Hey PGD: Am I weird because...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -
... I love the living hell out of Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood MP but I'm positively disgusted with AC3 MP?
#2 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

What's the difference between them?

#3 Posted by ESPM400 (95 posts) -
For the record, if you're asking the internet if you're weird, the answer is usually a pretty resounding 'yes.'
#4 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -

What's the difference between them?

c_rake
Well, Brotherhood had a sharply defined level progression tree- everyone got the skills and perks and whatnot at the same level. In AC3 you earn credits and certain things are unlockable at certain levels, but you spend your credits on whatever skills and such are available. Sounds like a better way to handle it, right? Well, then you think about how many different menus there are and how much harder the whole thing is to navigate. Then toss in the Freemium payment model and you've got people who can pay real money to get special credits used to unlock stuff without any level cap. I paid for the game. I stomached the decision to force an online pass on the consumer. Now I'm being subjected to a free-to-play microtransaction scheme? It's intolerable.
#5 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -
And beyond all of that, the game just doesn't force that joy of execution(if you'll pardon the pun) on you in the heat of a tense game. The maps seem more suited to a shooter than for a tense, cerebral cat and mouse game.
#6 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -
For the record, if you're asking the internet if you're weird, the answer is usually a pretty resounding 'yes.'ESPM400
Duly noted:D.
#7 Posted by Yagr_Zero (27831 posts) -
I've heard a lot of dissatisfied talk about the AC3 MP aside from the micro-transactions and such. I also like the Brotherhood MP much better for the same reasons you have.
#8 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

For the record, if you're asking the internet if you're weird, the answer is usually a pretty resounding 'yes.'ESPM400

But then, being weird is commonplace on the Internet, so... take that as a compliment, I'd say.

Well, Brotherhood had a sharply defined level progression tree- everyone got the skills and perks and whatnot at the same level. In AC3 you earn credits and certain things are unlockable at certain levels, but you spend your credits on whatever skills and such are available. Sounds like a better way to handle it, right? Well, then you think about how many different menus there are and how much harder the whole thing is to navigate. Then toss in the Freemium payment model and you've got people who can pay real money to get special credits used to unlock stuff without any level cap. I paid for the game. I stomached the decision to force an online pass on the consumer. Now I'm being subjected to a free-to-play microtransaction scheme? It's intolerable. El_Zo1212o

That sounds like reasonable cause for disliking it. Microtransactions are always dumb when used that way. Defeats the whole purpose of the unlock system.

#9 Posted by Vari3ty (11111 posts) -

Whoever designed the UI for the multiplayer should be fired. Everything is hidden under that convoluted mess.

#10 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

I decided to skip it when I heard about the microtransactions. I haven't played it myself but I'm not going to pay for unlocks and I'm not interested in being outgunned by someone that has. It's fine for free to play, but not for this.

Microtransactions really seem to kill the whole field of competitive gaming for me.

#11 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18177 posts) -
To give an answer in accord with thread title, I am absolutely convinced that you
#12 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

To give an answer in accord with thread title, I am absolutely convinced that youBlack_Knight_00

Way to leave your post unfin

#13 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

[QUOTE="c_rake"]

What's the difference between them?

El_Zo1212o

Well, Brotherhood had a sharply defined level progression tree- everyone got the skills and perks and whatnot at the same level. In AC3 you earn credits and certain things are unlockable at certain levels, but you spend your credits on whatever skills and such are available. Sounds like a better way to handle it, right? Well, then you think about how many different menus there are and how much harder the whole thing is to navigate. Then toss in the Freemium payment model and you've got people who can pay real money to get special credits used to unlock stuff without any level cap. I paid for the game. I stomached the decision to force an online pass on the consumer. Now I'm being subjected to a free-to-play microtransaction scheme? It's intolerable.

So you think it's fair that someone who has been playing the game for a 100 hours gets paired against someone who just started and has no such skills and unlockable items?

We had a thread about this recently, and I see nothing wrong with people paying to unlock all skills and weapons. If anything it levels the playing field.

And if you bought the game new then you shouldn't have had to stomach anything. The online pass is only for those who rent or buy their games used. If you bought it used then well, a $10 fee isn't that bad considering whatever you paid to buy that game went to Gamestop or Bestbuy instead of the company who actually made the game and is paying cash to support the online servers for you.

#14 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18177 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]To give an answer in accord with thread title, I am absolutely convinced that youc_rake

Way to leave your post unfin

No matter how many times we make this joke, it never gets
#15 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"][QUOTE="c_rake"]

What's the difference between them?

