I really don't understand the people who are convinced AC3 will be set ONLY in modern times. Have you played AC1 and AC2? Do you really think they're going to drop the "historical fiction wrapped in a modern conspiracy" conceit they have spent so much time building on the final game? Turn AC3 into a generic modern day game? Come on.
It's pretty obvious that Desmond is going to go around to these different locations, experience the bleeding effect there to get some key information, and then pick up the piece of Eden himself.
To those who said playing multiple assassins in multiple time periods would feel "disjointed", have you played Eternal Darkness? One of the best games of all time, and you played as a woman in modern times who relived her ancestors' memories - they ranged from a Roman centurion to a monk in the Middle Ages to an explorer in the 1940s.
PaperLuigi44My amazement is at maximum capacity.Registered Userregular
edited December 2009
So, I guess it is time for me to be 'that guy' and ask whether or not I should finish AC1 before I try this out.
I hired out AC1, got a little further then the part where you take out the first major target, then that was about it. I'm fully aware that AC1 is said to get repetitive and that AC2 improves on the gameplay leaps and bounds, but I am often a stickler for finishing the story of one game before I get into the sequel.
Sorry I probably wasn't clear - I meant London set anywhere from around 1640-1800AD would be great. The world was pretty different even in 1900. But ideally I'd love to explore those old cities for a long long time.
Hooray, I finally beat it tonight so now I can start clicking all these spoiler tags.
...
It looks like half of us are mad about DLC, then? Fascinating.
Real spoilers:
I'm also giving up on ninjas for AC3. Frankly, there's very little reason to go back into the Animus. The threat is in the now and with the codex map the Assassins know exactly where to go. I doubt Desmond has memories in all of those places, so it's not like you can jump back and check out all the temples personally.
The only way to advance the now-plot is to have Desmond's crew jet-setting around the world, hitting all the marked locations on the map. The ruins down near Tasmania probably aren't large (size of Apenine), the ruins in the wilds of Russia are a little bigger (Forli), and main locations in New York, Cameroon, and Indonesia. That's a good mix of architectures to play around on.
They could always do what was suggested earlier.
Have you go to the places and instead of actually using the animus, just have the bleed over effect
That would be my other choice, over revolutionary france anyway.
I called the real-time warping for the bleeding effect! Think Soul Reaver.
Heh, AC3 debate reminds of the Olympics a bit.... "Pick my city/country!" Now I keep thinking about Chicago and the World's Fair. At least Ubisoft has plenty of material to choose from....literally millennia worth.
I'm still having problems with the multi knife throw. Do you have to be in fairly close combat with multiple guards to get it to work? Will it not work with just one person?
And I finally got the giant squid to show up. Took like 5 times. Dunno if it just takes that long or you have to be standing in a particular spot.
zellychan on
"I am the fabric of history, you are a fictional stain! I'll stick a flag up your ass and claim you for Spain!" -Christopher Columbus
Hey so I skipped a few armors in the game, and I just went back to buy them all to complete the collection, and now I can't equip my nicer armor. What the fuck?
I've already completed the Carnivale part. I have not yet collected Altair's armor. I had all of the leather and skipped ahead to the Metal armor for a few things. I went back and bought some Helmschimed armor and now I can't equip any of the Missaglias armor I've already purchased. I've gone into the menus, and I can't seem to find a way to swap out anything.
How do you get the Carnivale armor? I just finished that part of the game and didn't get squat.
Its a temproary thing that you get whilst the carnivale is going ahead. Easily mistaken for Altairs Armor, which I got at the exact same time so I didn't realise there was a special outfit for the Carnevale.
So, I guess it is time for me to be 'that guy' and ask whether or not I should finish AC1 before I try this out.
I hired out AC1, got a little further then the part where you take out the first major target, then that was about it. I'm fully aware that AC1 is said to get repetitive and that AC2 improves on the gameplay leaps and bounds, but I am often a stickler for finishing the story of one game before I get into the sequel.
Besides the repetitiveness, I'm actually a little surprised how much I don't hate AC1. There's a good game here, desperate to get out from behind the rinse/repeat of the missions and sidequests.
I'm sick of hearing this complaint that it's "Content Held Back". It's not.
They knew they were going to make DLC after the game was out and instead of designing it so the DLC would tack on to the ending of the game, they placed a little gap in time within the story where it would fit. They left two chapter numbers there for the DLC to fit into, not only so they wouldn't inherently ruin the ending of their game but also to trick dumbass motherfuckers into thinking the DLC is necessary. Seems to be working.
