LaserRaptor
2008
GTA 4 was once hailed as the pinnacle of technical achievement in open world design. A richly detailed city and a focus on gritty realism to sell the cynical and satirical life of Niko Bellic and others in the “land of opportunity.” But what happens when the standards of realism is elevated, when the technical achievement is thoroughly outmatched by the ever shifting rat race to make the biggest most detailed game? What happens when making your protagonist bluntly state the themes of the game is not enough? As you might have guessed, I don’t think the once pinnacle of open world games is all that impressive anymore.
Recently I had finished Red Dead 2 and despite sorely lacking in combat depth, I was thoroughly enraptured by its slow methodical approach to gameplay and the quaint humanity afforded to its wide cast of characters. I remembered below the satirical edge of GTA, the 4th entry attempted something similar so jumped back in to see how it held up.
What caught my eye immediately on starting was the brown and grey visual style it went for in the city. I can’t say that it was very appealing but I wanted to see if it was justified by the narrative. I tried making excuses for it, maybe they wanted to represent Niko’s humble start among Liberty City’s lowlife, or maybe it related to the themes of the game about how despite leaving his eastern European roots this city was the same with old and new vices.
But I fear it just doesn’t work. Moments of sincerity are few and far between and the darker tone are used as little more than cynical sarcasm. The story and characters are far too wacky, many nothing more than a caricature to justify the grim tone. When you’re driving with various flavors of clowns as companions, frequently crashing into cars and then shooting up a neighborhood worth of people for “amusing” reasons it’s really hard to take grim tone of the city seriously. GTA 5 and RDR2 did a much better job of embracing its silliness and realism respectively.
1 thing I keep hearing from fans of the game is how much better the story is compared to 5. I can’t compare since I haven’t played 5 since release but man does 4 have a really messy structure. Now credit where credit’s due, the humorous dialogues feel quite natural helped by amazing VA from all and Niko is a really well realized flawed protagonist. I really like his dynamic with Roman as both have quite an opposite approach to life but still very much care for each other. Roman’s insistence on playing by the rules and maintaining a constant optimism and faith in the American Dream is not played as some naivete but rather a tragedy of how the whole premise is false. Niko on the opposite side is a trigger happy maniac that doesn’t play by anyone's rules and on the surface is may look like he’s moving up in life faster but he’s also paving a path of destruction, living a highly dangerous life and still gets pushed around just as much as Roman by mob bosses above him. So despite lacking an ounce of subtlety in the themes of the game, I quite liked it.
Problem is that’s where most of my praises end. The story lacks any form of structure as you keep meeting new people and doing jobs for them while having the carrot at the end of the stick being a vague revenge motive. This wouldn’t have been a problem if the game has a strong set of side characters or Niko’s personal investment in those stories. But most characters doesn’t have anything to offer beyond being amusing and Niko’s only motivation is looking for a pay check. This also where the “friend” mechanic fell apart for me as why would I spend time with characters I barely care about?
Lastly I come to gameplay and world design. Usually cities or location in an open world game take on a character by itself as you spend countless hours traversing it and engaging with the details and secrets it has to offer. GTA 4 might have been a technical achievement at release and even now is quite a large city but it absolutely isn't impressive or detailed enough anymore. I’m sure I sound like an asshole trying to bash an old game for not being comparable to newer games but I don’t do this without reason. That reason is that GTA 4 made a noticeable attempt at being realistic. Niko’s movement have long and deliberate animations, the cars feel really weighty and can’t turn corners fast, you pay a toll every time you cross highways etc. This is the same approach RDR2 took but unlike that game GTA4 simply didn’t have the tech to make an immersive open world. Streets feel too empty, there’s not enough shop or activity variety and too much of the city looks samey due to lack of detail. Thus when you couple an un-immersive city with dull gameplay, the whole experience becomes a slog.
And I didn’t even mention how dull the mission designs are. Rockstar games have never had great combat depth but in this game it feels specially lacking as you frequently drive slowly across long distances in a boring city only to shoot up a bunch of people in a building or drive some variation of vehicle that control just as bad as regular cars. In return of doing them your reward is some amusing humorous dialogue and money you have nothing to spend on. By themselves, each aspect they might not be that bad but the experience as whole was a chore to me.
I’m sure GTA 4 felt a lot better at release and I didn’t give enough credit to the game in this review. To mention one of them would be that despite disliking how the cars drove, I quite liked how distinct each vehicle felt. At the end of the day, I liked the concepts of this game far more than what it delivers.
Recently I had finished Red Dead 2 and despite sorely lacking in combat depth, I was thoroughly enraptured by its slow methodical approach to gameplay and the quaint humanity afforded to its wide cast of characters. I remembered below the satirical edge of GTA, the 4th entry attempted something similar so jumped back in to see how it held up.
What caught my eye immediately on starting was the brown and grey visual style it went for in the city. I can’t say that it was very appealing but I wanted to see if it was justified by the narrative. I tried making excuses for it, maybe they wanted to represent Niko’s humble start among Liberty City’s lowlife, or maybe it related to the themes of the game about how despite leaving his eastern European roots this city was the same with old and new vices.
But I fear it just doesn’t work. Moments of sincerity are few and far between and the darker tone are used as little more than cynical sarcasm. The story and characters are far too wacky, many nothing more than a caricature to justify the grim tone. When you’re driving with various flavors of clowns as companions, frequently crashing into cars and then shooting up a neighborhood worth of people for “amusing” reasons it’s really hard to take grim tone of the city seriously. GTA 5 and RDR2 did a much better job of embracing its silliness and realism respectively.
1 thing I keep hearing from fans of the game is how much better the story is compared to 5. I can’t compare since I haven’t played 5 since release but man does 4 have a really messy structure. Now credit where credit’s due, the humorous dialogues feel quite natural helped by amazing VA from all and Niko is a really well realized flawed protagonist. I really like his dynamic with Roman as both have quite an opposite approach to life but still very much care for each other. Roman’s insistence on playing by the rules and maintaining a constant optimism and faith in the American Dream is not played as some naivete but rather a tragedy of how the whole premise is false. Niko on the opposite side is a trigger happy maniac that doesn’t play by anyone's rules and on the surface is may look like he’s moving up in life faster but he’s also paving a path of destruction, living a highly dangerous life and still gets pushed around just as much as Roman by mob bosses above him. So despite lacking an ounce of subtlety in the themes of the game, I quite liked it.
Problem is that’s where most of my praises end. The story lacks any form of structure as you keep meeting new people and doing jobs for them while having the carrot at the end of the stick being a vague revenge motive. This wouldn’t have been a problem if the game has a strong set of side characters or Niko’s personal investment in those stories. But most characters doesn’t have anything to offer beyond being amusing and Niko’s only motivation is looking for a pay check. This also where the “friend” mechanic fell apart for me as why would I spend time with characters I barely care about?
Lastly I come to gameplay and world design. Usually cities or location in an open world game take on a character by itself as you spend countless hours traversing it and engaging with the details and secrets it has to offer. GTA 4 might have been a technical achievement at release and even now is quite a large city but it absolutely isn't impressive or detailed enough anymore. I’m sure I sound like an asshole trying to bash an old game for not being comparable to newer games but I don’t do this without reason. That reason is that GTA 4 made a noticeable attempt at being realistic. Niko’s movement have long and deliberate animations, the cars feel really weighty and can’t turn corners fast, you pay a toll every time you cross highways etc. This is the same approach RDR2 took but unlike that game GTA4 simply didn’t have the tech to make an immersive open world. Streets feel too empty, there’s not enough shop or activity variety and too much of the city looks samey due to lack of detail. Thus when you couple an un-immersive city with dull gameplay, the whole experience becomes a slog.