S0lidSnake

Well, Brotherhood had a sharply defined level progression tree- everyone got the skills and perks and whatnot at the same level. In AC3 you earn credits and certain things are unlockable at certain levels, but you spend your credits on whatever skills and such are available. Sounds like a better way to handle it, right? Well, then you think about how many different menus there are and how much harder the whole thing is to navigate. Then toss in the Freemium payment model and you've got people who can pay real money to get special credits used to unlock stuff without any level cap. I paid for the game. I stomached the decision to force an online pass on the consumer. Now I'm being subjected to a free-to-play microtransaction scheme? It's intolerable.

So you think it's fair that someone who has been playing the game for a 100 hours gets paired against someone who just started and has no such skills and unlockable items?

We had a thread about this recently, and I see nothing wrong with people paying to unlock all skills and weapons. If anything it levels the playing field.

And if you bought the game new then you shouldn't have had to stomach anything. The online pass is only for those who rent or buy their games used. If you bought it used then well, a $10 fee isn't that bad considering whatever you paid to buy that game went to Gamestop or Bestbuy instead of the company who actually made the game and is paying cash to support the online servers for you.

I absolutely think it's fair. That dude with a hundred hours started at level(and hour) one. "It doesn't affect me" is a phrase that I detest. I have to swallow the fact that this company is double-dipping because I wanted to see how it all shakes out. You aren't allowed to be paid twice for the same product. And don't give me a server issue. They sold one copy of the game. One person uses that server space at a time. It isn't like the servers are bearing any extra load because of used sales. Next, the people who made the game don't get paid for each unit sold, they get paid for their work- either a wage or a salary. It's the publishers who get paid by unit sales. And finally, as a consumer, I have rights. I have the right to do with my rightfully owned property what I wish- whether it's to put it to use as a coaster or sell it at a garage sale.
#16 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

So you think it's fair that someone who has been playing the game for a 100 hours gets paired against someone who just started and has no such skills and unlockable items?

We had a thread about this recently, and I see nothing wrong with people paying to unlock all skills and weapons. If anything it levels the playing field.

And if you bought the game new then you shouldn't have had to stomach anything. The online pass is only for those who rent or buy their games used. If you bought it used then well, a $10 fee isn't that bad considering whatever you paid to buy that game went to Gamestop or Bestbuy instead of the company who actually made the game and is paying cash to support the online servers for you.

S0lidSnake

I think the ultimate solution would be to either remove unlock systems in multiplayer entirely (they're played out now) or allow multiplayer items and such to be unlocked through the single-player through some means. Just give the player a set of challenges to complete that unlocks better weapons and whatnot in the single-player portion. That way there's always an even field regardless of whether you're playing online a lot or not.

#17 Posted by c_rakestraw (14579 posts) -

No matter how many times we make this joke, it never getsBlack_Knight_00

This is the best running joke we've ever

#18 Posted by IndianaPwns39 (5037 posts) -

[QUOTE="S0lidSnake"]

So you think it's fair that someone who has been playing the game for a 100 hours gets paired against someone who just started and has no such skills and unlockable items?

We had a thread about this recently, and I see nothing wrong with people paying to unlock all skills and weapons. If anything it levels the playing field.

And if you bought the game new then you shouldn't have had to stomach anything. The online pass is only for those who rent or buy their games used. If you bought it used then well, a $10 fee isn't that bad considering whatever you paid to buy that game went to Gamestop or Bestbuy instead of the company who actually made the game and is paying cash to support the online servers for you.

c_rake

I think the ultimate solution would be to either remove unlock systems in multiplayer entirely (they're played out now) or allow multiplayer items and such to be unlocked through the single-player through some means. Just give the player a set of challenges to complete that unlocks better weapons and whatnot in the single-player portion. That way there's always an even field regardless of whether you're playing online a lot or not.

You know what game franchise fixed this?

Call of Duty :P

#19 Posted by matem8904 (46 posts) -
Microtransactions ruin a lot of MP games unfortunately. :(
#20 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18177 posts) -

[QUOTE="Black_Knight_00"]No matter how many times we make this joke, it never getsc_rake

This is the best running joke we've ever

Watch this.

