Moved can Ubisoft stop "parenting" us on how to play game? (de-sync if "viking" kill npc civilians!?)56 Likes/295 Replies/4112 Views
@souldrinkerlp "ludonarrative dissonance"? go write a book, or not make it a fake open world, teleport players from mission to mission if you want to be 100% accurate.
you can call the gender-change clever, we believe the "bounty hunter" system is much more clever, programming that kind of AI should be standard for 2020 game.
no mean to offend, but "narrow-minded" is the most polite word i could use, to describe someone who thinks everyone else should play in the same way as he did.
Ehllfhire1 86 posts
This post is deleted!
SouldrinkerLP 316 posts
@mitsunari3 I think it's way more "narrow minded" to want the same game over and over again. AC Valhalla aimed to be different and they achieved that. AC2 aimed at being different from AC1 and they achieved that as well. I do enjoy Valhalla at least a thousand times more than Odyssey. So it worked out for me and a lot of others too.
we didn't ask for same game, but sounds like you did, sounds like you want the old AC style over & over again.
we didn't ask for the same game, we're wishing for return of removed feature, option of killing npc civilians & "bounty hunter" system returning wouldn't make Valhalla = Odyssey.
i don't don't to sound rude, you are not only narrow-minded but also selfish, since adding extra feature wouldn't affect you (& your so called "a lot others").
previous comment from LUCIEN_AUS answered your enquiry for us. (phrased it much better than i did, thank you
If this subject is not important to you then don’t comment here.
Dont try to shut his opinion down because you don’t like it.
If you don’t want to get rid of civilians then don’t attack them.
It will not affect your gameplay in any way if they implement it.
I also agree that it is annoying to be desynced if killing civilians.
I do understand that they implement it because the killing of civilians changes the “timeline” in history as those characters were not meant to be killed.
However, if we killed those civilians then who’s to say that they weren’t meant to be killed??
If it happened then it was meant to be.
I just find it less enjoyable.
Id get a more realism feel if they just let us kill civilians.
And it’s a game ffs, if you kill civilians in a computer game it does not straight out make you a psychopath.
i couldn't find AC in that list;
but Witcher, Skyrim, botw, gta etc.
more restrictions wouldn't make a game "phenomenon".
igrvks 55 posts
"Eivor is not a homicidal maniac"
According to who? I have completed 23% of the game so far and Eivor has slaughtered, decapitated and impaled literally hundreds of people.
"You cant just go around slaughtering people because muh honor"
You do realize that when you raid a village with your war party, the red glowing "bad guys" are the brothers, sisters, spouses and parents of the villagers? They don't just materialize out of thin air and be inherently evil, deserving death? They are literally defending their home from a invading horde, which is lead by the player.
After you have raided a village, burned down the houses, robbed the entire place of all the valuable materials and killed a huge amount of their working age population it is literally a ridiculous stretch to claim that not being able to kill the remaining villagers who now face almost certain starvation come next winter is somehow a merciful act and shows the compassion and humanity of Eivor/the Animus user.
Icey04585 8 posts
I got something to say to the OP and anyone who agrees with him...
THIS GAME IS NOT WATCH DOGS, GTA, or whatever [censored] game you are comparing it to. Not the same developers, not the same stories, not the same anything. Your mental homicidal fantasies that you're too chicken to carry out in real life, DO NOT apply here. "BASED ON" does NOT mean every single [censored] detail in existence gets implemented. It's a god damn game, shut the [censored] up. Some of the same mechanics apply, yes, but do you want the same damn game with just a repaint? Cuz that's what it sounds like, you want the same game as every other thing you listed or title in the AC franchise, just different art styles and different colors. Go write a book? They did write a book, in digital 3d interactive form and it's called Assassin's Creed: (insert secondary title here)
igrvks 55 posts
"THIS GAME IS NOT WATCH DOGS, GTA, or whatever [censored] game you are comparing it to."
Would you please highlight which posts in this thread are directly comparing this game to either of those titles?
"Your mental homicidal fantasies that you're too chicken to carry out in real life"
I'm not going to even bother trying to explain how juvenile and problematic that phrase is but would like to point out that the decapitation, impalement and cutting off limbs happens automatically in the combat, regardless of player input or desire.
The development team made the player cut off heads as a design choice. The development team made the player burn down villages and rob their resources as a design choice. It is really weird that killing "civilians" is where Eivor draws his moral line as a design choice given all the atrocities and war crimes the player is not only encouraged to do but made to do regardless if they want it or not.
If there was a option to complete entire raids in stealth and there would be non lethal takedowns this design choice would be much easier to understand. The player should be able to decide how to approach combat, instead of having abritrary morality lines drawn in the sand.
Frosthound030 124 posts
@icey04585 just because you can’t tell the difference between real life and a video games doesn’t mean we have the same issue, if wanting death in a game makes a person a psycho in your eyes you need some serious help there cupcake because that actually proves your the one living in make believe land, but keep up with your REEEEEEEE screaming, seems to work for goofs like you
@dbgager But he IS a viking, and as such, should be allowed to kill as a viking would. This is why Ubisoft should stop making AC games, as much as I love them. I understand the premise that this is the origin of the Assassin as we know them in the AC series, but Eivor IS a viking in this case and NOT an assassin early on, so the ability to kill innocents/NPC's as part of a raid should have been included. It makes no sense, just like not having one-handed swords in the game.
Kid_Ghostly 6 posts
@mitsunari3 The story is that you're reliving memories through an Animus. If that person didn't kill civilians, then it is breaking the story to do so. It's not "parenting" it's keeping in line with series lore. If you're playing as a good guy, typically, they don't needlessly murder civilians. You can't just go around murdering people in The Witcher 3 can you?