Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag

[Gtaghost22]

 

So this guy is ladies man like Ezio? Hope there will be some difference between them,it would be boring if he is just a Ezio clon.

It's kinda funny how Ubisoft is trying way too hard to make a main character as good as Ezio/Altair but keeps failing.

Connor was just a wannabe-Altair with sh*tty voice acting (imo) and well, it seems like they will fail yet again.

Oh, and it's called Assassin's Creed for a reason, they really need to stick to it's roots or make a f*cking new open world franchise if they want to try something new. I'm not really excited for IV.

Edited March 2, 2013 by Gtaghost22

[DlZZEE]

Someone's getting fired. Haha

[IronZombie]

Was expecting to see a gameplay trailer...

E3 is where you'll get that. This is only the reveal.

[papanesta]

EDIT: It's surprising how many of you think Ubisoft's so liable to leak their content, yes they're not Rockstar but that doesn't mean every other day coming up to the official announcement we'll be getting leaked information.

Hah.

ARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGH !

 

Appropriate reaction.

[Radoonhagaydoon]

It should be called Assassin's Creed BLACK FLAG. IV should be saved for another time. -_____________________________________-

[GTAfan786]

This is going to turn out like revelations, and you know how crap that was.

[Lelouch The Zero]

This is going to turn out like revelations, and you know how crap that was.

I sold that game as soon as I beat it, then I bought Brotherhood, much better game. Revelations didn't even have Horses, they were replaced with zip lines. Really Ubisoft? what kind of sh*t are you trying to pull?

[GTAfan786]

This is going to turn out like revelations, and you know how crap that was.

I sold that game as soon as I beat it, then I bought Brotherhood, much better game. Revelations didn't even have Horses, they were replaced with zip lines. Really Ubisoft? what kind of sh*t are you trying to pull?

EXACTLY. I couldn't believe how they just removed horses like that. Brotherhood IMO was the BEST AC out there and still is, along with AC2. It's a shame what can happen to special franchises like Assassins Creed. Shame on Ubisoft!

[Durden]

So most of you are suggesting that AC4 BF is because of the critically acclaimed success of the naval missions seen in AC3. But I'd like you to answer a question.

 

As we (should) all know, AC4 BF has been in development for several years. So how would the developers of AC4 BF know that the naval missions would be successful? Was it just a lucky shot in the dark? Or maybe there's a slight chance you guys are wrong, and they just took a risky but innovative step forward for the franchise? I guess we'll never know.

 

 

As for the haters (you know who you are), you'd best shut your mouth until Monday to judge AC4 BF. I personally am very apprehensive about this as I strongly disliked the AC3 naval missions, but I'm a logical enough person to wait and see what Ubisoft have to show, and I'd advise you to do the same.

[El Dildo]

This is going to turn out like revelations, and you know how crap that was.

I sold that game as soon as I beat it, then I bought Brotherhood, much better game. Revelations didn't even have Horses, they were replaced with zip lines. Really Ubisoft? what kind of sh*t are you trying to pull?

I thought Revelations was good.

it wasn't as good as Brotherhood, but it was still a lot better than AC3.

 

and horses? really? that's your biggest complaint with Revelations? no horses?

who cares? horses were boring. you can't do anything with horses other than move a little faster.

 

zip lines were awesome.

[Secura]

This is going to turn out like revelations, and you know how crap that was.

I sold that game as soon as I beat it, then I bought Brotherhood, much better game. Revelations didn't even have Horses, they were replaced with zip lines. Really Ubisoft? what kind of sh*t are you trying to pull?

I thought Revelations was good.

it wasn't as good as Brotherhood, but it was still a lot better than AC3.

 

and horses? really? that's your biggest complaint with Revelations? no horses?

who cares? horses were boring. you can't do anything with horses other than move a little faster.

 

zip lines were awesome.

True, and it was the most vertical of the games thus far, making it my second favourite in the series.

 

Oh and parachutes, parachutes are awesome, I was sad to see them gone in Assassin's Creed III.

[Adler]

 

it wasn't as good as Brotherhood, but it was still a lot better than AC3.

 

and horses? really? that's your biggest complaint with Revelations? no horses?

who cares? horses were boring. you can't do anything with horses other than move a little faster.

 

zip lines were awesome.

How was it a lot better than ACIII? I found the Frontier and the cities of ACIII to be much more fun to explore than the districts of Constantinople. In addition, III was more visually appealing (that's probably just my preference though).