I've said this before. The game could have 12 chapters and be exactly the same, with DLC being chapters 13 and 14. Instead they put it between 11 and 14, fucking with everyone's head who can't grasp the concept that DLC is expected from major games now so they planned for it during development.
There was a huge period in time where a bunch of stuff happened that wouldn't have anything to do with Ezio's quest for vengeance. If you download the DLC, you'll get some nice extra content dealing with additional happenings in the period between the Pazzi Conspiracy and Borgia's ascending to Pope. If you don't download it, you get to play the saga of Ezio's vengeance against those who wronged him.
It is literally just additional content that has no bearing whatsoever on the plot of the main game. Which is exactly what DLC is supposed to be, right?
"So guys, what do we do for DLC?"
"Well can we come up with people to kill after the end of the story?"
"Nah, they're all pretty much dead. How about some additional side stuff earlier on?"
"Yeah but we should include new areas and some missions that are more grandiose than just assassinations"
"Ezio ages about 23 years or so during the game, so let's cram it in between the gaps of the story"
"Cool, we'll shorten some of the gaps here here and here, that gives us 11 consecutive years we can use for DLC"
"HAY GUYS I HAW ABOUT WII PUT CHAPTAR NUMBURZ BETWIIN TEH GAP SOZ WE MAKE PPLZ ANGRY"
FYI, if the DLC allows you to play additional memories that happened before the end of the game, it stands to reason they'll be adding in the ability to replay memories besides the tombs.
I was just thinking... imagine if an RPG had a planned DLC package wherein you'd travel to an island and do quests there. The dev team doesn't plan their cycle to include the island, it'll get finished up after the game ships. They put a boat with an ugly mofo there who won't transport you right now, when the DLC is released he takes you to the island.
Are you being cheated?
Assassin's Creed 2 beat! Now I can click all those nice spoilers.
The only thing I'm disappointed with was the cape and scene you got for retrieving all 100 feathers. The scene was incredibly short and consisted of pretty much nothing, and the cape just makes you notorious all the time. It wasn't really worth the effort.
I liked the ending. Will the third game be the last? Have they expressly said it's planned as a trilogy?
Dashui on
Xbox Live, PSN & Origin: Vacorsis 3DS: 2638-0037-166
They originally said the series was planned as a trilogy, then they said '...but we could do, what, thirty, thirty-five of them if we wanted!'. They haven't elaborated on whether this meant they've changed the story after realising how popular their new IP was getting (or if they were making it up on the fly all along) - or whether they now plan to release a truckload of spinoffs.
I'm hoping for closure on the first storyline then as many spinoffs as Ubi feel like, basically. I'd be interested even if they don't change the fundamentals that much. They mentioned a female ancestor in WWII - I'd love to see Ubi do Velvet Assassin but much, much better.
Eight Rooks on
<AtlusParker> Sorry I'm playing Pokemon and vomiting at the same time so I'm not following the conversation in a linear fashion.
I was just thinking... imagine if an RPG had a planned DLC package wherein you'd travel to an island and do quests there. The dev team doesn't plan their cycle to include the island, it'll get finished up after the game ships. They put a boat with an ugly mofo there who won't transport you right now, when the DLC is released he takes you to the island.
Are you being cheated?
I always wonder if, if people who venomusly complain about this stuff were avid fantasy/scifi readers in the 50s, if they would get to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring and would go "What the hell, there's going to be two more books and they want to buy them to get the whole story?! Well FUCK THEM!! FUCK THAT SHIT AND FUCK THAT BASTARD TOLKEN*!!"
"..."
"...what does J.R.R. stand for anyway?"
...Because that pretty much what complaints like that sound like to me most of the time.
I always wonder if, if people who venomusly complain about this stuff were avid fantasy/scifi readers in the 50s, if they would get to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring and would go "What the hell, there's going to be two more books and they want to buy them to get the whole story?! Well FUCK THEM!! FUCK THAT SHIT AND FUCK THAT BASTARD TOLKEN*!!"
I have no problem with sequels or even full expansions, which is what your analogy describes. Let's make your unintentionally apt example actually apply here: Instead of a sequel, the chapters in Book I of The Fellowship of the Ring go 7-8-11-12. Chapter 8 even introduces a new city and an interesting new character who is nowhere to be found once the story continues in 11. The author explains, when questioned, that the two chapters were just some character development and extra adventures that he decided he could just take out. Two months later, these missing chapters are on sale as pamphlets at the book store.
