|
Ape Agitator posted:Assassin's Creed (the entire series) really disappointed me in even the concept of having "combat". You're an assassin, not Kratos, so why would you even be swinging maces and stuff instead of disappearing into the shadows. I agree with everything you say. One of the biggest flaws with the first AC, is that clearly they intended players to run away from fights. Everything in the game is telling you to run, do some crazy parkour getaway to hide. Several problems with this: Running away from 15 guards isn't as much fun as killing 15 guards. Running away from 15 guards isn't as quick as killing 15 guards. Running away from 15 guards isn't as easy as killing 15 guards. And the biggest nail in the coffin of their design was that there was zero penalty for failure. Rather than thinking "Oh gently caress, 15 guards I had better scram" I would leap into a fight knowing that even if I die, which at the start did happen a few times, then it instantly reloads you at pretty much the same spot so you can just go at it again. You'll only ever fail a big fight once, maybe twice if they have some archers get involved. Even with the reloads it's still quicker, easier, and more fun than running. I just basically said "gently caress it", and embraced the fact that it was a fun and easy sword-fighting game. Because let's be frank, there are hardly any decent hack/slash/parry sword-fighting games in existence. Demon's Souls and to a lesser extent Skyrim provide some of that good stuff, but the last game that accurately had swords clashing against swords before Assassin's Creed was the original Prince of Persia! It's a genre of games that is criminally under-represented, for the most part any time you are playing a game with a sword in your hand it's just hacking away at baddies without any blocking or parrying. Assassin's Creed didn't deliver what it set out to do, but what it did give me was something that I couldn't get anywhere else. This, this is why I still value even that highly flawed first game.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 08:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
Parkingtigers posted:Because let's be frank, there are hardly any decent hack/slash/parry sword-fighting games in existence. Sid Meier's Pirates 
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 08:49
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:I remember back when they were doing the AC1 tech demonstration and I'd swear that some commentator or another said you didn't want to get caught in combat because it was deadly but combat in AC is anything but. Most times you can fight until you get bored and there's almost no risk. I do remember someone saying right at the beginning of the series development, perhaps even after the first ever trailer for AC1 came out, that combat was extremely dangerous and sword strikes would be one or two hit kills (kinda like how combat works in the rainbow six games), but i guess focus groups didn't like it so they changed it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
It really seems like they originally planned for the games to be more like Ancient Hitman and at some point ended up changing their mind so that it now focuses on effectively super-awesome badasses who slaughter entire armies on foot. I just wish they would fix the combat system and controls to compensate. The entire "high profile/low profile" mechanic makes no sense with how the game is designed now. Unless the mission objective involves "don't get caught," there's no reason to not use high profile, and the high/low profile mechanics are kind of wonky anyway.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 14:37
|
|
|
loudog999 posted:Any other jewels from the PS3 generation I should be looking into? That's easy, you should definitely check out Valkyria Chr loudog999 posted:The only games I don't like, and its only because I am horrible at them, are strategy RPGs. So anything like FFT and Disgaea are way off limit. Oh... oh. The God of War series is good, and so is Infamous 1+2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 17:43
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Exactly. AC combat is piss easy. I found a way to make the game harder the last time I played it before 2 came out: turn off all of the HUD. Granted most people will probably just hate this, since combat is basically the same, and it just makes finding things harder. I always played the game as a parkour game that had assassinations between free-running sessions instead of an assassination game with free-running between murders, so this worked for me. This also caused me to
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
I still don't get the dislike of AC's combat system. It's so, so easy to fix it yourself - just don't use the counter-move. Ever. It makes the combat a fair bit more tense. Still not really hard, but not the boring counter-fest it would otherwise be. I reserve it for when I am honestly getting destroyed by attackers and need a quick out. Otherwise, it's all about trolling soldiers with thrown javelines and swords, calling in helpers, running around waving a sword on horseback because it's awesome, etc. It's a game that rewards people willing to make their own fun in a sandbox'y world, of which I am one, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
