Moderator: If you do not believe the topic is a valid one, then do everybody who does want to discuss it the common courtesy of holding your tongue.
i don't think they outright dismiss gamers, i just think they "listen" to the majority of gamers by using buying trends research. and many gamers, to say the truth, are not very savvy about how to "express" their tastes. i mean you got people buying things indiscriminately simply because of "omg steam sales", and sometimes i wonder who is leading who, gamers or developers, because most gamers do not seem to have distinguishable "tastes". if we are to look at buying history. especially true when applied to gamers who also own consoles.
also disagree about "imagination" graphics. i think people like to say that because so much emphasis has been placed on graphics, that there is a perception that it is at the expense of "gameplay" , so people have developed a knee-jerk dislike for "graphics". i mean it really doesn't make much sense. a game isn't like a novel where your imagination has to be switched on constantly, it's more like a comic or a movie. poorly drawn comics do not become awesome because you can imagine it that way. same as a poorly shot film does not suddenly become more viewable because of imagination.
blackflag looks like the same assassins creed formula+ pirates+as many "wow moments" the devs are able to fit into the 10 hour or however long story.
And you'd be wrong.
Black Flag was fun precisely because, for the most part, it departed from the traditional AC game -- to the point where most of the people on the forum were asking where the AC portion of the game starts to kick in -- and had hardly any "wow moments." You don't get people talking about how addicted they were running across the map or assassinating people in Black Flag, because that was not the selling point of the game.
Pirates? Yes, and there ain't a problem with that.
Last edited:
every press x button to win kill animation was essentially a wow moment. and i get what you're saying, it looks like pirates +saints row+ac formula.
I don't think that we can compare these two games. Both games are good (well i'm conviced that W3 would be great) and every gamer imho must have them in their collection. In ACIV you get a terrific pirate setting with much stuff to do. Storywise is not that good but hey, is absolutely fun. Witcher 3 on the other hand i think it would bring us a brilliant setting, an open world that we've never seen before and hudrends of hours gameplay from exploring the vast world to solving quests. I have ACIV and i'm still playing it but my highly anticipated game is W3.
True, that may be. It is an intricate dance between gamers and developers. Especially as the market is at is, and publishing companies, or 'others' standing to gain profit, start to interfere with the devs work. Of course profit is important in this business, but some 'successful' games out there I refuse to touch. And that is not because of graphics.
I think you misinterpreted, I actually like graphics, but not that I study the pebbles of stone in a crumbling wall. I actually also liked the graphics of games back in the day, and still do today. For instance I would never stoop to call the original Deus Ex from 2000 'dated', because I still enjoy the game, including its 'dated' graphics. Well time has passed since then has it not? And so has technology, but if that stops anyone from playing one of the best games ever made(and I think that vote has actually been done) it's a damn shame.
Just because I like awesome graphics like this pic from Witcher 3:
does not mean I don't like graphics from classic games:
Deus Ex from 2000.
_33.png)
Little Big Adventure(called Relentless in some countries) from 1994.
Crusader: No Remorse from 1995.
Regardless of graphics, I play a game that interests me. That intrigues me. Graphics is a bonus, and these games, to me, are still beautiful. If there is a blank or something missing in graphics however, say a clipping problem, I let my imagination take over, and don't discard the game just because of that.
Can you imagine the smile on me, if new gamers of today would give these old games a chance?
'Wow moments' in AC 4, to me at least, was 'look at this and that' just because. At least there was the courtesy of making it optional ('push button') to see the whale jumping or whatever. In AC games nothing has pissed me off more when climbing and suddenly I can't control the camera myself. Such handholding is completely forbidden unless desired by the player.
Oh well.
Last edited:
I found AC4 to be a breath of fresh air compared to AC3 to be honest. The same formula is still there but there are also plenty of new things to do and discover. Just sailing the seas hunting a while and hearing your pirates sing a song is a great experience. AC3 felt like a slog, I have tried to finish that game three times and did not succeed a single time before getting bored out of my mind.
Exactly. AC4 was not an AC rehash. At least not in the way CoD games are copy-pastes of each other.
That's why AC is one of the series that can be ok with yearly releases. The gameplay might be similar with minimal tweaks, but I love how they use different settings that are not commonly seen in games.
I can't really compare the two games. AC4 was one of my favourite 2013 games, but I think I will like W3 more than AC5 overall, unless Ubi does some kind of unexpected awesomeness with it.
I can't really compare the two games. AC4 was one of my favourite 2013 games, but I think I will like W3 more than AC5 overall, unless Ubi does some kind of unexpected awesomeness with it.