And people actually come out of the woodwork to defend him, claiming that the two chapters weren't written yet (despite the setting and characters from said chapters being in already, and him having them sketched out enough to know they "didn't add to the main plotline") and that we should stop whining. That our reaction to him having released his book clearly unfinished should be to get down on our knees, close our eyes, open our mouths, and be thankful we got the book at all. That we should praise the gods that we were allowed to pay three times to get the full story rather than wait a whole two months for him to finish his damn book properly.
They'd have laughed the greedy fucker right out of history, and modern fantasy - for better or worse - would be about something other than orcs, elves, hobbits, and dwarves.
You're really coming off as a simpleton because you refuse to tell the difference between something that's "taken out" and something that's a planned addition with space made for it.
Chapter's 12 and 13 are not fucking made yet, the developers just knew that they were going to make two new adventures and didn't want to stick on the end for old man ezio to take care of. This also ensures that the end of the game remains the end of the game.
I always wonder if, if people who venomusly complain about this stuff were avid fantasy/scifi readers in the 50s, if they would get to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring and would go "What the hell, there's going to be two more books and they want to buy them to get the whole story?! Well FUCK THEM!! FUCK THAT SHIT AND FUCK THAT BASTARD TOLKEN*!!"
I have no problem with sequels or even full expansions, which is what your analogy describes. Let's make your unintentionally apt example actually apply here: Instead of a sequel, the chapters in Book I of The Fellowship of the Ring go 7-8-11-12. Chapter 8 even introduces a new city and an interesting new character who is nowhere to be found once the story continues in 11. The author explains, when questioned, that the two chapters were just some character development and extra adventures that he decided he could just take out. Two months later, these missing chapters are on sale as pamphlets at the book store.
And people actually come out of the woodwork to defend him, claiming that the two chapters weren't written yet (despite the setting and characters from said chapters being in already, and him having them sketched out enough to know they "didn't add to the main plotline") and that we should stop whining. That our reaction to him having released his book clearly unfinished should be to get down on our knees, close our eyes, open our mouths, and be thankful we got the book at all. That we should praise the gods that we were allowed to pay three times to get the full story rather than wait a whole two months for him to finish his damn book properly.
They'd have laughed the greedy fucker right out of history, and modern fantasy - for better or worse - would be about something other than orcs, elves, hobbits, and dwarves.
I liked the part where you failed to understand that the DLC has no bearing on the main plot and was to be made into DLC at a latter date to instead claim that everyone who has a different opinion than you is obviously sucking ubisoft's collective dick
I always wonder if, if people who venomusly complain about this stuff were avid fantasy/scifi readers in the 50s, if they would get to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring and would go "What the hell, there's going to be two more books and they want to buy them to get the whole story?! Well FUCK THEM!! FUCK THAT SHIT AND FUCK THAT BASTARD TOLKEN*!!"
I have no problem with sequels or even full expansions, which is what your analogy describes. Let's make your unintentionally apt example actually apply here: Instead of a sequel, the chapters in Book I of The Fellowship of the Ring go 7-8-11-12. Chapter 8 even introduces a new city and an interesting new character who is nowhere to be found once the story continues in 11. The author explains, when questioned, that the two chapters were just some character development and extra adventures that he decided he could just take out. Two months later, these missing chapters are on sale as pamphlets at the book store.
And people actually come out of the woodwork to defend him, claiming that the two chapters weren't written yet (despite the setting and characters from said chapters being in already, and him having them sketched out enough to know they "didn't add to the main plotline") and that we should stop whining. That our reaction to him having released his book clearly unfinished should be to get down on our knees, close our eyes, open our mouths, and be thankful we got the book at all. That we should praise the gods that we were allowed to pay three times to get the full story rather than wait a whole two months for him to finish his damn book properly.
They'd have laughed the greedy fucker right out of history, and modern fantasy - for better or worse - would be about something other than orcs, elves, hobbits, and dwarves.
So your more angry that they have dilibertly labeled the sequences as 10-11-14, leaving an unexplored passage of time rather than 10-11-12 and putting it all at the end?
I kinda saw the flaw in my argument right after I posted it, but the image it gave me was too good to pass up...
...a better ineffective analogy would be that your a reader of a modern book series... say The Dresden Files, and find out there are short stories out there that require you to shell out more money, when they could have added them to the ends of the novels?
and if your answer is "that is a seperate, unrelated story" how do you know the DLC for this game isn't going to be seperate, unrelated stories, unique only that they occur before the games' ending?
The real thing to understand here is that every developer of a major franchise is asked this question.
