'Assassin's Creed IV' Looks Great But There Are Reasons To Worry

Forbes - As glorious as the new Assassin’s Creed looks, it will almost certainly suffer the same flaws as its predecessors.

The story is too old to be commented.
Xof1776d ago

Only thing I'm worried about is that it might suffer even more from poor PC optimization than AC3.

SurfCfl1776d ago (Edited 1776d ago )

The time travel thing has been an integral part of the "narrative" since the beginning. If the author has a problem with it, why does he even bother playing the game? My only problem with the modern day portions of the game is the limitations of Desmond's abilities. I've been waiting for an AC game where Desmond kicks azz!

Xof1776d ago

Sorry, what? The time travel aspect isn't even remotely integral to the games. It's a framing device for the narrative, nothing more, nothing less. The game proper occurs in the historical time period.

SurfCfl1776d ago (Edited 1776d ago )

You must not have been playing the same game I have been playing for the past six years. Do you remember the first one? The modern day portion of the game defined the narrative (I hate that word... too political sounding).

Maybe you should go back and play AC1. BTW, I found all the flags in AC1 by myself. Awww yeah!

coolbeans1776d ago

The Animus isn't just a framing device for the narrative; it's also there to justify the "video-gamey" parts as well: logic behind the HUD, reason for never "dying," etc. It also acts as an interesting way for Desmond to grow in his abilities despite initially being confined.

That sounds integral to me.

Xof1776d ago


...Right, it also justifies the UI and game mechanics. But that's irrelevant to the narrative. The whole "train Desmond into an Assassin" was just something they did to make the frame more interesting--they didn't really do anything with it. In the story, Desmond spends 99% of the time as a framing device, and 1% of the time as a plot device (the herpderp AC3 ending, the 3 or so really short heavily scripted assassination "missions" you got to go on."

tl;dr if you think the Assassin's Creed games would be substantially different gameplay-wise or story-wise with the removal of Desmond, you're deluding yourself. It's fine you you like or prefer the Desmond segments, but you really have to admit that the Desmond content was peripheral to the historical content.

coolbeans1775d ago (Edited 1775d ago )

-That's what the etc. part was for.

"But that's irrelevant to the narrative."

You're kind of missing the point if this is your response to that. I mentioned the gameplay components because this duality fuels the game's logic but doesn't have the effect of "ludonarrative dissonance" in the process.

"tl;dr if you think the Assassin's Creed games would be substantially different gameplay-wise or story-wise with the removal of Desmond, you're deluding yourself."

Why bring out the tl;dr after one paragraph?, I wouldn't be deluding myself in thinking the story would be substantially different WERE Desmond's side of the AC duality to not have been there at all. Whatever arbitrary length you deem a side story/framing device must contain before being considered integral to the narrative doesn't change that.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1775d ago
Canary1776d ago

It's really not. All of the Assassins Creed games have always been about the respective assassins in the past. That's why 99% of your time is spent as Ezio, Connor or Atlair. Did you somehow miss that stuff?

The science-fiction element is mostly superfluous and incorporated in the game largely because Ubisoft didn't trust a more conservative historical narrative to be able to sustain the interest of the average gamer.

SurfCfl1776d ago (Edited 1776d ago )

You think the historical narrative was conservative??? WOW! If it was a conservative narrative, the Muslims would have been the bad guys. As it stands, the Christian Templars are the bad guys.

You must be a product of the modern day public education system.

Canary1776d ago


Read my post. Please. Reading comprehension matters, otherwise you'll do something foolish like make a post like the one you just did.

Fun fact: "Didn't" is a contraction that means "did NOT."

Emphasis on the "NOT."

My point was that Ubisoft did NOT do a conservative historical narrative and INSTEAD introduced the science fiction elements BECAUSE they thought that kind of framing device would have broader mass appeal.

LMFAO at all the disagrees I'm getting (and Xof, too). These are not subjective opinions here... they are literal facts. The science fiction aspect of the narrative -IS- a framing device. That is its function. You cannot argue with this. And framing devices very, very seldom integral to their narratives.

fermcr1776d ago

In all honesty i'm not finding Assassin's Creed IV that interesting. I'm becoming weary of this franchise.

dreamoner1776d ago (Edited 1776d ago )

I agree.

Tho if they move the timeline to 19th century there could be something interesting; WWI-II era in europe... nuff with knife and swords and ancient muskets.

Maybe a modern day game but watch_dogs already covered that area.

Brianaro1776d ago

I only love Ezio. Altair and Connor were not fun

modesign1776d ago

im worried it the game will get stale real fast. ship navigation and combat will be cool at first, but after a hour it will seem like "time to get back on the ship, oh look, enemy ships poped up, lets blow them up, ZZZZZZZZZZZ"

Show all comments (25)
The story is too old to be commented.