Shalinor posted:I still don't get the dislike of AC's combat system. It's so, so easy to fix it yourself - just don't use the counter-move. Ever. It makes the combat a fair bit more tense. Still not really hard, but not the boring counter-fest it would otherwise be. I reserve it for when I am honestly getting destroyed by attackers and need a quick out. Otherwise, it's all about trolling soldiers with thrown javelines and swords, calling in helpers, running around waving a sword on horseback because it's awesome, etc. See, I tried not doing counters and rather than finding it easy and dull I found it slightly annoying and dull. I admit, in general, that I'm not as much of a person that loves open world games. I tend to not find that much fun in the pure sandbox. his is probably also why I don't like Saint's Row half as much as alot of you tend to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
I don't think the hate towards the combat system is just because of the counter-fest that it typically becomes, but also (as Puddin elaborated on) because it invites you to play the game that is somewhat counter to the whole philosophy of being an assassin. Sure, the solution there is to just stay out of combat and focus on avoidance, but the game stacks that approach against you. Anyway, it's an interesting dilemma. The combat is genuinely fun (at least it was for me when I last played a few years ago), so there's a draw to it, but it breaks the immersion quite a bit that your 'live by the shadows assassin' can easily fight 10 plus guards with giant pikes simultaneously. I guess part of me would love a difficulty setting where a frontal assault on any alerted guard is almost certain death, but that would probably put me in the minority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:It really seems like they originally planned for the games to be more like Ancient Hitman and at some point ended up changing their mind so that it now focuses on effectively super-awesome badasses who slaughter entire armies on foot. I just wish they would fix the combat system and controls to compensate. The entire "high profile/low profile" mechanic makes no sense with how the game is designed now. Unless the mission objective involves "don't get caught," there's no reason to not use high profile, and the high/low profile mechanics are kind of wonky anyway. Oh yeah, the one thing they didn't fix in AC2 was that you still needed to hold down a button in low profile to gently push people out of the way. Um hey, I'm walking slowly, how about by walking slowly I just naturally try not to make that dude drop a box? It's also ridiculous that you could make a horse move at 4 different speeds, when all you will ever use is walk and gallop. And more of the latter than the former. The idea of blending on a horse to slowly sneak past guards was mental. I'm on a goddamn horse, they are on foot, I think I'll just gallop past and let them shout at my back as I vanish over the horizon in 5 seconds. As you say, no reason not to use high profile all the time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Shalinor posted:I still don't get the dislike of AC's combat system. It's so, so easy to fix it yourself - just don't use the counter-move. Ever. It makes the combat a fair bit more tense. Still not really hard, but not the boring counter-fest it would otherwise be. I reserve it for when I am honestly getting destroyed by attackers and need a quick out. Otherwise, it's all about trolling soldiers with thrown javelines and swords, calling in helpers, running around waving a sword on horseback because it's awesome, etc. However none of that changes the fact that AC is one of my favorite game series ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
The AC games are one of my favorite series and I like the combat, but after playing Arkham City no melee combat system can ever fully satisfy me again
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
I just dusted off Infamous 2 for the first time since launch, mainly to try out the new Move controls. My first thought: Why weren't these the standard at launch, anyway? It works great. Circle-strafing while headshotting has never been easier. Looks like they expanded the UGC support somewhat, too. More options, plus people can now use boss-size enemies. They never added support for Nix and Kuo to be added to missions though, did they? Considering getting that Festival Of Blood standalone thing. It has its own UGC server and content, right?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:25
|
|
|
Urban Achiever posted:I don't think the hate towards the combat system is just because of the counter-fest that it typically becomes, but also (as Puddin elaborated on) because it invites you to play the game that is somewhat counter to the whole philosophy of being an assassin. Sure, the solution there is to just stay out of combat and focus on avoidance, but the game stacks that approach against you. Oh I would have loved that. Honestly, the only thing the game needed to fix the combat would have been to make it that your health bar didn't recharge until you were out of sight of pursuers. Bam, game fixed right there (repetition issues aside). With that, sure you could do a bit of fighting but the guards get a few hits in now and then. Seeing the health whittle down with no way for it to start regenerating would really make you feel at at some point you need to get the hell out of there. As it stands, I can just concentrate on blocking and see the bar go up quicker than they can knock it down. Oh, and being grabbed and thrown by the guards should have done damage too. As it is right now, being thrown is just a way to avoid attacks for a few seconds so it actually gives you a chance to heal up rather than being a penalty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:26
|
|
|
Parkingtigers posted:Oh I would have loved that. Honestly, the only thing the game needed to fix the combat would have been to make it that your health bar didn't recharge until you were out of sight of pursuers. Bam, game fixed right there (repetition issues aside).