 

Concerning the storylines, ACIII was at least fresh in that it brought something new to the table, while Revelations is just an extension of Ezio's story. It was a nice-to-have but a rather unnecessary sequel in my opinion. There wasn't much improvement in gameplay in Revelations either since I found the hookblade to be a little extraneous, whereas ACIII had hunting and naval missions which were much more significant and enjoyable.

 

Agreed with the ziplines > horses thing though.

[baguvix_wanrltw]

 

But I'd like you to answer a question. As we (should) all know, AC4 BF has been in development for several years.

Any proof for that, any whatsoever? Except for what some guy from Ubi claimed when everyone jumped at them for pumping out another sequel so early? Yeah, that seemed like a totally trustworthy statement.

 

It's still possible that the game has been "in development" for years but that doesn't mean much work was being done, 300 people working AC3 and 10 working AC4 would still count as "in development", so they could've started out putting in actual work pretty late when it became clear they were able to produce at least one feature people would like, the naval stuff.

 

Of course it's also possible they had hundreds of people working for years on this, parallel to the development of 3. But to think that I'd have to still have trust in Ubi and that I do not.

 

Some people get far too offended by this stuff... just because someone isn't into sh*tty annual sequels and spin-offs of spin-offs of franchises doesn't mean you should feel insulted. Many of us are just pissed because we regret ever saying "I like AC", when nowadays that makes you look retarded, thanks to the sh*tfest 3 and the upcoming 4. If they picked other names - fine. But watering down and whoring out a good name is not acceptable, no matter how we used to it we are nowadays thanks to <insert game name that pisses you off if mentioned here>.

 

 

Oh and also lol at anyone stupid enough to believe the sh*t about the "leaked trailer". Viral marketing works best and now anyone able to link/upload that video feels like a star because they have access to the ever so hidden, ever so totally-not-meant-to-be-accessed MARKETING MATERIAL (that looks finished and is all over the news, surprise surprise...).

 

And as always people are happy to see something they think they're not allowed to see. Meanwhile Ubi are patting themselves on the back for successfully exploiting this Idiocracy.

 

 

Oh yeah, watched the trailer once, saw nothing to be impressed by (except "pretty" graphics but as a PC gamer... well) and do not give a sh*t about this game.

Edited March 3, 2013 by baguvix_wanrltw

[IronZombie]

^Also, you people need to keep in mind that the naval battles were something people were excited about a year ago when they were shown at E3. That was half a year before AC3 was released. They likely saw the positive reaction from fans and took a chance with it and started working on a game that dealt with mainly naval stuff.

[nigelhere9901]

Pass

This franchise has gone downhill, New AC every year.

[buzbegone]

I like and hate that it's coming to next gen consoles as well.

 

Nice that they'll be utilizing the power of the more amped systems but us who are still using PS3/360 will feel like we're missing something. Even then, I expect the game will look and be awesome.

I'm just wondering exactly how detailed the PS4 version will be compared to the PS3.

[Secura]

 

I like and hate that it's coming to next gen consoles as well.

 

Nice that they'll be utilizing the power of the more amped systems but us who are still using PS3/360 will feel like we're missing something. Even then, I expect the game will look and  be awesome.

I'm just wondering exactly how detailed the PS4 version will be compared to the PS3.

I wouldn't imagine too much more, though it's likely that the PlayStation 4 will be Direct X 11 compatible and therefore it'll probably have added effects because of that, though I doubt it'd be something that's too noticeable of a distance, I'm guessing though that to make sure that people try and buy the PlayStation 4 version Sony might have bought more exclusive content from Ubisoft.

 

That's not to say that the PlayStation 3 and XBOX 360 versions won't be great, it's just highly likely that Sony will want people to make the jump to the newer generation of consoles sooner rather than later and platform exclusive content seems to be (at least from a marketing standpoint) a pretty good way to do that. I personally think it's a little bit of a rip off, they should release the game for the next generation later on in 2014, to let it reach it true potential rather than it being held back by the older hardware.

 

Whatever the case may be I'm sure it'll look great and play fantastically on all versions, it's just that the difference between what the PlayStation 3 and the PlayStation 4 will be able to do is quite astonishing. At least when you take it all in slowly and pay close attention to the details like facial animation and the detail of pedestrians as well as high texture quality on a lot of the objects in the game world.