And I didn’t even mention how dull the mission designs are. Rockstar games have never had great combat depth but in this game it feels specially lacking as you frequently drive slowly across long distances in a boring city only to shoot up a bunch of people in a building or drive some variation of vehicle that control just as bad as regular cars. In return of doing them your reward is some amusing humorous dialogue and money you have nothing to spend on. By themselves, each aspect they might not be that bad but the experience as whole was a chore to me.
I’m sure GTA 4 felt a lot better at release and I didn’t give enough credit to the game in this review. To mention one of them would be that despite disliking how the cars drove, I quite liked how distinct each vehicle felt. At the end of the day, I liked the concepts of this game far more than what it delivers.
Playing Assassin's Creed Odyssey is an exercise in frustration as you realize how much it doesn’t care about its series roots but is also completely held back by being forced to be of this franchise. But attributing the game’s failing to the franchise tropes would be giving it too much credit when it stumbles at any idea it borrows and dilutes its own strengths with poor design.
That may have given the impression that I hate this game and maybe after 100 hours of trudging through its mediocrity I do hate it but I wouldn’t have played that much if there wasn’t some enjoyment to be had. It’s not hard to see why the game has garnered some fans, no matter how many hours you put in into it, you will come across plenty of side and main content that is worth experiencing. Though the praises this game receives often makes me eye roll. Dissecting its issues would take a long time so let’s get on with it.
World design
From a strictly technical standpoint, Ubisoft has been a master of open world design along with Bethesda and Rockstar for a very long time. No other studio can boast the huge variety of detailed cities teams at Ubisoft has created that also feel incredibly lived it. Assassin's Creed Odyssey is no exception to that, well, for the most part.
The video game rendition of miniature Greece is gorgeous to look at and for the 1st 15-20 hours exploration is a great experience. You are introduced to your first city in Megharis and while decently sized, it doesn’t make much of an impression. However even since the tutorial island you can see amount of varied npc animation the game boast. You can really start to soak in the atmosphere and appreciate the npc activities once you toggle walking instead of auto running, the camera also draws in closer to your player character. Observing little details like 2 npc having an argument, a group of performance artists entertaining other npcs on the street or someone just fishing really makes you feel like a part of living breathing world. Then when you finally reach Athens be prepared to be blown away. Athens is easily the most expansive detailed city I've seen on an open world game, makes Bethesda's cities look like small villages by comparison. Playing normally you would probably climb and run past everything too fast but if you slow down to explore the various districts, the staggering amount detail in crafting the city is really a sight to behold.
Beyond the cities there’s quite a few self contained biomes that can break up the monotony of similar environments, and I got to give special mention to some of the huge statues you can find that are always a sight to behold. Coming up on more mythologically influenced places have their own charm too.
But here's the problem, after Athens there's very little out there to awe you after that. Cities reuse assets too much and despite being detailed it all blends together to look and feel the same. The only note worthy difference in design comes in Sparta for being the obvious reason of being the only other major power but even then it failed to impress me. Your experience may vary. This is not to say that cities and places of interest are placed randomly, there's certainly some historical accuracy behind the places and statues. But it's not visually distinct enough to capture the attention of someone not well versed in Greek history. This might not seem that big a problem but the issue is compounded when combined with how shallow the combat and exploration is.
Exploration
Let's address the elephant in the room, the climbing mechanics. Yes, it's incredibly dumbed down.You can hold the climb buttom and go anywhere without a thought of the terrain. Synchronization points which used to be a mini climbing puzzle are nothing more than busy work to unlock fast travel points. Such an iconic feature of the franchise being reduced to an after thought really hurts to see as a fan. Specially since just a year back Zelda: Breath of the Wild showed just how much engaging a free climbing mechanics can be like.
Not counting ship combat, Odyssey spreads outs it exploration activities in mainly 2 forms
1. Enemy camp raiding which can range from very small bandit camps to big forts
2. Side questing.
Aside from this you have more combat centric challenges like beast hunting, arena and some minor exploration puzzle like hidden tombs.
This doesn’t sound so bad right? And it isn’t when you start the start the game. The starting island of Kephalonia works as a great microcosm of how the entire game is designed. When you’re not bogged down bloat and the world, combat and quests feel fresh there’s a certain familiar charm to it, after all it borrows ideas from a lot of games. But the moment the game decided to expand to the size that it is, it got crushed by the weight of its failing.
While AC Origins was completely open world, its mostly kept its core focus on the cities and its outskirts while relegating random exploration to the outside world. Odyssey is the 1st one that truly embraces the open world and its idea of populating that world is with side quests and combat activities. Problem is that which an open world as vast as this, a significant chunk of side quests are just not that interesting or well written and I’m not talking about the randomly generated ones. I’ve seen many claim that the game is grindy because it makes you do side quests but I absolutely disagree. It’s quite normal for rpgs to expect you to do side content to level up and there are certainly worse ways to make you do that than story drive side quests. There are side quests that are actually good, some take into account the rich history of Greece and others involve quest chains with characters from the main campaign.
BUT the main problem is you have to trudge through a bunch of shallow meaningless quests to find them. Shallow quests are bearable when you have a 30 hour game but it becomes completely insufferable in a 100 hour one. Adding to this problem is clearing enemy locations is tied to quests more than being mechanically satisfying i.e. having puzzles or gameplay systems that manipulate the enemies. So you’re stuck with either picking up boring quests and skipping through dialogue or attacking enemies that have very little interesting gameplay to offer.
So if side quests are not good maybe other side activities would help break up the monotony? Again, no. I don’t know if it was because of lack of development time or something else but EVERY SINGLE ACTIVITY ENDS IN COMBAT. I can’t overstate how mind numbing it got for me specially when the combat is so spammy and boring. The exception to this are the tombs but even are just copy paste dungeons where after you’ve seen 2, you know exactly how the rest are gonna be like.
The biggest sin the exploration in an open world game can commit is not being able to surprise you and that’s exactly what this game fails at.
Combat
All Assassin’s Creed game has tried to sell a fantasy, whether it a traditional assassin hiding in plain sight or a swashbuckling pirate. The fantasy that Odyssey tries to sell is that of being a demi-god. You don’t just have superhuman abilties because of your Isu bloodline but now they have an even more supernatural twist to them. I can’t say I was very fond of this specially cause it didn’t go far enough with this idea while sacrificing traditional assassin feel but I have seen some people loving it so your mileage may vary.
Now I would have put this in the exploration section but I need extra space to rant. If questing is just one pillar of exploration, the core gameplay loop is combat and loot gathering. Odyssey is a loot driven game more akin to Diablo, you are encouraged to keep hunting for weapons and armour as it helps release sweet endorphins in your loot addicted brain and the end goal is make “builds”. I have seen many saying that this system is good and I’m sorry to say this but I couldn’t disagree more. The enemies are damage sponges and most skills in this game are nothing more than “extra damage with fancy animation” that offer little to no tactical advantage. You can “build” your way into a character that does enough damage but the nature of builds means combat is so one note that AC Origins had far greater depth despite having less skill options.
Having an “assassin build” is not interesting when you backstab and teleport stab your way through a camp and you have seen everything the build has to offer in 10 min. What makes gameplay in Assassin’s Creed work is having a bunch a tools at your disposal and you mix and match between them keep things fresh. But since this game is balanced with the expectation of you having “builds” you can’t use your bow, assassinations and melee weapons effectively at the same time further reducing what little gameplay variety there was. I think the devs realized that too since they patched in an ability to save builds so you can quickly switch between them.
Weirdly the one good aspect of the combat I can mention are the supernatural themed boss fights. In fact it makes me sad thinking what the game could have been if it wasn’t forced to be an assassin’s creed game. Even the 2nd DLC you can see how even the environments look better when they can flex their creative muscles.
