Is assassin’s creed any good? Once a game becomes a franchise with a bajillion releases I just tune it out. Feel the same way about marvel movies. Maybe they’re good, maybe they’re bad, but I’m more annoyed that they’re trying to shove it down my throat, so I tune out.
There’s two or three good ones in the series. Thankfully the rest aren’t as bad as Far Cry which is just about the shittiest franchise I’ve ever had the displeasure of playing.
Obviously subjective, but I was a very big fan of the series for the first several entries, kinda began losing interest around Unity (although in hindsight, Unity is probably one of the best ones in a few ways, but at release it was a very buggy mess).
I am not personally a fan of the way they have ignored the modern day story line after around 3, as I am one of the few on the planet that actually found that part of the narrative compelling and the part I was really playing for.
I don’t like they gameplay changes since Origins, and it has increasingly become more of an action game over time and less of a dope assassin game.
Unity is flawed, but somewhat of an underrated gem. It’s such a shame that it released in the state it did and got the reception it did because that’s pretty much what caused Ubisoft to pivot into the style of the Origins and onwards style games.
Imagine what could have been if they built on what they had in Unity? The free run up/down system had so much potential and - while janky - the Unity parkour can produce some of the most pleasing, slick and stylish sequences. Just look at the stuff people are pulling off!
Also, revolutionary Paris is the best realised city they’ve ever made for an Assassin’s Creed game.
The downfall began when Ubisoft abruptly wrote Lucy out of the story after Kristen Bell asked for more money. Then they killed off the literal main character one game later, and nowadays you’d be excused for forgetting Desmond ever even existed given how little the modern day matters to the plot.
I’ve played pretty much all but the most recent. They have their ups and downs. The first was almost like a proof of concept. Kinda boring, but the story sets up the sequels. There was a good overall story arc in the Desmond/Ezio trilogy (Assassin’s Creed II, Brotherhood, and Revelations) that hasn’t been duplicated since.
AC3 was a bit of a breath of fresh air, being part of the American revolution, but it wasn’t for everyone. The story was being deviated from earlier games too much. AC4 is, for me, still the best single-player pirate game out there. It continues with Rogue. Both of those games I highly enjoyed.
Unity (Paris during French Revolution) and Syndicate (Victorian London) both have fantastic maps and character design, but gameplay and story just wasn’t as interesting to me. The series was feeling stale.
To Ubisoft’s credit, they knew that too and entirely revamped the gameplay and menu system starting with Origins (Ancient Egypt), then Odyssey (Ancient Greece), and Valhalla (Vikings during 9th Century). Valhalla was really fun. I love how they change certain villages up throughout the year… adding festivals/challenges depending on when you play. The maps were just getting too huge and overwhelming at this point.
I play the games now mainly for exploration. Gameplay and story are secondary as they aren’t as interesting anymore. They really put a lot of detail into their surroundings and do their research on history, whether real or fantastical. It’s escapism to another land in another time.
Ubisoft is not Rockstar. The story is no longer the reason to play these games. They are forgettable. The Desmond/Ezio storyline of the earlier games are no more. However, we don’t have to wait several years to play a sequel.
Valhalla was the only one that I paid full price for since it was 2020 and we were still basically trapped in our homes, but definitely got my money’s worth. They seemed to take more time making Mirage so I’ll check that out eventually. They are remastering some of their old games so I’d play those over the dated originals.
The Far Cry series has a similar feeling for me, but with a first person perspective. New lands to explore, new stories and characters, but some are better than others.
Calling Warcraft Rumble an RTS is like putting a hamburger patty on a plate and calling it a steak. You’re technically correct, but you’ve also completely missed the point in what people want.
One of those games I intended to check out for a couple hours, but have spent way longer than I’m willing to admit chilling and chatting while in between things.
Say what you will, but implementing all manners of tags so users can express themselves, just to specifically leave out one is exclusion. “Move aside, heteros, this is our game!”.
You can argue that they deserve it, that the developer has no obligations, that they are represented everywhere else and that they should play those game instead, but it remains exclusion.
