Assassin's Creed 3

[tuna]

It feels like you are arguing two different things.

1: You do not get "rewarded" with greater capabilities when you do a lot of sub quest/side sections/non main story stuff in AC3.

2: AC3 does not feel like it is ONE game, it feels like it is several games bolted together and these different games do not quite mesh.

Or have I misunderstood something?

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Those are the two complaints I got out of his comments, which is why I said thanks and I'll skip it.

I like to be rewarded for accomplishments in games, especially if the missions aren't linear and are side quests. Why do them if they're pointless? Sure, there's inherent entertainment if they aren't repetitive but come 'on.. we know they are.

And games that feel disjointed certainly aren't very much fun. I like to know what to expect from a game after the first couple of levels. I don't want to be playing chess and suddenly have to play squash to continue to the next level. Or even go from chess to checkers. Hey! I thought I was playing chess. I was enjoying playing chess. Now I have to sit here and play checkers? Sure, it's easy but that just makes it a waste of my time.

 

[Sigfried1977]

It feels like you are arguing two different things.

1: You do not get "rewarded" with greater capabilities when you do a lot of sub quest/side sections/non main story stuff in AC3.

2: AC3 does not feel like it is ONE game, it feels like it is several games bolted together and these different games do not quite mesh.

Or have I misunderstood something?

Pretty much, yeah. But I feel the two things are intrinsically linked. The fact that you don't really get any tangible rewards is a major reason why the game feels so disjointed. The AC games always suffered from this imo, but never quite to that extent.

 

[tuna]

I like to be rewarded for accomplishments in games, especially if the missions aren't linear and are side quests. Why do them if they're pointless?

Because you have a fun time doing it? Otherwise, what is the point of playing the game at all?

 

[tuna]

Pretty much, yeah. But I feel the two things are intrinsically linked. The fact that you don't really get any tangible rewards is a major reason why the game feels so disjointed. The AC games always suffered from this imo, but never quite to that extent.

I cannot really comment much on AC3, but if you try a game like Yakuza 4 you will probably feel that it is really disjointed. You can go to game centers, golf clubs, bowling, hostess bars, whiskey bars and shitloads of other places. And you do not get "rewarded" anything tangible (within the main story) at all. But I had a really fun time exploring and trying stuff.

 

[nightshade]

Finished this today and I thought the ending was pretty much empty.

Also this is the first AC game after AC1 where I wasn't inclined at all to do the side missions or hunt for collectibles. I also found the world design to be boring, the cities lacked any sort of landmark or whatsoever and the forest is just an inconvenient hurdle for travelling with a horse. The writing is everywhere and pacing is off

Spoiler

you spend hours playing as Haythem and then switch to Conor and you have a character that is learning things again. It's also a very common trend for games to end the "current story arc" (and sometimes lay bait for future sequels) so that they can start a new arc later in the same franchise. But in case of games like Mass Effect and this it just ends up making the whole "on the edge situation" feel worthless.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Because you have a fun time doing it? Otherwise, what is the point of playing the game at all?

This is now the second time you've said nearly the same thing, all the while admitting you have no specific experience with AC3 to begin with.

Perhaps you should look up intrinsic and extrinsic and you'll have your answer.

 

[tuna]

This is now the second time you've said nearly the same thing, all the while admitting you have no specific experience with AC3 to begin with.

Perhaps you should look up intrinsic and extrinsic and you'll have your answer.

in·trin·sic/inˈtrinzik/
Adjective:
Belonging naturally; essential.
(of a muscle) Contained wholly within the organ on which it acts.

ex·trin·sic/ikˈstrinzik/
Adjective:
Not part of the essential nature of someone or something; coming or operating from outside.
(of a muscle, such as any of the eye muscles) Having its origin some distance from the part that it moves.

Now I looked up those words for all of us! I still do not get why you would play games if you do not have fun doing it, and I do not really see how my limited experience with the AC series have anything to do with it. Apparently, you do not think fun is a "tangible reward" (whatever that is supposed to be in a game) but you want something else when you complete "side missions". I, respectfully, disagree.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

Great.

So now that you have the definitions, it shouldn't be so confusing.

Some people are motivated by the simple act of doing something. Others are motivated by the rewards they get for doing something.

If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't Achievements and Trophies, let alone characters that obtain different levels for benefits or better weapons as you progress through games.

Actually, your point that people should be content to get enjoyment out of the simple act of playing flies in the fact of the entire reward system that has been created by modern video games.

 

[tuna]

Actually, your point that people should be content to get enjoyment out of the simple act of playing flies in the fact of the entire reward system that has been created by modern video games.

I never said people "should" do anything. I merely asked a question.

But personally I have found that I do not get much enjoyment out of the "reward system that has been created by modern video games". I like UC: Golden Abyss because the aiming system makes it really enjoyable and fun to shoot people, not because I get a trophy if I shoot 10 people in the head in a row. I like it that the game challenges me to do such things, but for me the reward is a very small part of the enjoyment. However, you might have a different opinion.

 

[RancidLunchmeat]

I do have a different opinion.

It may very well be due to the lack of compelling storytelling in modern games. There's often no compelling plot point to do side missions (almost by definition are not part of the main story line), and often cases there's really no point to go from area to area or goal to goal.

They only exist in order to lengthen game play. So in order to make what would otherwise be a completely worthless and most likely repetitive section of the game worthwhile, the game designers had to build in rewards to keep the player interested.

In the case of AC3, from the reviews in this thread, it appears the game designers failed to do that.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

It's really sad, considering how many good stories a game like Ultima VII had with a fraction of the developers a studio like Ubisoft assigns to such projects.

 

[DJ12]

Due to an oversight (I didn't read anything in the box lol) I purchased the Benedict Arnold DLC, so I have a code going for this DLC on PS3. If anyone wants it let me know (Although I think it's free in every PS3 game, maybe someone bought it second hand and needs a code)

I have the UK version, I have no idea if the codes are region lock.