I should probably mention the Mercenary System here cause in concept is was kinda cool. Given how boring combat can get, have a really powerful enemy randomly appear to spice up the combat or add tension really saves the game becoming a complete chore to play. Some of these mercs can stand tow to tow with you and despite the spammy nature of combat, they are quite fun to fight. But sometimes the game overdoes it as you get swarmed with them, which also reduces the special feeling of them.
Narrative
This may come as a surprise since I kept this section last but I’m usually a story first guy. I love to dissect themes in games, or delve into characterizations. Unfortunately there’s not much to say here except for maybe it was going for a country spanning Odyssey, certainly would explain the length but much of the tone and characterizations get muddled due to it flirting with RPG mechanics. And that’s what I find more interesting to talk about, how it implements the RPG mechanics.
Lets get 1 thing out of the way, I don’t believe an RPG is bad by default if the dialogue choices don’t make a big impact on the plot and are just there for flavor. Unless there’s a major disconnect between player action and world state, flavor choices are enough to role play a character. But did AC Odyssey implement that well?
Alexios/Kassanda in the beginning comes off a character who is mostly of neutral personality despite having having a fleshed out backstory. So something like a midway between Geralt and a blank slate character. The problem comes when specific narrative beats are handled in a way that presupposes character personality. Every now and then the story would take reigns away from you to show a really emotional scene even if your personal headcanon for the character would not have reacted that way. A clear problem of the game trying to have its cake and eat it too. Honestly they should have stuck to a proper character like the old games since RPG choices have no place in Assassin’s Creed but that’s another topic.
Another thing I wanna touch on is the core intention of the plot. I tried but couldn’t find a defining theme, however if I consider some specific choices, I can see how the story might have been pretty interesting as a greek tragedy given how even with demi-god powers you might fail to go against destiny and save what’s important. Problem is, given the game’s RPG options and thus multiple ending, you can easily end up with an ending where everything gets tied up in a neat bow and everyone gets a happy ending. That’s exactly happened to me and it just felt so hollow.
Before I end this I should probably mention that I had played this developer’s previous game AC Syndicate and after this and their new game, I think they have a strong penchant for humorous writing and is either lacking in skill to make a compelling deep character or just doesn’t care. I can’t say I hate their brand of humor but its not something that makes me audibly laugh either but what put the final nail in the coffin of narrative is that this game was sorely in need of deep nuanced characters whom you can get invested in. When you have characters like Socrates, Herodotus, Alkibiades etc portraying them as just some quirky amusing people to spend with feels like a major disservice. I am not the biggest fan of Darby McDevitt’s work in the narrative in games like Black Flag but at least he puts some effort into the characters.
Although individually the story and gameplay parts are not very impressive, when you take into consideration the huge amount of hours you will pour into the game, the grand scale does have an unique fantasy to offer, more so if you are knowledgeable in ancient greek history. It’s just a shame how much of it buckles under the weight of its mismatched under-baked design choices and unnecessary bloat. I’m glad the devs got to create their own franchise and maybe they will excel with more creative freedom.
That may have given the impression that I hate this game and maybe after 100 hours of trudging through its mediocrity I do hate it but I wouldn’t have played that much if there wasn’t some enjoyment to be had. It’s not hard to see why the game has garnered some fans, no matter how many hours you put in into it, you will come across plenty of side and main content that is worth experiencing. Though the praises this game receives often makes me eye roll. Dissecting its issues would take a long time so let’s get on with it.
World design
From a strictly technical standpoint, Ubisoft has been a master of open world design along with Bethesda and Rockstar for a very long time. No other studio can boast the huge variety of detailed cities teams at Ubisoft has created that also feel incredibly lived it. Assassin's Creed Odyssey is no exception to that, well, for the most part.
The video game rendition of miniature Greece is gorgeous to look at and for the 1st 15-20 hours exploration is a great experience. You are introduced to your first city in Megharis and while decently sized, it doesn’t make much of an impression. However even since the tutorial island you can see amount of varied npc animation the game boast. You can really start to soak in the atmosphere and appreciate the npc activities once you toggle walking instead of auto running, the camera also draws in closer to your player character. Observing little details like 2 npc having an argument, a group of performance artists entertaining other npcs on the street or someone just fishing really makes you feel like a part of living breathing world. Then when you finally reach Athens be prepared to be blown away. Athens is easily the most expansive detailed city I've seen on an open world game, makes Bethesda's cities look like small villages by comparison. Playing normally you would probably climb and run past everything too fast but if you slow down to explore the various districts, the staggering amount detail in crafting the city is really a sight to behold.
Beyond the cities there’s quite a few self contained biomes that can break up the monotony of similar environments, and I got to give special mention to some of the huge statues you can find that are always a sight to behold. Coming up on more mythologically influenced places have their own charm too.
But here's the problem, after Athens there's very little out there to awe you after that. Cities reuse assets too much and despite being detailed it all blends together to look and feel the same. The only note worthy difference in design comes in Sparta for being the obvious reason of being the only other major power but even then it failed to impress me. Your experience may vary. This is not to say that cities and places of interest are placed randomly, there's certainly some historical accuracy behind the places and statues. But it's not visually distinct enough to capture the attention of someone not well versed in Greek history. This might not seem that big a problem but the issue is compounded when combined with how shallow the combat and exploration is.
Exploration
Let's address the elephant in the room, the climbing mechanics. Yes, it's incredibly dumbed down.You can hold the climb buttom and go anywhere without a thought of the terrain. Synchronization points which used to be a mini climbing puzzle are nothing more than busy work to unlock fast travel points. Such an iconic feature of the franchise being reduced to an after thought really hurts to see as a fan. Specially since just a year back Zelda: Breath of the Wild showed just how much engaging a free climbing mechanics can be like.
Not counting ship combat, Odyssey spreads outs it exploration activities in mainly 2 forms
1. Enemy camp raiding which can range from very small bandit camps to big forts
2. Side questing.
Aside from this you have more combat centric challenges like beast hunting, arena and some minor exploration puzzle like hidden tombs.
This doesn’t sound so bad right? And it isn’t when you start the start the game. The starting island of Kephalonia works as a great microcosm of how the entire game is designed. When you’re not bogged down bloat and the world, combat and quests feel fresh there’s a certain familiar charm to it, after all it borrows ideas from a lot of games. But the moment the game decided to expand to the size that it is, it got crushed by the weight of its failing.
While AC Origins was completely open world, its mostly kept its core focus on the cities and its outskirts while relegating random exploration to the outside world. Odyssey is the 1st one that truly embraces the open world and its idea of populating that world is with side quests and combat activities. Problem is that which an open world as vast as this, a significant chunk of side quests are just not that interesting or well written and I’m not talking about the randomly generated ones. I’ve seen many claim that the game is grindy because it makes you do side quests but I absolutely disagree. It’s quite normal for rpgs to expect you to do side content to level up and there are certainly worse ways to make you do that than story drive side quests. There are side quests that are actually good, some take into account the rich history of Greece and others involve quest chains with characters from the main campaign.
BUT the main problem is you have to trudge through a bunch of shallow meaningless quests to find them. Shallow quests are bearable when you have a 30 hour game but it becomes completely insufferable in a 100 hour one. Adding to this problem is clearing enemy locations is tied to quests more than being mechanically satisfying i.e. having puzzles or gameplay systems that manipulate the enemies. So you’re stuck with either picking up boring quests and skipping through dialogue or attacking enemies that have very little interesting gameplay to offer.
So if side quests are not good maybe other side activities would help break up the monotony? Again, no. I don’t know if it was because of lack of development time or something else but EVERY SINGLE ACTIVITY ENDS IN COMBAT. I can’t overstate how mind numbing it got for me specially when the combat is so spammy and boring. The exception to this are the tombs but even are just copy paste dungeons where after you’ve seen 2, you know exactly how the rest are gonna be like.