You got a few downvotes, but you’re not wrong. Another issue is if you have tags for everything except being straight, then it sort of implies that being straight is the default “normal” option, and everyone else has to go out of their way to designate themselves as not normal. It’s something that should be left up to the users to choose, instead of having a default.
Sort of like if you had race tags for everything except “white”, it would imply that being white was the expected norm, and everyone else has to mark themselves as outside the norm. Or for a more forced-binary example, what if a game had a “woman” tag, but no other gender tags? It would heavily imply that the expected default is “man”, and every woman (or really anyone who doesn’t explicitly identify as a man) has to self-select.
That being said, it’s a queer game made by queer devs for queer people. They can do whatever the hell they want with it. Not every space is meant for straight people; Queer people have often been required to go out of their way to form their own communities and spaces to avoid judgement from straight people. Demanding a “straight” tag feels a little like a straight dudebro walking into a gay bar and getting pissed when dudes flirt with him. No dudebro, you’re the one who is wrong here, because you have literally every other bar in town to go to instead. You don’t need to encroach on the gay bar, because it’s likely the only place gay people have that is truly “their” place.
I feel this is a bit disingenuous. The original Steam forum post said:
when straight comin out.
Calling that even a complaint is beyond me, and mocking the poster seems unnecessary. I don’t understand the intention behind this new title. As purely a joke against that forum post, I guess, but are they trying to mock straight sexuality?
If I can express my sexuality if I’m gay, why refuse that same ability if I’m not? Maybe I’m interpreting too much into it, but I don’t find it funny. I like it when people can be proudly and openly gay/trans/bi, but I don’t see why I can’t also be proudly straight. Or in other words, this game now gives me the message “if you are not LGBT, it’s not for you” which I guess is fine if that’s what they want.
you know “straight pride” is in the same category of thing as “male pride” and “white pride”, right? it’s a homophobic thing to invoke. nobody cares that you’re part of the hegemonic sexuality group, it’s not something to be proud of.
The only reason “gay pride” exists in the first place is in reaction to oppression. The straights have in no way been suppressed, and “straight pride” is nothing but a backlash to gay liberation.
Maybe we have a different view on what pride means, but I see no reason to be ashamed of being straight, the same I see no reason to be ashamed of being white, the same I see no reason to be ashamed of being gay, the same I see no reason to be ashamed of being black. LGBT+ inclusion is not the same as straight exclusion. Gay pride, from what I understand, at its core is about being proud of yourself and not having to hide your ethnicity. That goes both ways, and I sure as hell would feel like I’m being shamed for being straight in this game. Not a great message is it?
Like I’m genuinely trying to understand here. How is shaming straights helping gay pride?
Sorta. They’re pointing out the fact is the default is straight, if you want to scream it at people well that’ll cost you some money.
It’s dumb, super petty and ultimately inane as are most identity politics. I get the point to an extent but anything to either extreme gets a bit grating and irritating.
but I don’t see why I can’t also be proudly straight
Ignoring all the power dynamics reasons why this is nonsensical, what does straight pride look like to you? What exactly are you being denied in terms of self-expression or inclusion?
its ok to vilify straightness hope this helps. you are not oppressed in any way for being straight lmao. this is the “complaining about anti-white racism” of misunderstanding sexuality power dynamics. queer people are telling you to shut up and you’re doubling down on your chauvinism, consider touch-grass you suck!
Yeah and that behavior is how the queer community loses straight allies.
When you require people to vote in your favor for your personal safety and survival, maybe don’t throw shit in their face. At some point they’ll say “fuck it, you’re on your own.”
I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the Straight moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Gays’ great stumbling block in their stride toward freedom is not the Super Straight or the Super Happy Fun American, but the Straight moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes they can set the timetable for another person’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Gay to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.
If you never leave the online world then the only oppression you can know is being called mean words. That’s the only way these people can justify what they’re saying. Dang, someone called you a cissy and you don’t get a little ‘straight’ title in a game? Awesome! Hope this brutal oppression keeps going!
pcgamer.com
Najnowsze