To be fair, the storytelling is some of the worst, I've ever seen. 4 hours in, and I still haven't gotten the slightest clue, as to what the story is about. Cutscenes are weird AF, and just doesn't feel right.
> To be fair, the storytelling is some of the worst, I've ever seen. 4 hours in, and I still haven't gotten the slightest clue, as to what the story is about. Cutscenes are weird AF, and just doesn't feel right.
Haven't played this one, but that seems pretty par for the course for an Assassin's Creed game.
>> To be fair, the storytelling is some of the worst, I've ever seen. 4 hours in, and I still haven't gotten the slightest clue, as to what the story is about. Cutscenes are weird AF, and just doesn't feel right.
Haven't played this one, but that seems pretty par for the course for an Assassin's Creed game.
Sure. But this just feels far worse. I actually liked the older ones, and didn't have a problem with the story telling there. This just feels unfinished.
Watch the intro. I'm sure you'll agree.
> To be fair, the storytelling is some of the worst, I've ever seen. 4 hours in, and I still haven't gotten the slightest clue, as to what the story is about. Cutscenes are weird AF, and just doesn't feel right.
Haven't played this one, but that seems pretty par for the course for an Assassin's Creed game.
Actually I felt that Assassin's Creed II had a pretty good storyline. Both in the basic game and in Brotherhood. Then it went downhill from there with the only upside being pirate shantys.
"The western world sips from a poisonous cocktail: Polarisation, populism, protectionism and post-truth"
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Well, Ubisoft did also release a game called Rayman Origins that wasn't really an origin story.
Dragon Age: Origins wasn't really an origin story either--and there wasn't even an established story to originate anyway. In Gabe's defense, "Origins" is a pretty cliche tagline, and usually means about as much as "Rising".
> To be fair, the storytelling is some of the worst, I've ever seen. 4 hours in, and I still haven't gotten the slightest clue, as to what the story is about. Cutscenes are weird AF, and just doesn't feel right.
Haven't played this one, but that seems pretty par for the course for an Assassin's Creed game.
I have played 3 Ass Cre games and everyone single one of them has a terrible opening including some of the worst pacing and tutorials I have ever experienced.
Well, Ubisoft did also release a game called Rayman Origins that wasn't really an origin story.
Rahman Origins' name is a holdover from the original concept for that fame, which would have been an origin story for Rayman. They eventually scrapped that and made it a sequel (of sorts) but kept the. And.
To be fair, the storytelling is some of the worst, I've ever seen. 4 hours in, and I still haven't gotten the slightest clue, as to what the story is about. Cutscenes are weird AF, and just doesn't feel right.
They went for an In Media Res thing. Where you jump into the middle of the story, and only later do you realize w t f is going on.
When I started playing, I honestly thought I accidentally skipped like the whole introduction cut-scene. I think the story largely fills in once you kill your "second" target (the first being the guy from the first few minutes of the game).
Honestly, I usually hate In Media Res with TV and such... we get it. Some real bad s*** is about to go down, but most of us realized that when we tuned into the episode since some real bad s*** almost ALWAYS goes down. The only interesting thing about it is when the W T F moment has allies pointing guns at each other and you're wondering what would make them betray one another or whatever . But I'm not a fan of it even then.
To be fair, I believe the previous games + comics + books established that the Assassin's Order was active prior to the events of this game. Like they started around 465 BCE, over 400 years prior to the events in this game.
So jumping it and assuming this was just the "early days" and then them kind of showing it's the birth of the order... could be confusing.
I always thought the Origin of the Assassins Creed occurred in an advanced world of "gods" who created humans as slaves. Or something like that.
Kind of.
The true origin of all of this started WAY WAY WAY back, with advanced race called the Isu (PreCursors) creating humanity as slave labor like 100,000 years ago (or a million, I forget). Then stuff happened, and almost all of the Isu (and most of the humans) were wiped out in an extinction-level-event. But some Isu left behind tech and such, and some of the survivors bred with humans and intermingled our DNA. Hence why some humans have the ability to access genetic memory in this game.