"What will you put out for DLC?"
So they have started coming up with answers built right the fuck into their core game.
Labelling the chapters with these numbers has exposed the retard gene in so so many.
"OMGAWWWD THE CHAPTER NUMBEERRRS THERES SOME MIIISSSING. THEY TOOK IT OUT!"
No. They called chapter twelve chapter fourteen, gave you a little scene where the support characters make vague reference to what's in store for DLC and you think they made fourteen chapters and removed two just to be mean to you.
Fucking idiot. I cannot be nice.
I was just thinking... imagine if an RPG had a planned DLC package wherein you'd travel to an island and do quests there. The dev team doesn't plan their cycle to include the island, it'll get finished up after the game ships. They put a boat with an ugly mofo there who won't transport you right now, when the DLC is released he takes you to the island.
Are you being cheated?
If the game is open-ended (yes, I get your clever example) and the DLC has nothing to do with the main, or indeed, ANY questline in the game, adding an entirely new and entirely self-contained area to explore, maybe. But only if no future games or expansions featuring your character make reference to said content, leaving those who skipped it to feel cheated or at least nonplussed by the omission.
If the game has a set, linear story with a fleshed-out main character and will have a sequel, meaning your choices are either purchase the content or go into the next game with an incomplete understanding of the full backstory? If the content was so obviously part of the plot that the chapters skipped numbers to allow its insertion? If they teased its release with an entire plotless city and two intriguing but never-again-seen characters? Yep - gag in, lubed up, blindfold on.
People, are you forgetting that this is Ubisoft? That less than a year ago they sold the real ending to one of their games as an optional add-on?
I was just thinking... imagine if an RPG had a planned DLC package wherein you'd travel to an island and do quests there. The dev team doesn't plan their cycle to include the island, it'll get finished up after the game ships. They put a boat with an ugly mofo there who won't transport you right now, when the DLC is released he takes you to the island.
Are you being cheated?
If the game is open-ended (yes, I get your clever example) and the DLC has nothing to do with the main, or indeed, ANY questline in the game, adding an entirely new and entirely self-contained area to explore, maybe. But only if no future games or expansions featuring your character make reference to said content, leaving those who skipped it to feel cheated or at least nonplussed by the omission.
If the game has a set, linear story with a fleshed-out main character and will have a sequel, meaning your choices are either purchase the content or go into the next game with an incomplete understanding of the full backstory? If the content was so obviously part of the plot that the chapters skipped numbers to allow its insertion? If they teased its release with an entire plotless city and two intriguing but never-again-seen characters? Yep - gag in, lubed up, blindfold on.
People, are you forgetting that this is Ubisoft? That less than a year ago they sold the real ending to one of their games as an optional add-on?
So you feel cheated by Blizzard due to the existance of Diablo 2: Throne of Baal.
It's not an ommision, it's an addition.
People, are you forgetting that this is Ubisoft? That less than a year ago they sold the real ending to one of their games as an optional add-on?
This has no bearing on what's happening now, which is not what was done with Prince of Persia. The DLC for Assassin's Creed is completely irrelevant to the main plot of the game, it is not a true ending, it is a random sidestory that the users of the Animus skipped over because it isn't relevant to them
People, are you forgetting that this is Ubisoft? That less than a year ago they sold the real ending to one of their games as an optional add-on?
This has no bearing on what's happening now, which is not what was done with Prince of Persia. The DLC for Assassin's Creed is completely irrelevant to the main plot of the game, it is not a true ending, it is a random sidestory that the users of the Animus skipped over because it isn't relevant to them
Here's a thought. If people were upset about the 'real ending' being dlc in prince of persia, it may have something to do with why they've opted to place the dlc in the middle of the game here in AC2.
You won't be getting the ending. The ending is chapter 14. You're getting two middle ground good for nothing chapters in the middle of the story during a period where Ezio isn't recorded as doing anything super important.
If the DLC were prequel oriented and involved Ezio's father running around ganking foos you'd complain too. You just like complaining. Complain face.
Great, now I want someone to come up with a "Complain Face" emoticon...
I'm officially obsessed and need to stop playing this game; I just asked my boyfriend if could spot me 5 florins. Not dollars. Not bucks. But 5 florins.
The real thing to understand here is that every developer of a major franchise is asked this question.
"What will you put out for DLC?"
So they have started coming up with answers built right the fuck into their core game.
Labelling the chapters with these numbers has exposed the retard gene in so so many.
"OMGAWWWD THE CHAPTER NUMBEERRRS THERES SOME MIIISSSING. THEY TOOK IT OUT!"