The biggest sin the exploration in an open world game can commit is not being able to surprise you and that’s exactly what this game fails at.
Combat
All Assassin’s Creed game has tried to sell a fantasy, whether it a traditional assassin hiding in plain sight or a swashbuckling pirate. The fantasy that Odyssey tries to sell is that of being a demi-god. You don’t just have superhuman abilties because of your Isu bloodline but now they have an even more supernatural twist to them. I can’t say I was very fond of this specially cause it didn’t go far enough with this idea while sacrificing traditional assassin feel but I have seen some people loving it so your mileage may vary.
Now I would have put this in the exploration section but I need extra space to rant. If questing is just one pillar of exploration, the core gameplay loop is combat and loot gathering. Odyssey is a loot driven game more akin to Diablo, you are encouraged to keep hunting for weapons and armour as it helps release sweet endorphins in your loot addicted brain and the end goal is make “builds”. I have seen many saying that this system is good and I’m sorry to say this but I couldn’t disagree more. The enemies are damage sponges and most skills in this game are nothing more than “extra damage with fancy animation” that offer little to no tactical advantage. You can “build” your way into a character that does enough damage but the nature of builds means combat is so one note that AC Origins had far greater depth despite having less skill options.
Having an “assassin build” is not interesting when you backstab and teleport stab your way through a camp and you have seen everything the build has to offer in 10 min. What makes gameplay in Assassin’s Creed work is having a bunch a tools at your disposal and you mix and match between them keep things fresh. But since this game is balanced with the expectation of you having “builds” you can’t use your bow, assassinations and melee weapons effectively at the same time further reducing what little gameplay variety there was. I think the devs realized that too since they patched in an ability to save builds so you can quickly switch between them.
Weirdly the one good aspect of the combat I can mention are the supernatural themed boss fights. In fact it makes me sad thinking what the game could have been if it wasn’t forced to be an assassin’s creed game. Even the 2nd DLC you can see how even the environments look better when they can flex their creative muscles.
I should probably mention the Mercenary System here cause in concept is was kinda cool. Given how boring combat can get, have a really powerful enemy randomly appear to spice up the combat or add tension really saves the game becoming a complete chore to play. Some of these mercs can stand tow to tow with you and despite the spammy nature of combat, they are quite fun to fight. But sometimes the game overdoes it as you get swarmed with them, which also reduces the special feeling of them.
Narrative
This may come as a surprise since I kept this section last but I’m usually a story first guy. I love to dissect themes in games, or delve into characterizations. Unfortunately there’s not much to say here except for maybe it was going for a country spanning Odyssey, certainly would explain the length but much of the tone and characterizations get muddled due to it flirting with RPG mechanics. And that’s what I find more interesting to talk about, how it implements the RPG mechanics.
Lets get 1 thing out of the way, I don’t believe an RPG is bad by default if the dialogue choices don’t make a big impact on the plot and are just there for flavor. Unless there’s a major disconnect between player action and world state, flavor choices are enough to role play a character. But did AC Odyssey implement that well?
Alexios/Kassanda in the beginning comes off a character who is mostly of neutral personality despite having having a fleshed out backstory. So something like a midway between Geralt and a blank slate character. The problem comes when specific narrative beats are handled in a way that presupposes character personality. Every now and then the story would take reigns away from you to show a really emotional scene even if your personal headcanon for the character would not have reacted that way. A clear problem of the game trying to have its cake and eat it too. Honestly they should have stuck to a proper character like the old games since RPG choices have no place in Assassin’s Creed but that’s another topic.
Another thing I wanna touch on is the core intention of the plot. I tried but couldn’t find a defining theme, however if I consider some specific choices, I can see how the story might have been pretty interesting as a greek tragedy given how even with demi-god powers you might fail to go against destiny and save what’s important. Problem is, given the game’s RPG options and thus multiple ending, you can easily end up with an ending where everything gets tied up in a neat bow and everyone gets a happy ending. That’s exactly happened to me and it just felt so hollow.
Before I end this I should probably mention that I had played this developer’s previous game AC Syndicate and after this and their new game, I think they have a strong penchant for humorous writing and is either lacking in skill to make a compelling deep character or just doesn’t care. I can’t say I hate their brand of humor but its not something that makes me audibly laugh either but what put the final nail in the coffin of narrative is that this game was sorely in need of deep nuanced characters whom you can get invested in. When you have characters like Socrates, Herodotus, Alkibiades etc portraying them as just some quirky amusing people to spend with feels like a major disservice. I am not the biggest fan of Darby McDevitt’s work in the narrative in games like Black Flag but at least he puts some effort into the characters.
Although individually the story and gameplay parts are not very impressive, when you take into consideration the huge amount of hours you will pour into the game, the grand scale does have an unique fantasy to offer, more so if you are knowledgeable in ancient greek history. It’s just a shame how much of it buckles under the weight of its mismatched under-baked design choices and unnecessary bloat. I’m glad the devs got to create their own franchise and maybe they will excel with more creative freedom.
2020
Cute but hollow.
I like the concept of the game a lot, a romcom featuring many playable characters whose lives intertwine. Problem is that instead of fleshing out the characters, you are left with 1 defining characteristic/quirk for each character and throughout the game you deal with cute but rather tiresome quests. I played 7/8 out of 12 chapters and just couldn't be bothered to finish as I wasn't invested in any character.
The art style is quite unique and honestly hard carried the game for me. Music was nice but not enough tracks. Would like see some other game of this style but with better writing.
I like the concept of the game a lot, a romcom featuring many playable characters whose lives intertwine. Problem is that instead of fleshing out the characters, you are left with 1 defining characteristic/quirk for each character and throughout the game you deal with cute but rather tiresome quests. I played 7/8 out of 12 chapters and just couldn't be bothered to finish as I wasn't invested in any character.
The art style is quite unique and honestly hard carried the game for me. Music was nice but not enough tracks. Would like see some other game of this style but with better writing.
2020
While the writing's shallow and tropey (though I can see kids enjoying it) there's legitimate effort put into the gameplay, in both exploration and combat which elevate it above being just a BotW clone. Alas it is also a gatcha waifu collector which makes it a grindy chore to play.
Gatcha games should burn in the pits of hell.
Gatcha games should burn in the pits of hell.
My 3/5 star rating is for the game upto Alitissia. If you don't bother about the overarching plot too much, the game upto that is pretty good at giving a road trip with the boys feel. I recommend playing only upto that and the companion dlcs. Altissia's end boss fight looks better than the actual final one anyway.
My rating for the rest of the game is 1/5. Avoid it cause even with all updates it's a complete cluster fuck.
My rating for the rest of the game is 1/5. Avoid it cause even with all updates it's a complete cluster fuck.
A boring open world saved by fun visceral combat and an interesting nemesis system.
2020
Tell me Why is the latest game by this studio and I'm honestly feeling like Life is Strange 1 was a lighting in a bottle.
I won't dissuade anyone from trying this since it's not a completely bad game, but it also lacks anything special that makes games like these work. The visuals are pretty and technically an improvement over previous games but lack any distinct style. I don't remember a single music track from the game.
But maybe the story or characters pull their weight? It had some potential, I was actually intrigued by the first episode. But it commits the worst mistake but not having a conflict worth investing in. The siblings despite some disagreements get along too well, any new conflict that comes up gets resolved too fast and the over arching mystery has such an lackluster conclusion that it negates any build up it had previously.
I get that the story is tackling a very sensitive topic but it lacks teeth to hook you.
I won't dissuade anyone from trying this since it's not a completely bad game, but it also lacks anything special that makes games like these work. The visuals are pretty and technically an improvement over previous games but lack any distinct style. I don't remember a single music track from the game.