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
quote:but it breaks the immersion quite a bit that your 'live by the shadows assassin' can easily fight 10 plus guards with giant pikes simultaneously. Ezio really isn't a "live by the shadows assassin", though. Maybe Altair, but not Ezio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Valid point. Now if only they had changed the name of the game to, 'Berserker's Creed'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
Aphrodite posted:Ezio really isn't a "live by the shadows assassin", though. Maybe Altair, but not Ezio.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
I don't mind it being combat heavy but if you're going to make it combat heavy the combat really needs to be good. Even not countering just tends to make it tedious and repetitive. It certainly doesn't help coming off Arkham City directly to Assassin's Creed:R. It's like going from a perfectly cooked steak to a cheap burger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:I don't mind it being combat heavy but if you're going to make it combat heavy the combat really needs to be good. Even not countering just tends to make it tedious and repetitive. It certainly doesn't help coming off Arkham City directly to Assassin's Creed:R. It's like going from a perfectly cooked steak to a cheap burger.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
AC2 introduced smoke grenades. Why are you guys doing so much fighting? I'll admit it's tedious when the game forces it, but how often is it that you can't just push someone or throw a grenade and then run away?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Recently I got introduced to a concept that is behind a lot of problems I have with games: complexity without difficulty. It really is a bad combination, and one I feel like we are seeing more and more of these days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:13
|
|
|
SpacePig posted:AC2 introduced smoke grenades. Why are you guys doing so much fighting? I'll admit it's tedious when the game forces it, but how often is it that you can't just push someone or throw a grenade and then run away? Because it takes less effort and time to stab 5 guys with chain kills than it does to throw a smoke bomb and find a hiding place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:complexity without difficulty. I actually went through this exact thing with AC2 (coincidentally). I joined the game in Venice after putting it down for a few months due to work. I was immediately stuck because I couldn't figure out how to make a certain type of jump that's different from the regular type of jump to get out of some alley that I was in. It took a REALLY long time to just get my bearings and feel like I was in the game again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:22
|
|
|
My trick to making AC2 combat fun was to use bare-handed disarms whenever possible. This meant I got to use a large variety of weapons (and a larger variety of kill/counter animations) and some of the more obscure parts of the combat system, like the polearm sweep move or the ability to hurl heavy weapons at enemies to one-shot them. Nothing in any of the games was as satisfying as throwing a claymore through the ribcage of one of those assholes on a horse in Brotherhood as he charges at you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:23
|
|
|
Sindai posted:My trick to making AC2 combat fun was to use bare-handed disarms whenever possible. Oh god yes, I had forgotten how awesome these are. Nothing was more satisfying than standing there unarmed, inviting some arsehole to have a go, then taking their weapon and beating them to death with it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
Teslavi posted:That fight was most certainly not designed for armor-piercing rounds. AP rounds aren't even really an ammo type, since the main point of the magazine case is to use your enemy knowledge to effectively exploit weaknesses and/or inflict status ailments. Armor-piercing rounds are just an "I win" button that works for pretty much everything. Wait, you can target specific pieces of armor? Is that what that weird reticle when you hit R3 [or whatever it is] does? Son of a bitch. That would've made a bunch of things a lot easier. e. Yeah I know, "read the manual/tutorial, idiot" Code Jockey fucked around with this message at 19:59 on Mar 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 19:57
|
|
|
Code Jockey posted:Wait, you can target specific pieces of armor? Your shots will damage whatever piece of armor is in your direct line of fire, unless you're jumping, and then you'll hit all pieces of armor equally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:09
|
|
|
For some reason I kept reading AC as Armored Core and was wondering what people were talking about. Is the AC5 demo supposed to be out this week? I just ordered Tales and Yakuza, two games I totally forgot were coming out this week. Hoping that Yakuza isn't as bad as some people say, but as long as I can run around beating poo poo up I don't really care.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:10
|
|
|
^^ Haha yeah I do the AC == Armored Core thing too  Also gently caress yes Yakuza [don't even care how bad it is/might be]Dominic White posted:Your shots will damage whatever piece of armor is in your direct line of fire, unless you're jumping, and then you'll hit all pieces of armor equally. Oh okay that's what I thought. Yeah, that I knew. [loving fat guys and their tiny shoulder plates that absorb everything t  ]