This is why factions in the past and the 21st century are after some techno-magical artifacts (technology bordering on magic - per Clark's law) that belonged to the Isu.
The Assassin's guild came much later, and was (supposedly) already in place around 465 BCE. They wanted to usher in word peace via patience and sharing of knowledge using this tech if they can, while the Templars want to be benign tyrants and force world peace using this tech to rule.
AC: Origins takes place around 43 BCE. And so far (from what I've played) it's looking like the protagonists are starting the Assassin's Guild. Or at least a new branch in the Mediterranean. So... I don't know if this is a retcon or I still have to play more.
Posts
Haven't played this one, but that seems pretty par for the course for an Assassin's Creed game.
Is it even a question?
Pins!
Haven't played this one, but that seems pretty par for the course for an Assassin's Creed game.
Sure. But this just feels far worse. I actually liked the older ones, and didn't have a problem with the story telling there. This just feels unfinished.
Watch the intro. I'm sure you'll agree.
Actually I felt that Assassin's Creed II had a pretty good storyline. Both in the basic game and in Brotherhood. Then it went downhill from there with the only upside being pirate shantys.
-Antje Jackelén, Archbishop of the Church of Sweden
Correction: Assassin's Creed is the network TV of video games. Any sort of satisfying development would hinder future installments.
Dragon Age: Origins wasn't really an origin story either--and there wasn't even an established story to originate anyway. In Gabe's defense, "Origins" is a pretty cliche tagline, and usually means about as much as "Rising".
Plus, I don't think it's set anywhere NEAR the Pacific Northwest.
"Origins" is the most meaningless quick-I-need-another-word in game titles (along with "Chronicles").
PSN: Wstfgl | GamerTag: An Evil Plan | Battle.net: FallenIdle#1970
Hit me up on BoardGameArena! User: Loaded D1
I have played 3 Ass Cre games and everyone single one of them has a terrible opening including some of the worst pacing and tutorials I have ever experienced.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
At least Asp Creed starts you in medias res, even if you don’t know what the res are
Rahman Origins' name is a holdover from the original concept for that fame, which would have been an origin story for Rayman. They eventually scrapped that and made it a sequel (of sorts) but kept the. And.
They went for an In Media Res thing. Where you jump into the middle of the story, and only later do you realize w t f is going on.
When I started playing, I honestly thought I accidentally skipped like the whole introduction cut-scene. I think the story largely fills in once you kill your "second" target (the first being the guy from the first few minutes of the game).
Honestly, I usually hate In Media Res with TV and such... we get it. Some real bad s*** is about to go down, but most of us realized that when we tuned into the episode since some real bad s*** almost ALWAYS goes down. The only interesting thing about it is when the W T F moment has allies pointing guns at each other and you're wondering what would make them betray one another or whatever . But I'm not a fan of it even then.
So jumping it and assuming this was just the "early days" and then them kind of showing it's the birth of the order... could be confusing.
Kind of.
The true origin of all of this started WAY WAY WAY back, with advanced race called the Isu (PreCursors) creating humanity as slave labor like 100,000 years ago (or a million, I forget). Then stuff happened, and almost all of the Isu (and most of the humans) were wiped out in an extinction-level-event. But some Isu left behind tech and such, and some of the survivors bred with humans and intermingled our DNA. Hence why some humans have the ability to access genetic memory in this game.
This is why factions in the past and the 21st century are after some techno-magical artifacts (technology bordering on magic - per Clark's law) that belonged to the Isu.
The Assassin's guild came much later, and was (supposedly) already in place around 465 BCE. They wanted to usher in word peace via patience and sharing of knowledge using this tech if they can, while the Templars want to be benign tyrants and force world peace using this tech to rule.
AC: Origins takes place around 43 BCE. And so far (from what I've played) it's looking like the protagonists are starting the Assassin's Guild. Or at least a new branch in the Mediterranean. So... I don't know if this is a retcon or I still have to play more.