No. They called chapter twelve chapter fourteen, gave you a little scene where the support characters make vague reference to what's in store for DLC and you think they made fourteen chapters and removed two just to be mean to you.
Fucking idiot. I cannot be nice.
And you know WHY they're asked that question? Because sycophants like you put up with it, wallets in hand. I don't care if the DLC was complete, and the numbering system is more funny than anything, sort of like they're seeing how blatant they can be about their parceling of an experience. I point to it, perhaps to a fault, just to signify that there's a clear absence in the narrative; they're not even pretending that Assassin's Creed 2 tells the full story of Ezio.
They're telling a story. Part of a whole, with a beginning and, presumably, an end. And they just decided to snip two pieces out of it. We have no way of knowing if they were completed, half-completed, or didn't even exist until the marketing execs demanded they make way for future content, but it matters little. The point is that there's a story being told, and a piece of that story is missing.
So if I don't buy these packs - and on principle, I won't be; I'll stand up for gamers even if you won't - I don't know all of Ezio's story. I don't know what happened for a significant chunk of his life. Going into the next game, I will be left feeling I'd skipped two chapters of the previous entry, because I did. Will there be pieces in that content that are referenced or matter in the ongoing story of Altair, Ezio, Desmond, et al? I won't know, because I didn't see them.
Go and read my (your!) Tolkien analogy again. It's a story, and there's a piece missing, and your options are to buy it or wonder what you're missing. You were told you were getting a full tale for your $50, and now you discover that - GOTCHA! - you'll need to insert another $10 to see it all.
Think, too, about where this trend will go. Will you argue as vehemently when you need to pay extra to unlock the last part of "The Truth?" When the tint colors at vendors cost 50 real cents instead of florins? When you collect 90 feathers only to discover the last 10 - necessary for your reward - are in an extra tomb, now available for the low, low price of $9.99? When certain chapters are only available on the PS3 or 360 version of the game, necessitating a double purchase to understand everything? When you can pay $2 to have a character miraculously cheat death and be alive in your game?
Where is your line? They're crossed mine. I certainly hope yours isn't far, because as a new generation pops up with no idea what gaming USED to be like, it's only going to get harder and harder to reverse this trend.
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
edited December 2009
So you're whinging that the Lord of the Rings didn't come with the Hobbit effectively?
Because you wrote a whole lot to not actually say very much.
Think, too, about where this trend will go. Will you argue as vehemently when you need to pay extra to unlock the last part of "The Truth?" When the tint colors at vendors cost 50 real cents instead of florins? When you collect 90 feathers only to discover the last 10 - necessary for your reward - are in an extra tomb, now available for the low, low price of $9.99? When certain chapters are only available on the PS3 or 360 version of the game, necessitating a double purchase to understand everything? When you can pay $2 to have a character miraculously cheat death and be alive in your game?
None of this is what they are doing and is equivalent to the idiocy of Oblivions "Horse Armour".
A piece of the story is not missing. This is what you're not comprehending and why people are shaking their heads at you. These memory sequences do not matter to the Assassins because they involve Ezio doing shit unimportant to their mission so they skipped them. It's not part of the story, Desmonds story. Ezios story is only Desmonds story insofar as it is relevant.
The DLC are random sidestories for the lulz and the fun of it.
The real thing to understand here is that every developer of a major franchise is asked this question.
"What will you put out for DLC?"
So they have started coming up with answers built right the fuck into their core game.
Labelling the chapters with these numbers has exposed the retard gene in so so many.
"OMGAWWWD THE CHAPTER NUMBEERRRS THERES SOME MIIISSSING. THEY TOOK IT OUT!"
No. They called chapter twelve chapter fourteen, gave you a little scene where the support characters make vague reference to what's in store for DLC and you think they made fourteen chapters and removed two just to be mean to you.
Fucking idiot. I cannot be nice.
And you know WHY they're asked that question? Because sycophants like you put up with it, wallets in hand. I don't care if the DLC was complete, and the numbering system is more funny than anything, sort of like they're seeing how blatant they can be about their parceling of an experience. I point to it, perhaps to a fault, just to signify that there's a clear absence in the narrative; they're not even pretending that Assassin's Creed 2 tells the full story of Ezio.
They're telling a story. Part of a whole, with a beginning and, presumably, an end. And they just decided to snip two pieces out of it. We have no way of knowing if they were completed, half-completed, or didn't even exist until the marketing execs demanded they make way for future content, but it matters little. The point is that there's a story being told, and a piece of that story is missing.