Hey internetz, my credit card number is

#21 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
No Zozo you are not weird because of a multiplayer game preference. You are weird because you like to dress up in womens clothing and dance to showtunes when you think noone is looking. But I know your secret!
#22 Posted by dvader654 (44752 posts) -
I think RE6 is great.
#23 Posted by Black_Knight_00 (18177 posts) -
No Zozo you are not weird because of a multiplayer game preference. You are weird because you like to dress up in womens clothing and dance to showtunes when you think noone is looking. But I know your secret!GodModeEnabled
You're just pissed because he hasn't invited you to the last drag party
#24 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -
No Zozo you are not weird because of a multiplayer game preference. GodModeEnabled
My name is Zorro.
You are weird because you like to dress up in womens clothing and dance to showtunes when you think noone is looking. But I know your secret!GodModeEnabled
F*CK! Spoiler tags, dude!
#25 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

I absolutely think it's fair. That dude with a hundred hours started at level(and hour) one. "It doesn't affect me" is a phrase that I detest. I have to swallow the fact that this company is double-dipping because I wanted to see how it all shakes out. You aren't allowed to be paid twice for the same product. And don't give me a server issue. They sold one copy of the game. One person uses that server space at a time. It isn't like the servers are bearing any extra load because of used sales. Next, the people who made the game don't get paid for each unit sold, they get paid for their work- either a wage or a salary. It's the publishers who get paid by unit sales. And finally, as a consumer, I have rights. I have the right to do with my rightfully owned property what I wish- whether it's to put it to use as a coaster or sell it at a garage sale.El_Zo1212o

Ok. You have a point there.

Other than that, I dont agree with much. Yes, the devs get paid a salary but their employer is the publisher and that publisher gets to decide whether they get to make another game. Gamestop reported that 25% of their income was from used game sales, that's huge. They have effectively taken 25% of the market share without developing a single game. If you dont see a problem with that then dont know what to say.

But let's get back to the main point... the progression system unlocks. A person who buys the game on day 1 does level up with everyone who is also level 1. A person who buys the game six months after launch is at a clear disadvantage against a community who is already familiar with the game mechanics, the map layout and on top of that they have access to abilities and weapons that give them an even bigger advantage over noobs. It's like Killstreaks in CoD... the idea to reward a person who is already on a 11 killstreak with a freaking AC-130 that will net them at least 10 more kills is hilariously stupid. The point is that the current progression system is flawed. If publishers take away the progression system in favor of some cash for those who dont want to play hours of multiplayer everyday then what's there to be upset about? Everyone wins.

#26 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]I absolutely think it's fair. That dude with a hundred hours started at level(and hour) one. "It doesn't affect me" is a phrase that I detest. I have to swallow the fact that this company is double-dipping because I wanted to see how it all shakes out. You aren't allowed to be paid twice for the same product. And don't give me a server issue. They sold one copy of the game. One person uses that server space at a time. It isn't like the servers are bearing any extra load because of used sales. Next, the people who made the game don't get paid for each unit sold, they get paid for their work- either a wage or a salary. It's the publishers who get paid by unit sales. And finally, as a consumer, I have rights. I have the right to do with my rightfully owned property what I wish- whether it's to put it to use as a coaster or sell it at a garage sale.S0lidSnake

Ok. You have a point there.

Other than that, I dont agree with much. Yes, the devs get paid a salary but their employer is the publisher and that publisher gets to decide whether they get to make another game. Gamestop reported that 25% of their income was from used game sales, that's huge. They have effectively taken 25% of the market share without developing a single game. If you dont see a problem with that then dont know what to say.

But let's get back to the main point... the progression system unlocks. A person who buys the game on day 1 does level up with everyone who is also level 1. A person who buys the game six months after launch is at a clear disadvantage against a community who is already familiar with the game mechanics, the map layout and on top of that they have access to abilities and weapons that give them an even bigger advantage over noobs. It's like Killstreaks in CoD... the idea to reward a person who is already on a 11 killstreak with a freaking AC-130 that will net them at least 10 more kills is hilariously stupid. The point is that the current progression system is flawed. If publishers take away the progression system in favor of some cash for those who dont want to play hours of multiplayer everyday then what's there to be upset about? Everyone wins.