But maybe the story or characters pull their weight? It had some potential, I was actually intrigued by the first episode. But it commits the worst mistake but not having a conflict worth investing in. The siblings despite some disagreements get along too well, any new conflict that comes up gets resolved too fast and the over arching mystery has such an lackluster conclusion that it negates any build up it had previously.
I get that the story is tackling a very sensitive topic but it lacks teeth to hook you.
2017
Elex is an action RPG that takes upon the daunting task of combining sci-fi with medieval fantasy and surprisingly manage to pull it off. As long as you can get over the very high amount of AA jank, this an ambitious title worth experiencing.
Positives:
• Quest design is excellent. Almost always there are multiple ways to complete a quest that help in roleplaying and I don't remember there being any uninteresting fetch quest. There are 3 main factions to choose to from and they provide very different abilities, so lots of room for replayability.
• The exploration is rewarding and has enough unique locations & loot. This is the closest you'll come to Bethesda's level and damn impressive for a AA game. Despite some low poly areas, the world is beautiful with perfect use of lighting to bring out the atmosphere. The verticality of the map design is really well done and the jet-pack allows for fun traversal.
• Player progression is one the best I've seen. You start as a complete weakling and the world feels genuinely dangerous as you try to avoid almost every enemy. 1st time you get companion feels like huge rewards mechanically. You take your sweet time to level up and can get frustrating and it indirectly hinders your exploration but keep at and you'll be rewarded.
• The world building and story can feel a bit silly in the beginning but as more of the game opens up, you see the genuine effort the devs have put in to make a believable immersive world.
Negatives:
• Combat. Don't let fanboys fool you, it's terrible, at least for 2/3rd of the game. Hitboxes are some of the worst I've seen in past decade. Melee combat plays like a poor man's Witcher 3 so get a gun as soon as possible or join a faction to get magic/tech abilities. For a game that prioritizes stamina management, the devs made an inexplicable decision to give only bipedal enemies stamina but 70% of the enemies you fight are monsters with no stamina requirement.
• Companion AI is trash. A significant portion of the time they stand around while you get mauled by beasts. Do yourself a favor and stick to the companion Duras, he has the most aggresive AI and thus the least bad.
• Although enemy visual designs are very good, most are actually just reskins of earlier enemies with more damage. This wouldn't have been a problem if not for the fact that you fight enemies by learning they attack pattern and when newer enemies have the exact same pattern as earlier ones, it sucks out the joy of discovering something new.
Overall Elex is an ambitious game that stumbles in almost every area. Despite that if you can look past the AA jank, it's a very enjoyable experience. Certainly a much better roleplaying experience than Bethesda titles. Here's hoping that Piranha Bytes will actually improve for a change since Gothic in the inevitable Elex sequel.
Positives:
• Quest design is excellent. Almost always there are multiple ways to complete a quest that help in roleplaying and I don't remember there being any uninteresting fetch quest. There are 3 main factions to choose to from and they provide very different abilities, so lots of room for replayability.
• The exploration is rewarding and has enough unique locations & loot. This is the closest you'll come to Bethesda's level and damn impressive for a AA game. Despite some low poly areas, the world is beautiful with perfect use of lighting to bring out the atmosphere. The verticality of the map design is really well done and the jet-pack allows for fun traversal.
• Player progression is one the best I've seen. You start as a complete weakling and the world feels genuinely dangerous as you try to avoid almost every enemy. 1st time you get companion feels like huge rewards mechanically. You take your sweet time to level up and can get frustrating and it indirectly hinders your exploration but keep at and you'll be rewarded.
• The world building and story can feel a bit silly in the beginning but as more of the game opens up, you see the genuine effort the devs have put in to make a believable immersive world.
Negatives:
• Combat. Don't let fanboys fool you, it's terrible, at least for 2/3rd of the game. Hitboxes are some of the worst I've seen in past decade. Melee combat plays like a poor man's Witcher 3 so get a gun as soon as possible or join a faction to get magic/tech abilities. For a game that prioritizes stamina management, the devs made an inexplicable decision to give only bipedal enemies stamina but 70% of the enemies you fight are monsters with no stamina requirement.
• Companion AI is trash. A significant portion of the time they stand around while you get mauled by beasts. Do yourself a favor and stick to the companion Duras, he has the most aggresive AI and thus the least bad.
• Although enemy visual designs are very good, most are actually just reskins of earlier enemies with more damage. This wouldn't have been a problem if not for the fact that you fight enemies by learning they attack pattern and when newer enemies have the exact same pattern as earlier ones, it sucks out the joy of discovering something new.
Overall Elex is an ambitious game that stumbles in almost every area. Despite that if you can look past the AA jank, it's a very enjoyable experience. Certainly a much better roleplaying experience than Bethesda titles. Here's hoping that Piranha Bytes will actually improve for a change since Gothic in the inevitable Elex sequel.
Pathfinder Kingmaker is a CRPG that feels pride in it's table top roots and tries hard to emulate that feeling while taking inspiration from more contemporary CRPGs and I'd say they mostly succeeded in that vision with some hiccups.
1st the positives :
• The character creation is very deep, possibly overwhelming for new players. But once you get a hold of it, it's very rewarding with how much build variety can be done.
• The Pathfinder table-top rule set makes for very engaging battles. It used to be very hard at launch, relying more on rng luck but after several patches I think it's quite fair now. Using proper buffs, feats and spells to counter the enemy strength never stops being exciting.
• Without going into spoilers I'd say the story while nothing groundbreaking works well enough to keep the player invested. Each story arc has enough plot intrigue to have it's own game but since there's so many, individually they feel a bit shallow. Despite this complaint I would argue that it works to serve the larger narrative.
• Companion characters have actual personality with history and are not just stand ins for their race, this I greatly appreciated. I loved the camp side banter and how they can interject during story moments. Having to have them in party for romance to trigger properly was nice too.
• Kingdom management mini game is quite fun with choices than can have consequences with the companions. Watching your city having the buildings you built show up in the map screen never got old for me. Small side quests from unlocked locations were nice too.
• The visual design is gorgeous with perfect use of special effects. Using powerful AOE spells never got old. But I wish the game had camera rotation like D:OS2.
• Voice acting for the most part was great and added to the immersion. Though I wish important story dialogues weren't half voiced, either keep it silent or voice it fully. Having to hear half dialogues in great voice acting and having to imagine the rest took me out of experience slightly, though this is a minor nitpick.
• The music, my god. Inor Zur is a genius and it shows. Every tracks fits the game ambience just right and quite a few of those I would listen to ousdide of the game too.
Now for the parts that in my opinion can be improved:
• 1st point has to be bugs. I'm glad how much the devs have worked to fix the bugs and balance issues of the game but still there is some work to be done. I ran into 2 broken quest that was supposed to be fixed and a few visual glitches here and there. Saving takes too much time and it needs to be fixed, taking 7-8 seconds for a quick save during later parts of the game is unacceptable. Fortunately there's a mod.
• Although visually gorgeous, I'm not that impressed with level design. Specially during earlier positions of the game you get kinda bland maps purely carried by the quest story you have in mind instead of visual story telling. 1st World was a breath of fresh air but even that went stale soon. Also I feel they are too open and lack strategic use like in POE, but it will be a very subjective opinion. Unique locations aside from main quest that have optional bosses often reuses same locations. Maybe this where the kickstarter budget shows most.
• The companions need more flavor text to flesh them out. After you initially meet and talk with them, there's nothing to talk about for 20-30 hours before their companion quest kicks in and even then it's just a couple of lines at most. At the least they should have dialogues after each important story event. Also longer dungeons needs some side story in the form of notes or something. Idk about others but fighting similar enemies over and over without discovering fun stuff about the location is boring. I hope the story's better in the future games too.