So if I don't buy these packs - and on principle, I won't be; I'll stand up for gamers even if you won't - I don't know all of Ezio's story. I don't know what happened for a significant chunk of his life. Going into the next game, I will be left feeling I'd skipped two chapters of the previous entry, because I did. Will there be pieces in that content that are referenced or matter in the ongoing story of Altair, Ezio, Desmond, et al? I won't know, because I didn't see them.
Go and read my (your!) Tolkien analogy again. It's a story, and there's a piece missing, and your options are to buy it or wonder what you're missing. You were told you were getting a full tale for your $50, and now you discover that - GOTCHA! - you'll need to insert another $10 to see it all.
Think, too, about where this trend will go. Will you argue as vehemently when you need to pay extra to unlock the last part of "The Truth?" When the tint colors at vendors cost 50 real cents instead of florins? When you collect 90 feathers only to discover the last 10 - necessary for your reward - are in an extra tomb, now available for the low, low price of $9.99? When certain chapters are only available on the PS3 or 360 version of the game, necessitating a double purchase to understand everything? When you can pay $2 to have a character miraculously cheat death and be alive in your game?
Where is your line? They're crossed mine. I certainly hope yours isn't far, because as a new generation pops up with no idea what gaming USED to be like, it's only going to get harder and harder to reverse this trend.
You're right. No game should be expanded upon once it's released.
A piece of the story is not missing. This is what you're not comprehending and why people are shaking their heads at you. These memory sequences do not matter to the Assassins because they involve Ezio doing shit unimportant to their mission so they skipped them. It's not part of the story, Desmonds story. Ezios story is only Desmonds story insofar as it is relevant.
The DLC are random sidestories for the lulz and the fun of it.
Not only that but this 'missing section' was planned all along to be missing, unimportant, and there to leave room for DLC which is demanded by fans.
If they delayed the release of the game several months, included these sections, and then failed to produce any DLC for the game after release there would be people whining about how the devs don't support their product.
Posts
It's pretty obvious that Desmond is going to go around to these different locations, experience the bleeding effect there to get some key information, and then pick up the piece of Eden himself.
To those who said playing multiple assassins in multiple time periods would feel "disjointed", have you played Eternal Darkness? One of the best games of all time, and you played as a woman in modern times who relived her ancestors' memories - they ranged from a Roman centurion to a monk in the Middle Ages to an explorer in the 1940s.
It can be done. And it can be AWESOME.
I hired out AC1, got a little further then the part where you take out the first major target, then that was about it. I'm fully aware that AC1 is said to get repetitive and that AC2 improves on the gameplay leaps and bounds, but I am often a stickler for finishing the story of one game before I get into the sequel.
Assassin's Creed is one of my favorite 360 games.
Hearing about how awesome ACII is isn't helping.
Maybe I can get it for Chirstmas.
I called the real-time warping for the bleeding effect! Think Soul Reaver.
I'm still having problems with the multi knife throw. Do you have to be in fairly close combat with multiple guards to get it to work? Will it not work with just one person?
And I finally got the giant squid to show up. Took like 5 times. Dunno if it just takes that long or you have to be standing in a particular spot.
Origin: theRealElMucho
I really do wish you could equip costumes, like the carnivale mask, his original clothes, etc.
Its a temproary thing that you get whilst the carnivale is going ahead. Easily mistaken for Altairs Armor, which I got at the exact same time so I didn't realise there was a special outfit for the Carnevale.
Besides the repetitiveness, I'm actually a little surprised how much I don't hate AC1. There's a good game here, desperate to get out from behind the rinse/repeat of the missions and sidequests.
3DS Friend Code: 2165-6448-8348 www.Twitch.TV/cooljammer00
Battle.Net: JohnDarc#1203 Origin/UPlay: CoolJammer00
I'm sick of hearing this complaint that it's "Content Held Back". It's not.
They knew they were going to make DLC after the game was out and instead of designing it so the DLC would tack on to the ending of the game, they placed a little gap in time within the story where it would fit. They left two chapter numbers there for the DLC to fit into, not only so they wouldn't inherently ruin the ending of their game but also to trick dumbass motherfuckers into thinking the DLC is necessary. Seems to be working.
I've said this before. The game could have 12 chapters and be exactly the same, with DLC being chapters 13 and 14. Instead they put it between 11 and 14, fucking with everyone's head who can't grasp the concept that DLC is expected from major games now so they planned for it during development.
Italics.
