• luciole (he/him)@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      59 minutes ago

      AC’s best parts are hardly the dialogue choices. Often there’s a good one, some bad ones, and information is either partial or vague. Hardly fun unless guessing is your thing. Their approach to “solving” it is just a bandaid over a flawed design though.

    • egrets@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      3 hours ago

      The thing is, the Assassins Creed series doesn’t have its roots in RPG gameplay. They’ve shoehorned it in in later games, but it’s always felt surface-level and cheap. Going back to telling a definitive story, in which you as the player enact the action, is a good thing in my opinion.

      • XTL@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        3 hours ago

        I’d say the idea was that certain events have happened in history. Broad strokes are known. But you’re running the simulation to find out the details. And that’s where the game happens. Reach the objective, whatever way, or fail. Much like any other game.

        That may be some way away from a sandbox game but it’s worlds away from watching a movie.

        But on rails games like Drakes Whatever? I’d watch the movie if it wasn’t annoying and full of obnoxious characters and bad script.

        • egrets@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Reach the objective, whatever way, or fail.

          This really isn’t very representative of early Assassins Creed. It’s generally been chock full of very specific instructions - some mandatory, some optional for partial synchronicity – “Don’t alert the guards”, “You have 90 seconds”, “Use smoke bombs 5 times”, etc.