If that is the game you wanted to play, why are you in the Assassins Creed 4 thread?

 

My point was that yes, being the predator can be fun. Are you being willingly obtuse?

 

You show me a game name and just assume I will guess the point you're trying to make? Are you being willingly retarded?

Edit: And in any case, if you are complaining that a game is not the same as another game you liked, stop playing the game you're complaining about and play the game you like.

 

Are you personally offended by my disappointment at AC4's lack of historical accuracy? Does it make you sad that I would have enjoyed it more if it were more sim and less action? Do you own Ubisoft stock or something, that you fear me giving a pointless little ramble on this obscure corner of the internet will damage the value of?

This is the Assassins Creed 4 thread. I gave my opinion on Assassins Creed 4, as is customary to do in such threads. And you're trying to tell me my opinion is wrong? Why? What is the purpose of this thing that you are doing? What is your goal here? What is motivating you to get in this pointless, stupid little argument? Of all the things in all the world you could be doing, why is nitpicking at my rambling statement of opinion the thing you are choosing to do at this time?

 

Not at all. If you've reached this far into the AC games and still expect pinpoint (or even remote) historical accuracy, there is no one to blame but you.

Well, not sad. I do want to facepalm at the fact that you think removing action from an Assassin's Creed game is a good idea.

I do not own Ubisoft stock. I fear nothing you can do.

Yes.

Because it is beyond retarded to play one game but desperately wish it was another. You can at any point stop and play the game with the features you personally prefer.

I'm not really sure. I know that it is pointless to argue with idiots.

Because you annoyed me with your pointless and retarded whining.

You are right though, I have better things to be doing.

 

My god. You are actually white-knighting a AAA video game. Not because I said it was a bad game, because I didn't, but because I said that I, personally, would enjoy it more if some things were changed.

I mean, I knew that people like this existed, out there in Youtube comments and Gamespot forums, but I never thought that here, on DLP, I'd actually have an actual, literal fanboy try to attack me for not liking AC4 as much as he did.

 

Why is this thread attracting so much bickering anyway? At least your argument's actually about this game, unlike the one me and Raine were having.

 

I have to agree that the game was very far off from an accurate presentation of the Caribbean in those times, but I think that making it super realistic would make it much less popular

 

Basically this.

If you're making a swashbuckling pirating adventure game, you have to decide before the first code is written what you're aiming for.

Realistic is often not fun.

There's probably broeser games a-plenty with what you're looking for. This isn't it. It shouldn't be it.

Making a map this size and of this quality and filling it with nothing would be a colossal waste of resources.

For every one person like you that wants accurate historical representations, the are a thousand that each want a fun game... Unfortunately.

 

I was very impressed with the map actually, and it's size did in fact contribute to the "real feel" of the whole game. There is more ground to cover, makes things take longer and in general up's the difficulty a bit. Not to mention the incredible graphics. About a quarter of my game time is spent just looking at all of it, hunting and exploring. And the shanties make skivving on the fast travel options worth it. Some of them like "Johnny Boker", "suziana", and "worst old ship" have this sort of dry humor to them, and then there's the classics like "drunken sailor" and "captain kid".

 

I spent most of my time conquering the map. The entire map was under my control and I was only like 30% done with the game haha.

Also the best Shanty is Randy Dandy Oh, on Nassua. It's amazing.

 

Super Realistic?

Forgive the pun, but that ship has long since sailed since AC1.

AC1: Oh hey its a "this is how it really went down." historical angle. Cool.

AC2: Okay... I guess its really throwing that alt history angle out the window so now its althistory+scifi?

AC brotherhood: What?!

Revealations: WHAT?!

AC3: Oh now you're just fucking with me. A super solar flare!? COME ON.

 

I agree that there is definitely a bizarre lack of anything besides a fully manned and armed ship of some navy, and that it's extremely unrealistic for there to be that MANY ships on the sea that close together.

However, that being said, I would place most of the blame on the limitations of the free-roam world itself. The ocean isn't getting quite the same treatment as outer space often does in fiction, but it's still far more vast than anything on display in the game itself. Shrinking down the entire Caribbean to something that couldn't be more than a hundred square nautical miles of map in-game has obviously distorted the environment to the point that a realistic portrayal is no longer really possible. The entire overworld, if put to proper scale but kept at the same size as it is now, would likely contain only a few small islets and be mostly open ocean.

Try to keep in mind that in the first Assassin's Creed, all of your targets were real people who actually died historically in the places that you killed them. While the AC team is clearly more than willing to bend history and logic into pretzels to make a good game, by the same token, they are far from ignorant of the source material they're playing with.

The sort of environment that would be able to accurately portray the high seas during the Age of Sail would be severely limited to either some sort of MMO, or a sandbox of absolutely unprecedented size, even more vast than Daggerfall, the likes of which I'm fairly certain we literally have never seen before in the realm of gaming.

In essence, I agree with you that it is a blatant inaccuracy, but I'm more inclined to view it as a necessary concession to the medium it exists in, as opposed to some sort of fuck up due to not properly understanding the context of the setting they're playing with.

Plus, I'm feeling pretty charitable, because this is way fucking better than the last game. I couldn't give less of a shit about Connor, and Liberation absolutely reeks of every cliche in the book enshrined on the shelves of viral marketers, but I'm holding out that the next one will take place in Ancient Egypt or Feudal Japan, and I can dive off pyramids or be an actual motherfucking ninja that stabs people with sharpened spades and not swords made of lightning.