It is literally just additional content that has no bearing whatsoever on the plot of the main game. Which is exactly what DLC is supposed to be, right?
"So guys, what do we do for DLC?"
"Well can we come up with people to kill after the end of the story?"
"Nah, they're all pretty much dead. How about some additional side stuff earlier on?"
"Yeah but we should include new areas and some missions that are more grandiose than just assassinations"
"Ezio ages about 23 years or so during the game, so let's cram it in between the gaps of the story"
"Cool, we'll shorten some of the gaps here here and here, that gives us 11 consecutive years we can use for DLC"
"HAY GUYS I HAW ABOUT WII PUT CHAPTAR NUMBURZ BETWIIN TEH GAP SOZ WE MAKE PPLZ ANGRY"
I was just thinking... imagine if an RPG had a planned DLC package wherein you'd travel to an island and do quests there. The dev team doesn't plan their cycle to include the island, it'll get finished up after the game ships. They put a boat with an ugly mofo there who won't transport you right now, when the DLC is released he takes you to the island.
Are you being cheated?
The only thing I'm disappointed with was the cape and scene you got for retrieving all 100 feathers. The scene was incredibly short and consisted of pretty much nothing, and the cape just makes you notorious all the time. It wasn't really worth the effort.
I liked the ending. Will the third game be the last? Have they expressly said it's planned as a trilogy?
I'm hoping for closure on the first storyline then as many spinoffs as Ubi feel like, basically. I'd be interested even if they don't change the fundamentals that much. They mentioned a female ancestor in WWII - I'd love to see Ubi do Velvet Assassin but much, much better.
Read my book. (It has a robot in it.)
I always wonder if, if people who venomusly complain about this stuff were avid fantasy/scifi readers in the 50s, if they would get to the end of The Fellowship of the Ring and would go "What the hell, there's going to be two more books and they want to buy them to get the whole story?! Well FUCK THEM!! FUCK THAT SHIT AND FUCK THAT BASTARD TOLKEN*!!"
"..."
"...what does J.R.R. stand for anyway?"
...Because that pretty much what complaints like that sound like to me most of the time.
*
I have no problem with sequels or even full expansions, which is what your analogy describes. Let's make your unintentionally apt example actually apply here: Instead of a sequel, the chapters in Book I of The Fellowship of the Ring go 7-8-11-12. Chapter 8 even introduces a new city and an interesting new character who is nowhere to be found once the story continues in 11. The author explains, when questioned, that the two chapters were just some character development and extra adventures that he decided he could just take out. Two months later, these missing chapters are on sale as pamphlets at the book store.
And people actually come out of the woodwork to defend him, claiming that the two chapters weren't written yet (despite the setting and characters from said chapters being in already, and him having them sketched out enough to know they "didn't add to the main plotline") and that we should stop whining. That our reaction to him having released his book clearly unfinished should be to get down on our knees, close our eyes, open our mouths, and be thankful we got the book at all. That we should praise the gods that we were allowed to pay three times to get the full story rather than wait a whole two months for him to finish his damn book properly.
They'd have laughed the greedy fucker right out of history, and modern fantasy - for better or worse - would be about something other than orcs, elves, hobbits, and dwarves.
Chapter's 12 and 13 are not fucking made yet, the developers just knew that they were going to make two new adventures and didn't want to stick on the end for old man ezio to take care of. This also ensures that the end of the game remains the end of the game.
DUH!
I liked the part where you failed to understand that the DLC has no bearing on the main plot and was to be made into DLC at a latter date to instead claim that everyone who has a different opinion than you is obviously sucking ubisoft's collective dick
So your more angry that they have dilibertly labeled the sequences as 10-11-14, leaving an unexplored passage of time rather than 10-11-12 and putting it all at the end?
I kinda saw the flaw in my argument right after I posted it, but the image it gave me was too good to pass up...
...a better ineffective analogy would be that your a reader of a modern book series... say The Dresden Files, and find out there are short stories out there that require you to shell out more money, when they could have added them to the ends of the novels?
and if your answer is "that is a seperate, unrelated story" how do you know the DLC for this game isn't going to be seperate, unrelated stories, unique only that they occur before the games' ending?
"What will you put out for DLC?"
So they have started coming up with answers built right the fuck into their core game.
Labelling the chapters with these numbers has exposed the retard gene in so so many.
"OMGAWWWD THE CHAPTER NUMBEERRRS THERES SOME MIIISSSING. THEY TOOK IT OUT!"