 

I'm wondering how this will play, as I seem to remember Ubisoft saying that ship freeroam was in Assassin's Creed III. I guess they took that out and waited for this instead, that must mean that it's been in production for a fairly large amount of time. Considering that they were developing this during the period of time when Assassin's Creed III was in development that it's possible they've been working on it for quite a while, at least two years.

 

If ship freeroam really is what they're going for here I'm wondering as to how it'll work, will you be able to let someone else take control of the helm while you wander around and explore your ship, I'm also hoping we'll be able to upgrade it in many, many more ways then we could in Assassin's Creed III, maybe even hire a fleet to follow us to battle.

 

Though if I'm honest, the same thought that plagued me after Assassin's Creed III's announcement. How does the Brotherhood fit into this, all we really know about Edward is that he took Haythem to a play back when he was boy in the 1730's, therefore I'm going to guess that his story won't last as long as Connor's or Ezio's and it'll be something more akin to the original Assassin's Creed/Brotherhood/Revelations time period, in which the game will only take place over a number of years, not decades.

 

From that I'm deducting that it's not enough time to form a Brotherhood so I'm guessing that once again they may be leaving the Brotherhood behind for a much less interesting tale like Connor's. Please, please, please Ubisoft, I care about the Brotherhood as do a lot of other fans, don't leave us in the cold just because you wanted to make a pirate game but couldn't be arsed to make a new IP for it.

 

Please ...

 

[Durden]

But I'd like you to answer a question. As we (should) all know, AC4 BF has been in development for several years.

Any proof for that, any whatsoever? Except for what some guy from Ubi claimed when everyone jumped at them for pumping out another sequel so early? Yeah, that seemed like a totally trustworthy statement.

 

It's still possible that the game has been "in development" for years but that doesn't mean much work was being done, 300 people working AC3 and 10 working AC4 would still count as "in development", so they could've started out putting in actual work pretty late when it became clear they were able to produce at least one feature people would like, the naval stuff.

 

Of course it's also possible they had hundreds of people working for years on this, parallel to the development of 3. But to think that I'd have to still have trust in Ubi and that I do not.

 

Some people get far too offended by this stuff... just because someone isn't into sh*tty annual sequels and spin-offs of spin-offs of franchises doesn't mean you should feel insulted. Many of us are just pissed because we regret ever saying "I like AC", when nowadays that makes you look retarded, thanks to the sh*tfest 3 and the upcoming 4. If they picked other names - fine. But watering down and whoring out a good name is not acceptable, no matter how we used to it we are nowadays thanks to <insert game name that pisses you off if mentioned here>.

 

 

Oh and also lol at anyone stupid enough to believe the sh*t about the "leaked trailer". Viral marketing works best and now anyone able to link/upload that video feels like a star because they have access to the ever so hidden, ever so totally-not-meant-to-be-accessed MARKETING MATERIAL (that looks finished and is all over the news, surprise surprise...).

 

And as always people are happy to see something they think they're not allowed to see. Meanwhile Ubi are patting themselves on the back for successfully exploiting this Idiocracy.

 

 

Oh yeah, watched the trailer once, saw nothing to be impressed by (except "pretty" graphics but as a PC gamer... well) and do not give a sh*t about this game.

The game IS the proof of its several years of development. No way Ubi could make a map of the Carribean, a fleshed out story, and all of the details in between (mechanics, features, etc) in only a year or so. Not to mention my previous point of the game's main theme already being naval warfare, as this would've required plenty of time in advance to plan out and create the game, long before AC3's naval success.

 

A team of 10 people? Doubt it. More like a team the size of AC3's. By the game's launch this October, chances are it would've been at least 2 and a half years to develop.

 

As far as everything else goes, we don't really have much to go on right now. Fear not, on Monday we'll get a glimpse of just how hard they've been working on the game... We'll see if they have sh*t-all done like you suggested; but since we're getting an entire trailer along with lots of details about the game, I think they're pretty far along.

 

 

[baguvix_wanrltw]

 

The game IS the proof of its several years of development. No way Ubi could make a map of the Carribean, a fleshed out story, and all of the details in between (mechanics, features, etc) in only a year or so.

[...]

Fear not, on Monday we'll get a glimpse of just how hard they've been working on the game... We'll see if they have sh*t-all done like you suggested; but since we're getting an entire trailer along with lots of details about the game, I think they're pretty far along.