• There are unsual difficulty spikes in the game, specially towards the end. Hopefully will get more balance patches.
• A personal grievance but I dislike the over reliance on RNG in everything. I know that's how table top games are probably but on higher difficulties you are forced to reload not because you did something wrong but because the enemy just had a higher roll than you. That is not fun. I'm so glad DOS2 moved away from it although armor system needs some fixing.
Overall it's very fun game and a solid entry into the CRPG genre.
1st the positives :
• The character creation is very deep, possibly overwhelming for new players. But once you get a hold of it, it's very rewarding with how much build variety can be done.
• The Pathfinder table-top rule set makes for very engaging battles. It used to be very hard at launch, relying more on rng luck but after several patches I think it's quite fair now. Using proper buffs, feats and spells to counter the enemy strength never stops being exciting.
• Without going into spoilers I'd say the story while nothing groundbreaking works well enough to keep the player invested. Each story arc has enough plot intrigue to have it's own game but since there's so many, individually they feel a bit shallow. Despite this complaint I would argue that it works to serve the larger narrative.
• Companion characters have actual personality with history and are not just stand ins for their race, this I greatly appreciated. I loved the camp side banter and how they can interject during story moments. Having to have them in party for romance to trigger properly was nice too.
• Kingdom management mini game is quite fun with choices than can have consequences with the companions. Watching your city having the buildings you built show up in the map screen never got old for me. Small side quests from unlocked locations were nice too.
• The visual design is gorgeous with perfect use of special effects. Using powerful AOE spells never got old. But I wish the game had camera rotation like D:OS2.
• Voice acting for the most part was great and added to the immersion. Though I wish important story dialogues weren't half voiced, either keep it silent or voice it fully. Having to hear half dialogues in great voice acting and having to imagine the rest took me out of experience slightly, though this is a minor nitpick.
• The music, my god. Inor Zur is a genius and it shows. Every tracks fits the game ambience just right and quite a few of those I would listen to ousdide of the game too.
Now for the parts that in my opinion can be improved:
• 1st point has to be bugs. I'm glad how much the devs have worked to fix the bugs and balance issues of the game but still there is some work to be done. I ran into 2 broken quest that was supposed to be fixed and a few visual glitches here and there. Saving takes too much time and it needs to be fixed, taking 7-8 seconds for a quick save during later parts of the game is unacceptable. Fortunately there's a mod.
• Although visually gorgeous, I'm not that impressed with level design. Specially during earlier positions of the game you get kinda bland maps purely carried by the quest story you have in mind instead of visual story telling. 1st World was a breath of fresh air but even that went stale soon. Also I feel they are too open and lack strategic use like in POE, but it will be a very subjective opinion. Unique locations aside from main quest that have optional bosses often reuses same locations. Maybe this where the kickstarter budget shows most.
• The companions need more flavor text to flesh them out. After you initially meet and talk with them, there's nothing to talk about for 20-30 hours before their companion quest kicks in and even then it's just a couple of lines at most. At the least they should have dialogues after each important story event. Also longer dungeons needs some side story in the form of notes or something. Idk about others but fighting similar enemies over and over without discovering fun stuff about the location is boring. I hope the story's better in the future games too.
• There are unsual difficulty spikes in the game, specially towards the end. Hopefully will get more balance patches.
• A personal grievance but I dislike the over reliance on RNG in everything. I know that's how table top games are probably but on higher difficulties you are forced to reload not because you did something wrong but because the enemy just had a higher roll than you. That is not fun. I'm so glad DOS2 moved away from it although armor system needs some fixing.
Overall it's very fun game and a solid entry into the CRPG genre.
Isometric crpgs have come a long way since Baldur's Gate 1 pioneered the genre 2 decades back and its a wonder that it still holds up in the Enhanced Edition re-release.
A design priority that sets BG apart from the rest of the genre is the focus in free form exploration and roleplaying over a strong narrative hook. Being story light, it might turn away some players but at the same time it give greater freedom to craft your own own story. There are numerous optional areas to explore and companions to find, something that offsets the companion death mechanic. Doesn't help the lack of character depth in companions though.
Is it as good as modern crpgs? In terms of narrative absolutely not, but the gameplay still works if you can get into the old D&D rules.
P.S. fans remade this game into the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine and I'd recommend playing that since I personally like the gameplay there more.
A design priority that sets BG apart from the rest of the genre is the focus in free form exploration and roleplaying over a strong narrative hook. Being story light, it might turn away some players but at the same time it give greater freedom to craft your own own story. There are numerous optional areas to explore and companions to find, something that offsets the companion death mechanic. Doesn't help the lack of character depth in companions though.
Is it as good as modern crpgs? In terms of narrative absolutely not, but the gameplay still works if you can get into the old D&D rules.
P.S. fans remade this game into the Neverwinter Nights 2 engine and I'd recommend playing that since I personally like the gameplay there more.
To start with the pros, the game looks gorgeous, specially the lighting; Combat and crafting has more depth than previous games and is quite fun; The companions are fleshed out well enough with party banter; On some occasions you'll be greeted with awe inducing scenes.
Most bugs are fixed by now and facial animations are not as shit anymore, speaks volumes when I list that as a positive.
With those out of the way, the game falls short in everything, even in the pros I mentioned. The story and lore is painfully unimaginative and takes way too much inspiration from the older games. The antagonist is a cartoony villain who fails to make any impression, ME 2 did it better.
Quest design while not bad, failed to impress me. Most boil down to fighting recycled enemy or scanning items. Some do have interesting sub plots but that made searching for them more disappointing when most end up bland and repetitive. Romance quests range from meh to okay.
Crafting has too many steps with a very unintuitive menu. I would argue cover shooters doesn't work well in open world games.
Despite landscapes looking gorgeous, you'll mostly be travelling in various types of bland desserts. Apart from a few locations nothing feels "alien". Facial animations while not comically bad, is still not good.
For a game about adventure across an uncharted world and taking risks, the developers played it too safe and made a disappointing entry in an once excellent franchise. Play it if you only care about combat and eye candy texture/ lighting.
Most bugs are fixed by now and facial animations are not as shit anymore, speaks volumes when I list that as a positive.
With those out of the way, the game falls short in everything, even in the pros I mentioned. The story and lore is painfully unimaginative and takes way too much inspiration from the older games. The antagonist is a cartoony villain who fails to make any impression, ME 2 did it better.
Quest design while not bad, failed to impress me. Most boil down to fighting recycled enemy or scanning items. Some do have interesting sub plots but that made searching for them more disappointing when most end up bland and repetitive. Romance quests range from meh to okay.
Crafting has too many steps with a very unintuitive menu. I would argue cover shooters doesn't work well in open world games.
Despite landscapes looking gorgeous, you'll mostly be travelling in various types of bland desserts. Apart from a few locations nothing feels "alien". Facial animations while not comically bad, is still not good.
For a game about adventure across an uncharted world and taking risks, the developers played it too safe and made a disappointing entry in an once excellent franchise. Play it if you only care about combat and eye candy texture/ lighting.
Such a tragedy, this had the potential to be the best in the franchise. It had the skeleton just right, from gameplay to themes and characters but even without bugs it's under-baked in every way.
Maybe someday I'll write a proper review for this.
Maybe someday I'll write a proper review for this.
2009
Assassin’s Creed 2 is the 2nd game I played after Rogue and it was what solidified my love for the franchise. As such it would be very hard for me to separate my love and nostalgia for the game from a nuanced look into its qualities.
“It is a good life we lead brother. May it never change and may it never change us.”
An exchange between the Firenze brothers followed by the hauntingly beautiful soundtrack of Ezio’s Family was an introduction that has been etched into my memory forever. A simplicity and masterful execution shown by this introduction is emblematic of the whole game.