No. They called chapter twelve chapter fourteen, gave you a little scene where the support characters make vague reference to what's in store for DLC and you think they made fourteen chapters and removed two just to be mean to you.
Fucking idiot. I cannot be nice.
If the game is open-ended (yes, I get your clever example) and the DLC has nothing to do with the main, or indeed, ANY questline in the game, adding an entirely new and entirely self-contained area to explore, maybe. But only if no future games or expansions featuring your character make reference to said content, leaving those who skipped it to feel cheated or at least nonplussed by the omission.
If the game has a set, linear story with a fleshed-out main character and will have a sequel, meaning your choices are either purchase the content or go into the next game with an incomplete understanding of the full backstory? If the content was so obviously part of the plot that the chapters skipped numbers to allow its insertion? If they teased its release with an entire plotless city and two intriguing but never-again-seen characters? Yep - gag in, lubed up, blindfold on.
People, are you forgetting that this is Ubisoft? That less than a year ago they sold the real ending to one of their games as an optional add-on?
So you feel cheated by Blizzard due to the existance of Diablo 2: Throne of Baal.
It's not an ommision, it's an addition.
This has no bearing on what's happening now, which is not what was done with Prince of Persia. The DLC for Assassin's Creed is completely irrelevant to the main plot of the game, it is not a true ending, it is a random sidestory that the users of the Animus skipped over because it isn't relevant to them
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
Here's a thought. If people were upset about the 'real ending' being dlc in prince of persia, it may have something to do with why they've opted to place the dlc in the middle of the game here in AC2.
You won't be getting the ending. The ending is chapter 14. You're getting two middle ground good for nothing chapters in the middle of the story during a period where Ezio isn't recorded as doing anything super important.
If the DLC were prequel oriented and involved Ezio's father running around ganking foos you'd complain too. You just like complaining. Complain face.
I'm officially obsessed and need to stop playing this game; I just asked my boyfriend if could spot me 5 florins. Not dollars. Not bucks. But 5 florins.
And you know WHY they're asked that question? Because sycophants like you put up with it, wallets in hand. I don't care if the DLC was complete, and the numbering system is more funny than anything, sort of like they're seeing how blatant they can be about their parceling of an experience. I point to it, perhaps to a fault, just to signify that there's a clear absence in the narrative; they're not even pretending that Assassin's Creed 2 tells the full story of Ezio.
They're telling a story. Part of a whole, with a beginning and, presumably, an end. And they just decided to snip two pieces out of it. We have no way of knowing if they were completed, half-completed, or didn't even exist until the marketing execs demanded they make way for future content, but it matters little. The point is that there's a story being told, and a piece of that story is missing.
So if I don't buy these packs - and on principle, I won't be; I'll stand up for gamers even if you won't - I don't know all of Ezio's story. I don't know what happened for a significant chunk of his life. Going into the next game, I will be left feeling I'd skipped two chapters of the previous entry, because I did. Will there be pieces in that content that are referenced or matter in the ongoing story of Altair, Ezio, Desmond, et al? I won't know, because I didn't see them.
Go and read my (your!) Tolkien analogy again. It's a story, and there's a piece missing, and your options are to buy it or wonder what you're missing. You were told you were getting a full tale for your $50, and now you discover that - GOTCHA! - you'll need to insert another $10 to see it all.
Think, too, about where this trend will go. Will you argue as vehemently when you need to pay extra to unlock the last part of "The Truth?" When the tint colors at vendors cost 50 real cents instead of florins? When you collect 90 feathers only to discover the last 10 - necessary for your reward - are in an extra tomb, now available for the low, low price of $9.99? When certain chapters are only available on the PS3 or 360 version of the game, necessitating a double purchase to understand everything? When you can pay $2 to have a character miraculously cheat death and be alive in your game?
Where is your line? They're crossed mine. I certainly hope yours isn't far, because as a new generation pops up with no idea what gaming USED to be like, it's only going to get harder and harder to reverse this trend.
Because you wrote a whole lot to not actually say very much.
None of this is what they are doing and is equivalent to the idiocy of Oblivions "Horse Armour".
The DLC are random sidestories for the lulz and the fun of it.
White FC: 0819 3350 1787
You're right. No game should be expanded upon once it's released.
making me pay $60 for AC2
that shit should have been in AC1, the first game doesn't tell me the full story. how dare they add on to it
Not only that but this 'missing section' was planned all along to be missing, unimportant, and there to leave room for DLC which is demanded by fans.
If they delayed the release of the game several months, included these sections, and then failed to produce any DLC for the game after release there would be people whining about how the devs don't support their product.