Well, you obviously just know much more about ACIV than I do. So please enlighten me about the details of the map, story, mechanics, features and so on, as you seem to have such intimate knowledge of them that you can judge how long they must have taken to implement. I'd also like to know some of the internals of the teams involved, apparently you know them well.

 

Seriously though, this is getting ridiculous. Repeating your same "points" over and over while ignoring any answers to them doesn't make them more valid.

 

As for that trailer tomorrow, well... if the trailer we have now was really leaked obviously they are going to show that. If not it's clear they lied and it was an intentional leak, since they obviously wouldn't have had time to create an entirely new trailer after when the other one was leaked.

So there should be nothing new to see there. I don't know what other "media events" they have planned and what details they'll give but I'm sure we'll all be drowned in ACIV soon, all the gaming outlets will obviously report as detailed as possible.

 

That said, I don't care who does or does not enjoy ACIV or the hype that surrounds any and all AC games. If you're thrilled by the prospects of IV: good for you, I wish I could say the same.

 

But some people are not, and they have the same right to voice their opinions as everyone else.

 

I doubt the two of us will ever see eye to eye on this, I do remember some of our discussions regarding COD so I'd propose we just let this semi-private debate rest (after your reply if you feel the need to), your call.

[Sgt. Foley]

[El Dildo]

 

How was it a lot better than ACIII?

because the gameplay in AC3 is terrible.

I'm not talking about the setting or the story or the characters; although Connor is a weak protag.

 

I'm talking about the gameplay.

AC3 ruined the stealth aspect of the series and sacrificed the Creed itself in favor of more violent/flashy open confrontations with guards. that's so far removed from what we were taught with Altair and Ezio. it's more like Colonial Rambo than Assassin's Creed. there's almost no regard for being silent and staying in the shadows. there's no regard for witnesses or innocents either.

 

and this isn't even counting how f*cked up the Social Status system is.

guards can spot you from the corner of their eye from a mile away, even if their back is turned to you. and when that happens it's virtually impossible to blend or hide, not to mention the fact that every other guard in the area is immediately alerted to your exact location. it's as if they all have a radio uplink, laser-targeting GPS, and thermal goggles... in 1779

 

this made AC3 pretty frustrating at times.

after awhile, the stealth missions become just tedious chores.

[TOMAHAWKS]

I think they did pretty good combining both Ezio and Altair (in a way). Edward doesn't look so bad.

Then again, I've never had a problem with any Assassin's Creed protagonist, It's the f*cking gameplay that kills me. If they don't change things up by making it at least more difficult, then I won't be getting this Black Flag bullsh*t. I can already foresee this sh*t. It's AC3 all over again with even more missions that take place at sea...

[Moth]

 

It's AC3 all over again with even more missions that take place at sea...

Is that a bad thing? The only good part of AC3 was the ship combat.

 

The story was sh*t when it came to Connor, though I was interested in the Desmond side, and the combat wasn't that good. Who thought it was a good idea to have guards block every counter? Also all of the weapons felt samey, meaning there really wasn't a point to upgrade. The free running in the forest was pointless, for the most part, and you could only do it on specific trees. And worst of all, the main character that you played for most of the game, ie Connor, was boring. He didn't engage me at all, though his father did. Too bad he was the the bad guy . Hey Connor was so off putting, AC3 is the only game in the main series I haven't beaten all the way.

 

If what they are implying on the new guy is true, he will be more enjoyable.

[Durden]

 

The game IS the proof of its several years of development. No way Ubi could make a map of the Carribean, a fleshed out story, and all of the details in between (mechanics, features, etc) in only a year or so.

[...]

Fear not, on Monday we'll get a glimpse of just how hard they've been working on the game... We'll see if they have sh*t-all done like you suggested; but since we're getting an entire trailer along with lots of details about the game, I think they're pretty far along.

Well, you obviously just know much more about ACIV than I do. So please enlighten me about the details of the map, story, mechanics, features and so on, as you seem to have such intimate knowledge of them that you can judge how long they must have taken to implement. I'd also like to know some of the internals of the teams involved, apparently you know them well.

 

Seriously though, this is getting ridiculous. Repeating your same "points" over and over while ignoring any answers to them doesn't make them more valid.

 

As for that trailer tomorrow, well... if the trailer we have now was really leaked obviously they are going to show that. If not it's clear they lied and it was an intentional leak, since they obviously wouldn't have had time to create an entirely new trailer after when the other one was leaked.