Compared to the first game the story the game tackles is a simpler good vs evil one. Templars were unrepeatable assholes here driven by greed, not a worthy opposition to assassin ideology. Supposedly a low point in Templar history. Instead what carries this story is the charm of Ezio and the supporting cast, especially the ever lovable Leonardo. A revenge story at its heart, the story adds layers by making it about one of growth, for both our protagonist and the creed. How ever simple it may be, I don't remember ever losing interest.
In terms of gameplay, I never considered melee combat good in this franchise. But something I distinctly remember how good the progression was. You don’t start out as a master assassin like most games but rather slowly unlock hidden blade abilities throughout the entire game. This might not sound like much, but we have to keep in mind that this was the 2nd game in the franchise where all the systems that we take for granted were still very fresh. It was fresh to me as well since it was also my 2nd game.
The main appeal for me was the parkour. And what a treat it was to run around in renaissance Italy. The really slow parkour from 1 was possibly polished up cause despite having precise controls, it never felt slow to me back then. I still remember the glee I felt whenever I had to climb a tall building or encounter one of those parkour puzzles. Even now I consider 2 and Bortherhood's map to be the best in terms of traversal, only contested by Unity. And the music, my god it’s ethereal. Jasper Kyd has yet to top his work in this game in my opinion. Even now all these years later I occasionally listen to them.
To this day AC2 for me remains the perfect marriage of story, atmosphere and gameplay. It must realistically have aged with how much technology has evolved since then but in my memory it’s evergreen.
“It is a good life we lead brother. May it never change and may it never change us.”
An exchange between the Firenze brothers followed by the hauntingly beautiful soundtrack of Ezio’s Family was an introduction that has been etched into my memory forever. A simplicity and masterful execution shown by this introduction is emblematic of the whole game.
Compared to the first game the story the game tackles is a simpler good vs evil one. Templars were unrepeatable assholes here driven by greed, not a worthy opposition to assassin ideology. Supposedly a low point in Templar history. Instead what carries this story is the charm of Ezio and the supporting cast, especially the ever lovable Leonardo. A revenge story at its heart, the story adds layers by making it about one of growth, for both our protagonist and the creed. How ever simple it may be, I don't remember ever losing interest.
In terms of gameplay, I never considered melee combat good in this franchise. But something I distinctly remember how good the progression was. You don’t start out as a master assassin like most games but rather slowly unlock hidden blade abilities throughout the entire game. This might not sound like much, but we have to keep in mind that this was the 2nd game in the franchise where all the systems that we take for granted were still very fresh. It was fresh to me as well since it was also my 2nd game.
The main appeal for me was the parkour. And what a treat it was to run around in renaissance Italy. The really slow parkour from 1 was possibly polished up cause despite having precise controls, it never felt slow to me back then. I still remember the glee I felt whenever I had to climb a tall building or encounter one of those parkour puzzles. Even now I consider 2 and Bortherhood's map to be the best in terms of traversal, only contested by Unity. And the music, my god it’s ethereal. Jasper Kyd has yet to top his work in this game in my opinion. Even now all these years later I occasionally listen to them.
To this day AC2 for me remains the perfect marriage of story, atmosphere and gameplay. It must realistically have aged with how much technology has evolved since then but in my memory it’s evergreen.
This review contains spoilers
Revelations is the 3rd game in the Ezio trilogy and while it feels like just a few incremental upgrades to the firmly established AC formula, internally it was the first game not helmed by the series creator Patrice Desilets. Instead it was the first game written by now fan favorite writer Darby Mcdevitt.
Weirdly my first and most deeply rooted memory of the game is not from the game itself but rather the trailer.It sets up the premise, an old but determined Ezio traveling to the forgotten assassin home of Masyaf to seek the wisdom left behind by his ancestor Altair. He knows not what awaits him, knowledge or death. Decades of skill and wisdom his only companion. The music accompanied by excellent scene direction left quite a mark on me.
On to the actual game, and the question if it lives up to the premise. Yes and no...mostly no. At the end of the game, Sophia asks what the creed means and Ezio answers:
“The creed is merely an observation on the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted is to understand that we are the architects of our actions and that we must live with our consequences, whether glorious or tragic.”
This was Ezio’s revelation and backtracking from this, it’s easy to understand why the setting of Constantinople was chosen. When Ezio arrives there, he calls the city by an old name but is quickly corrected by others as to what its current name is. A city with a long history built on the back of political and religious struggle of many years. A land rife with strife but still maintaining a fragile peace. Through Revelation’s story we get to see how much the actions and both its leaders and Ezio matters to maintain that peace. A small but colorful cast of characters that we meet is a solid foundation to base the structure of this narrative theme. But this is where my praises end.
While the characters are charming and some carry the potential of depth, every single one of them lack enough screen time to fully explore them. You have 2 plots running in parallel, one of political struggle in Constantinople and one of Ezio hunting Altair’s memories, both having nothing to do with each other and that’s not mentioning the brief but significant portion of the game you play as Altair in his last days. All 3 aspects of the game not only constantly break the pace of the story but they take away time from each other that would have been better spent fleshing out the characters.
The final nail in the coffin is Ezio himself, he is old and wiser which complements this entire character act through 3 games but there is very little development in the game itself. He is supposed to learn from the wisdom of Altair’s memories but there’s barely anything there. He is the same person at the end as he was at the beginning of Revelations. His vague understanding of the creed’s meaning was not gradually earned throughout the game but rather made to coincide with the theme of the story.
Coming to the gameplay section, there’s not much to say. From the outside the game makes two bold new additions in the form of multiple bomb types and hook-blade, but both are underutilized to the point where they might even not exist. Thankfully the city design of Constantinople is great as ever, and the solid foundation of exploration and combat set by AC2 is still present.I did feel that the level design for parkour wasn’t as good as previous games but I can’t confirm that now. There were some set piece driven tombs to explore which were the highlight of the game to me.
I personally had played Revelations at a time where my Assassin’s Creed gameplay fatigue had set in and thus was not able to enjoy it as much as I would have if it was still fresh to me. But even considering that I feel the game suffered from small development time and a poor execution of ideas. Sadly this is going to be a trend going forward in the series.
Weirdly my first and most deeply rooted memory of the game is not from the game itself but rather the trailer.It sets up the premise, an old but determined Ezio traveling to the forgotten assassin home of Masyaf to seek the wisdom left behind by his ancestor Altair. He knows not what awaits him, knowledge or death. Decades of skill and wisdom his only companion. The music accompanied by excellent scene direction left quite a mark on me.
On to the actual game, and the question if it lives up to the premise. Yes and no...mostly no. At the end of the game, Sophia asks what the creed means and Ezio answers:
“The creed is merely an observation on the nature of reality. To say that nothing is true is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted is to understand that we are the architects of our actions and that we must live with our consequences, whether glorious or tragic.”
This was Ezio’s revelation and backtracking from this, it’s easy to understand why the setting of Constantinople was chosen. When Ezio arrives there, he calls the city by an old name but is quickly corrected by others as to what its current name is. A city with a long history built on the back of political and religious struggle of many years. A land rife with strife but still maintaining a fragile peace. Through Revelation’s story we get to see how much the actions and both its leaders and Ezio matters to maintain that peace. A small but colorful cast of characters that we meet is a solid foundation to base the structure of this narrative theme. But this is where my praises end.
While the characters are charming and some carry the potential of depth, every single one of them lack enough screen time to fully explore them. You have 2 plots running in parallel, one of political struggle in Constantinople and one of Ezio hunting Altair’s memories, both having nothing to do with each other and that’s not mentioning the brief but significant portion of the game you play as Altair in his last days. All 3 aspects of the game not only constantly break the pace of the story but they take away time from each other that would have been better spent fleshing out the characters.