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:27
|
|
|
Sindai posted:Nothing in any of the games was as satisfying as throwing a claymore through the ribcage of one of those assholes on a horse in Brotherhood as he charges at you. If you weren't carrying the Spada as your heavy weapon, and beginning every single combat by throwing it into the skull of the nearest officer - you just weren't playing Assassin's Creed 2: Brotherhood. ... and then you sauntered over, grabbed it, and threw it into the next guy. Or you took out the spear user first, then threw THAT into the nearest guard. Etc. When bored, find the nearest spear / grab your Spada, and huck it down a busy street. See how far you can get a clean throw without spearing a civilian.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 20:29
|
|
|
Krad posted:That's easy, you should definitely check out Valkyria Chr I'd still recomnend that he check out the Valkyria Chronicles demo at least. I've not played much of any tactics game before but that demo convinced me to get it. Still need to PLAY it (and Advance Wars and the two console Fire Emblem games that I still have in the plastic) but am looking forward to that day. Seriously check out some demos. And if After Burner Climax goes on sale for 5 bucks again it's totally worth it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 21:47
|
|
|
Do I need to play through Uncharted before I try Uncharted 2? I've heard the first one has not aged well at all, but I figure if I play it first I might not notice. Then again if it totally sucks now and I don't need to play it to understand whats going on in the sequel, I'd probably just skip it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:53
|
|
|
Honey Badger posted:Do I need to play through Uncharted before I try Uncharted 2? I've heard the first one has not aged well at all, but I figure if I play it first I might not notice. Then again if it totally sucks now and I don't need to play it to understand whats going on in the sequel, I'd probably just skip it. You can play Uncharted 2 first, but you'll be missing out on a lot of the impact of seeing familiar faces and understanding character relationships. The mechanics are much more solid in 2, so you'll never want to go back and play 1 after you do; personally, I say if you have easy access to 1, it can only help to play it first and then play 2, because it definitely enhances the experience (and the experience is the main reason to even play in the first place), but it won't kill you if you just jump right into 2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
Code Jockey posted:Wait, you can target specific pieces of armor? Is that what that weird reticle when you hit R3 [or whatever it is] does? Son of a bitch. That would've made a bunch of things a lot easier. Wait, there's something that pops up when you press R3? That's not in the manual or tutorial. Time to go back to the old standby of "hit every button, always".
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 23:01
|
|
|
Honey Badger posted:Do I need to play through Uncharted before I try Uncharted 2? I've heard the first one has not aged well at all, but I figure if I play it first I might not notice. Then again if it totally sucks now and I don't need to play it to understand whats going on in the sequel, I'd probably just skip it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 23:05
|
|
|
Honey Badger posted:Do I need to play through Uncharted before I try Uncharted 2? I've heard the first one has not aged well at all, but I figure if I play it first I might not notice. Then again if it totally sucks now and I don't need to play it to understand whats going on in the sequel, I'd probably just skip it. Just replayed it after 2 and 3 and it was still great. People are so harsh nowadays, a 2007 PS3 game "hasn't aged well" maybe compared to UC2, not to compared to pretty much any game before the current generation. It's lovely unless you expect it to be better than its sequels. The gunplay and traversal isn't for everyone, but that's true of the other 2 games as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Honey Badger posted:Do I need to play through Uncharted before I try Uncharted 2? I've heard the first one has not aged well at all, but I figure if I play it first I might not notice. Then again if it totally sucks now and I don't need to play it to understand whats going on in the sequel, I'd probably just skip it. I would say play it. It still looks good and has a great presentation. The combat got a little tedious for me in some parts and the game takes a weird turn later on that I didn't really enjoy, but overall it was worth the playthrough. Plus it takes like 8 or 10 hours tops. If anything, it will make Uncharted 2 even better when you get to it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
Isn't there a double pack for uncharted or was that another game I'm thinking of both. Uncharted 1 was good, Uncharted 2 was awesome. Ignore the ones who said Uncharted 1 didn't age well. It still looks good for a ps3 game. While the combat is nothing to write about, the climbing is still drat fun Uncharted 2 had just more great set pieces compared to one.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 18:56 |
|
|
The first Uncharted has some very irritating difficultly spikes here and there, don't be scared to change the difficulty if you keep getting killed at the same checkpoint. 1 is nowhere near the quality of 2 and 3 but it`s still awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2012 00:57
|
|