So there should be nothing new to see there. I don't know what other "media events" they have planned and what details they'll give but I'm sure we'll all be drowned in ACIV soon, all the gaming outlets will obviously report as detailed as possible.

 

That said, I don't care who does or does not enjoy ACIV or the hype that surrounds any and all AC games. If you're thrilled by the prospects of IV: good for you, I wish I could say the same.

 

But some people are not, and they have the same right to voice their opinions as everyone else.

 

I doubt the two of us will ever see eye to eye on this, I do remember some of our discussions regarding COD so I'd propose we just let this semi-private debate rest (after your reply if you feel the need to), your call.

Ahh, the great COD debates. Classic. To this day I still scratch my head in curiosity as to how my signature gives any sort of signal that I enjoy, or even play, the multiplayer portion. But that's another story.

 

Anyways, care to link me to this "leaked" trailer? I'm finding nothing on YouTube.

 

 

EDIT: Looks like SGT Foley already posted it. Off to watch it now...

 

EDIT 2: Yep, this has gotta be legit. And I've gotta say, it's a good thing I had low expectations. Looks like the only cool new feature is swimming underwater completely submerged unlike past games. Let's see if Ubisoft have anything else to show on Monday that may catch my attention.

Edited March 3, 2013 by gionascm2

[Adler]

 

How was it a lot better than ACIII?

because the gameplay in AC3 is terrible.

I'm not talking about the setting or the story or the characters; although Connor is a weak protag.

 

I'm talking about the gameplay.

AC3 ruined the stealth aspect of the series and sacrificed the Creed itself in favor of more violent/flashy open confrontations with guards. that's so far removed from what we were taught with Altair and Ezio. it's more like Colonial Rambo than Assassin's Creed. there's almost no regard for being silent and staying in the shadows. there's no regard for witnesses or innocents either.

 

and this isn't even counting how f*cked up the Social Status system is.

guards can spot you from the corner of their eye from a mile away, even if their back is turned to you. and when that happens it's virtually impossible to blend or hide, not to mention the fact that every other guard in the area is immediately alerted to your exact location. it's as if they all have a radio uplink, laser-targeting GPS, and thermal goggles... in 1779

 

this made AC3 pretty frustrating at times.

after awhile, the stealth missions become just tedious chores.

Fair enough. I did get get the vibe that the importance of stealth was overlooked in this game, and completing certain missions' optional constraints while forced to be stealthy got pretty frustrating. Considering the setting, theme, and trailer for Black Flag, it doesn't seem like stealth will make a comeback.

 

I'll still get Black Flag and play it since I love AC to death anyway lol. Ubisoft hasn't let me down much over the course of the series apart from Revelations, and even then I still appreciated the story for that game.

[G The Generous]

leaked ingame screenshots

[Sgt. Foley]

That game looks amazing.

[HaythamKenway]

Alright, so the trailer was kind of a disappointment to me. It seems that Ubisoft despearately wants to win ACII fans back by screaming "Look, Edward is a ladies man too! That's what you liked about Ezio, right?" Sure, you can't judge a character from a two minute trailer where he didn't even say anything, but that's just my first impression of him. If he's going to be Ezio: The Pirate, then I'll prefer even Connor over him. Ezio is one of my favorite characters in video games, but that doesn't mean every character has to be like him.

[buzbegone]

 

Alright, so the trailer was kind of a disappointment to me. It seems that Ubisoft despearately wants to win ACII fans back by screaming "Look, Edward is a ladies man too! That's what you liked about Ezio, right?" Sure, you can't judge a character from a two minute trailer where he didn't even say anything, but that's just my first impression of him. If he's going to be Ezio: The Pirate, then I'll prefer even Connor over him. Ezio is one of my favorite characters in video games, but that doesn't mean every character has to be like him.

You were expecting bells and whistles on a reveal trailer? As for that 'ladies man' angle, you're delusional. Stating that we liked Ezio solely for the reason he's a ladies man is just stupid.

Plus you contradict yourself by making an outlandish claim he's going to be basically Ezio the pirate then saying that even your Holmes-like sleuth skills couldn't determine this new guy's personality from a 2-minute teaser. If you're going to say something preposterous, at least stick by it.

[Gtaghost22]

 

This is going to turn out like revelations, and you know how crap that was.

I know I'm in the minority but I really, really liked Revelations. I didn't enjoy III, I hated Connor, his story and the setting.