The final nail in the coffin is Ezio himself, he is old and wiser which complements this entire character act through 3 games but there is very little development in the game itself. He is supposed to learn from the wisdom of Altair’s memories but there’s barely anything there. He is the same person at the end as he was at the beginning of Revelations. His vague understanding of the creed’s meaning was not gradually earned throughout the game but rather made to coincide with the theme of the story.
Coming to the gameplay section, there’s not much to say. From the outside the game makes two bold new additions in the form of multiple bomb types and hook-blade, but both are underutilized to the point where they might even not exist. Thankfully the city design of Constantinople is great as ever, and the solid foundation of exploration and combat set by AC2 is still present.I did feel that the level design for parkour wasn’t as good as previous games but I can’t confirm that now. There were some set piece driven tombs to explore which were the highlight of the game to me.
I personally had played Revelations at a time where my Assassin’s Creed gameplay fatigue had set in and thus was not able to enjoy it as much as I would have if it was still fresh to me. But even considering that I feel the game suffered from small development time and a poor execution of ideas. Sadly this is going to be a trend going forward in the series.
2012
This review contains spoilers
Before there was AC Origins, promising a significant shift in gameplay, open world to explore and side activities to do, there was Assassin’s Creed 3 promising the same things. All this meant reinventing all the established mechanics from the ground up as well as pull through on an ambitious narrative set during the american revolution. Sadly the harsh realities of game development meant the director didn’t have enough time to complete his vision as he stated in a recent interview during the remaster’s release.
While I can’t say what this game could have been, I retain every right to dogpile on the myriads of issues of the game we got, especially in the narrative.
While the premise of this franchise is sci-fi, the beating heart is an ideological conflict between assassins and templars. AC1 touched on it while the Ezio trilogy forwent that for a simpler narrative, but AC3 is that 1 game in the franchise where it’s focused on most. I would have hoped for a philosophical argument but instead what we get is a clash of personalities. 2 men who strongly believe in their cause trying to win the other side over through any means possible. At a conceptual level I love what this story was going for. Connor, boy of immaturity and hope versus Haytham, a man of experience and wisdom, however misguided that may be. Connor trying to bring the two sides together while Haytham insistent on how an alliance is impossible and only his ideology is correct. A cynical view on how both sides are flawed.
But where all of this falls apart is Connor’s characterization and lack of a clear vision on his goals. Connor is naive and headstrong but the lack of a defining personality means he comes off as a petulant child. Naive becomes dumb and headstrong becomes arrogant. His conversations with Haytham while being the best part of the game, also highlight how much more well realized, charismatic and compelling Haytham is compared to him. Connor’s main goal throughout the narrative is one of revenge and while that can be a good enough foundation to write a character on, here it actively gets in the way of any theme or story elements. The american revolution might be the driving narrative, but it serves as little more than a theme park. We are moved from set piece to set piece highlighting important moments american history and Connor is dragged along for a ride in which he only has a passing interest. What’s more, even the revenge plot thread is undermined as Connor learns his target is innocent but goes after him anyway. In a well structured plot this could have been a moment of growth but Connor has so little attachment to the brotherhood or the revolution that it comes off as extremely contrived.
This is not to say Connor is the only flaw in the story, side characters Connor’s side get barely any developments and are left as bland instruments to move the story forward. You have side missions with named characters but beyond the initial encounter none of them manage to leave a lasting impression. The antagonists get barely any development beyond their brief deathbed speech either. We don’t even get a concrete understanding of the pitfalls of Connor’s actions. When the main theme of your story is highlighting the flaw in both factions, I find this inexcusable. Listening to the cut ending speech in AC3 makes me think that a lot might have been cut in this area.
Onto the gameplay, I found it to be a flawed but ambitious attempt at a new system. While mechanically the melee combat is as painfully simple as before, I do believe a lot of effort went into making them visually look as engaging as possible. Enemies attack much faster and you have a larger selection of tools to deal with them. The rope dart was a highlight for me. Before playing I was very sceptical of how the parkour would be outside intricately detailed cities but I’d say they successfully managed to make a simple yet free flowing tree parkour system. They lend well to the new extra combat tools too. Sadly the hunting system fails to make any impact on the game since in-game economy is the worst in the franchise. There’s absolutely no reason to buy new gear since your starting gear is enough.
Developing homestead feels pointless too since you don’t care about the inhabitants. Which brings me to my next point, this game adds side missions for the first time in the franchise and they are as bland as they can get. Main story missions are fairly good and varied from a gameplay standpoint however, so that saves the overall experience. I should also probably mention the ship combat but it was just a weird side activity to me, thankfully it was improved enough in the next title to be the best pirate game ever made.
While I can’t say what this game could have been, I retain every right to dogpile on the myriads of issues of the game we got, especially in the narrative.
While the premise of this franchise is sci-fi, the beating heart is an ideological conflict between assassins and templars. AC1 touched on it while the Ezio trilogy forwent that for a simpler narrative, but AC3 is that 1 game in the franchise where it’s focused on most. I would have hoped for a philosophical argument but instead what we get is a clash of personalities. 2 men who strongly believe in their cause trying to win the other side over through any means possible. At a conceptual level I love what this story was going for. Connor, boy of immaturity and hope versus Haytham, a man of experience and wisdom, however misguided that may be. Connor trying to bring the two sides together while Haytham insistent on how an alliance is impossible and only his ideology is correct. A cynical view on how both sides are flawed.
But where all of this falls apart is Connor’s characterization and lack of a clear vision on his goals. Connor is naive and headstrong but the lack of a defining personality means he comes off as a petulant child. Naive becomes dumb and headstrong becomes arrogant. His conversations with Haytham while being the best part of the game, also highlight how much more well realized, charismatic and compelling Haytham is compared to him. Connor’s main goal throughout the narrative is one of revenge and while that can be a good enough foundation to write a character on, here it actively gets in the way of any theme or story elements. The american revolution might be the driving narrative, but it serves as little more than a theme park. We are moved from set piece to set piece highlighting important moments american history and Connor is dragged along for a ride in which he only has a passing interest. What’s more, even the revenge plot thread is undermined as Connor learns his target is innocent but goes after him anyway. In a well structured plot this could have been a moment of growth but Connor has so little attachment to the brotherhood or the revolution that it comes off as extremely contrived.
This is not to say Connor is the only flaw in the story, side characters Connor’s side get barely any developments and are left as bland instruments to move the story forward. You have side missions with named characters but beyond the initial encounter none of them manage to leave a lasting impression. The antagonists get barely any development beyond their brief deathbed speech either. We don’t even get a concrete understanding of the pitfalls of Connor’s actions. When the main theme of your story is highlighting the flaw in both factions, I find this inexcusable. Listening to the cut ending speech in AC3 makes me think that a lot might have been cut in this area.
Onto the gameplay, I found it to be a flawed but ambitious attempt at a new system. While mechanically the melee combat is as painfully simple as before, I do believe a lot of effort went into making them visually look as engaging as possible. Enemies attack much faster and you have a larger selection of tools to deal with them. The rope dart was a highlight for me. Before playing I was very sceptical of how the parkour would be outside intricately detailed cities but I’d say they successfully managed to make a simple yet free flowing tree parkour system. They lend well to the new extra combat tools too. Sadly the hunting system fails to make any impact on the game since in-game economy is the worst in the franchise. There’s absolutely no reason to buy new gear since your starting gear is enough.
Developing homestead feels pointless too since you don’t care about the inhabitants. Which brings me to my next point, this game adds side missions for the first time in the franchise and they are as bland as they can get. Main story missions are fairly good and varied from a gameplay standpoint however, so that saves the overall experience. I should also probably mention the ship combat but it was just a weird side activity to me, thankfully it was improved enough in the next title to be the best pirate game ever made.