, based on what I know of them), I'll likely go for a slightly more generalist character and take it where my whim takes me. Haven't the faintest what that'll do for my playthrough, but we'll see.

And I get that part of the problem is me. I could just spec all warrior gear, get slightly better time-to-kill, and go in guns-a-blazing, but the irony is if I wanted to go in guns-a-blazing I probably wouldn't have bought Assassin's Creed.

A fair point, but I never really played AC for the stealth system because it could be enraging at times (tailing in AC3, ship stealth in AC4:BF etc.), or rather, I gave it a great deal of slack (in the more rope to muck up with sense, rather than forgiving it, don't know if there's a functional difference, but in my head, there is...) and tooled myself up for combat, but (attempted to) play(ed) stealthily, if that makes any sense.

The fun for me has always been trying to get that flawless stealth run or massacring the entire base without alerting anyone if all else fails.

Something I can appreciate, even if it isn't for me. I do that sort of thing purely by accident more often than not...

Thing is, stealth for AC:Ody is pretty much out of the window for me because I'm disowning the 'AC' tag on the game, and the PC is a Spartan-born Dorian mercenary raised amongst Ionians, which really doesn't lend itself to anything 'assassin' based. But eh... play as one desires.

But I see a bunch of complaints online about getting the right gear, and I can't help but think the reason things are this difficult for so many people is to sell you the shiny legendaries not enough people bought in Origins because they weren't necessary (and in fact, could be founf in Heka chests for regular money--none of this orichalcum crap).

Even still, I'm used to loot-based games either being more specific (Rogue gear for Rogues, Paladin gear for Paladins) or offering much more loot (the Borderlands series barely let me leave the safe zones without me practically tripping over my next weapon, and I still had the vending machines as backup, or even the Division gave you lots of gear choices up to end game).

I think I'm just beating a dead horse at this point, but it's not the RNG. It's not the loot mechanic. It's the sum of all its parts, and I think that sum was specifically tuned for a store full of MTs.

Something that may bother me... :/ I'm pretty much committed to getting it, so I'll see how it goes once I'm a few hours in. Still, that's one thing that annoys me, loot being excessive, as I end up spending an inordinate amount of time comparing stuff/saving it for when it 'might' be useful (though in this context, I'll out-level it sooner or later which sort of cuts that aspect down). It's part of the reason I liked Kingdoms of Amalur, insomuch that I only had to look at a weapon name and know whether I could even use it effectively or ditch it (class specific weapon-based move-sets and passive buffs). Specific gear is better, but generally leaves my in-character mode suspicious, 'cos (perhaps hypocritically) I like wading through a modicum of junk and doing that blas? thing of chucking stuff over one's shoulder, before scuttling over to it and shrugging, figuring it could be worth a couple copper bits or something like that. So maybe the AC:Ody system may suit me, but as you imply, I (too) may run into the problem that I have to dump nearly everything I come across, something that will definitely be a wrinkle in mine (or, well, anyone's) experience. :/

SckizoBoy:

A fair point, but I never really played AC for the stealth system because it could be enraging at times (tailing in AC3, ship stealth in AC4:BF etc.), or rather, I gave it a great deal of slack (in the more rope to muck up with sense, rather than forgiving it, don't know if there's a functional difference, but in my head, there is...) and tooled myself up for combat, but (attempted to) play(ed) stealthily, if that makes any sense.

TBF, most of the games were kind of bad at it. IV was decent on land, Brotherhood made stealth more actually critical, but usually it was kind of pigeonholed as "hide in this box" or whatever and any sneaking was kind of dodgy. Still is, somewhat, as I get spotted through things like a mountain case sometimes, but Origins was the first game in a while that really scratched my itch.

The reality is that it's probably time for me to look for a new series to do that. But part of my reaction is specifically because Origins did it pretty well. It also didn't hurt that many of the videos I saw involved stealthing baddies (though there are plenty of combat vids as well) and I got pretty psyched by that.

Again, it runs into that catch 22 of I might have felt different about the game had I gone in with different expectations, but had I gone in with different expectations, I might not have bothered anyway." Playing in Greece is admittedly cool, but combat's always been a pretty weak point in AC games and any steps taken by ACO were negated by this one turning everyone into damage sponges. I know some people really like that, but it's definitely not for me.

Thing is, stealth for AC:Ody is pretty much out of the window for me because I'm disowning the 'AC' tag on the game, and the PC is a Spartan-born Dorian mercenary raised amongst Ionians, which really doesn't lend itself to anything 'assassin' based. But eh... play as one desires.

It'll be interesting to see how that works out, as the game still does stealth and may mandate it. It also has the usual pieces of Eden/ancients/Assassin Order stuff, though people have told me it's the least intrusive here that it's ever been. I honestly don't know how vital stealth is. There's a lot more open combat in this game because it...is...SPA *ahem* so it maye work out fine.

But I see a bunch of complaints online about getting the right gear, and I can't help but think the reason things are this difficult for so many people is to sell you the shiny legendaries not enough people bought in Origins because they weren't necessary (and in fact, could be founf in Heka chests for regular money--none of this orichalcum crap).

Even still, I'm used to loot-based games either being more specific (Rogue gear for Rogues, Paladin gear for Paladins) or offering much more loot (the Borderlands series barely let me leave the safe zones without me practically tripping over my next weapon, and I still had the vending machines as backup, or even the Division gave you lots of gear choices up to end game).

I think I'm just beating a dead horse at this point, but it's not the RNG. It's not the loot mechanic. It's the sum of all its parts, and I think that sum was specifically tuned for a store full of MTs.

Something that may bother me... :/ I'm pretty much committed to getting it, so I'll see how it goes once I'm a few hours in. Still, that's one thing that annoys me, loot being excessive, as I end up spending an inordinate amount of time comparing stuff/saving it for when it 'might' be useful (though in this context, I'll out-level it sooner or later which sort of cuts that aspect down). It's part of the reason I liked Kingdoms of Amalur, insomuch that I only had to look at a weapon name and know whether I could even use it effectively or ditch it (class specific weapon-based move-sets and passive buffs). Specific gear is better, but generally leaves my in-character mode suspicious, 'cos (perhaps hypocritically) I like wading through a modicum of junk and doing that blas? thing of chucking stuff over one's shoulder, before scuttling over to it and shrugging, figuring it could be worth a couple copper bits or something like that. So maybe the AC:Ody system may suit me, but as you imply, I (too) may run into the problem that I have to dump nearly everything I come across, something that will definitely be a wrinkle in mine (or, well, anyone's) experience. :/

You might also not get screwed by RNGesus like I did. I mean, I play D&D and I'm used to bad luck (low stat rolls, bad loot, bad rolls in general), and so I know this can be a thing but I need to feel engaged to roll up a new character and I'm not sure I can be bothered.

Oncve I've simmered for a while, I might just crank the difficulty down to easy and see if it becomes fun again. I usually don't bother with lower difficulties, but maybe it'll salvage the game for me.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here