It used to be that a developer could make a game and shop it around to whoever would give them the best price or strike the best deal. Nowadays the publishers are buying up the developers for their sole use. That's why the publishers are the employers in this scenario. So if they don't like the deals they're getting from the publishers, it's their own damn fault for selling themselves instead of just selling their products. As far as Gamestop's involvement, they built an enterprise and have managed to grow it into a money machine. That's called carving out a niche, which is just good business. Back to the topic, though. What about the people who buy the game, and on day 1 go out and spend money on the highest level abilities? Without the free to play model, you call a guy at level 1 with level 25 abilities a cheater. But if he pays to get those advantages, all of a sudden it's okay? My dad plays World of Tanks. He started at the bottom and clawed his way up the ranks without buying gold credits. He still holds the time I cheated at monopoly over my head from when I was 13. But he didn't begrudge people for buying gold and unlocking higher level tanks faster because the game is free and it's the only way for the game makers to bring in money to improve the game. There is simply no way to make me buy into the idea that adding the FtoP model to a retail game(that may see a couple of bug fix patches and a DLC or three) is either fair for the players or acceptable publisher-side.
#27 Posted by GodModeEnabled (15314 posts) -
[QUOTE="GodModeEnabled"]No Zozo you are not weird because of a multiplayer game preference. You are weird because you like to dress up in womens clothing and dance to showtunes when you think noone is looking. But I know your secret!Black_Knight_00
You're just pissed because he hasn't invited you to the last drag party

Always a bridesmaid and never a bride! T_T
#28 Posted by S0lidSnake (29001 posts) -

It used to be that a developer could make a game and shop it around to whoever would give them the best price or strike the best deal. Nowadays the publishers are buying up the developers for their sole use. That's why the publishers are the employers in this scenario. So if they don't like the deals they're getting from the publishers, it's their own damn fault for selling themselves instead of just selling their products. As far as Gamestop's involvement, they built an enterprise and have managed to grow it into a money machine. That's called carving out a niche, which is just good business. Back to the topic, though. What about the people who buy the game, and on day 1 go out and spend money on the highest level abilities? Without the free to play model, you call a guy at level 1 with level 25 abilities a cheater. But if he pays to get those advantages, all of a sudden it's okay? My dad plays World of Tanks. He started at the bottom and clawed his way up the ranks without buying gold credits. He still holds the time I cheated at monopoly over my head from when I was 13. But he didn't begrudge people for buying gold and unlocking higher level tanks faster because the game is free and it's the only way for the game makers to bring in money to improve the game. There is simply no way to make me buy into the idea that adding the FtoP model to a retail game(that may see a couple of bug fix patches and a DLC or three) is either fair for the players or acceptable publisher-side.El_Zo1212o

So Publishers making games, keeping this industry alive, and not making profit due to Gamestop's shady business practices = Publisher's Fault.

Gamestop taking 25% of the video game market share without making games = Good business. Got it.

Now you are bringing FToP in this. Who cares if the microtransactions happen in a FToP game or a $60 game? Both are providing a service or in this case early access to items. If people are willing to pay for it then that's all that matters. I can understand the argument that these microtransactions break the mp balance, but see the unlockables already did that when CoD first came out and every other online game followed suit. MP hasn't been balanced since. Now, people have the chance to level the playing field by this new microtransaction option. And that's all it is, it's an option. If people abuse that and you have people running around with level 50 weapons on Day 1, well that you have the option to go buy that same weapon. You have that option. Before this, we would have to suffer hours and hours of getting raped by level 50s before we could level the playing field.

#29 Posted by Justforvisit (5047 posts) -

Assassin's Creed III MP in a nutshell:

Air Assassina....SMOKEBOMB
Assassination out of a hideou.....SMOKEBOMB
Running Assassina.....SMOKEBOMB
Assassination from a ledge down bel.....SMOKEBOMB

Really, it's the BIGGEST fail ever I have seen that a goddamn freaking smokebomb can abort the already begun assassination. Has that been nerfed already? Cause that was mostly the only reason I stopped playing the MP after I had all the trophies for it.

Come to think about it, it pretty much made me stop playing the SP as well, though that problem is unrelated to it.

#30 Posted by El_Zo1212o (6005 posts) -

[QUOTE="El_Zo1212o"]It used to be that a developer could make a game and shop it around to whoever would give them the best price or strike the best deal. Nowadays the publishers are buying up the developers for their sole use. That's why the publishers are the employers in this scenario. So if they don't like the deals they're getting from the publishers, it's their own damn fault for selling themselves instead of just selling their products. As far as Gamestop's involvement, they built an enterprise and have managed to grow it into a money machine. That's called carving out a niche, which is just good business. Back to the topic, though. What about the people who buy the game, and on day 1 go out and spend money on the highest level abilities? Without the free to play model, you call a guy at level 1 with level 25 abilities a cheater. But if he pays to get those advantages, all of a sudden it's okay? My dad plays World of Tanks. He started at the bottom and clawed his way up the ranks without buying gold credits. He still holds the time I cheated at monopoly over my head from when I was 13. But he didn't begrudge people for buying gold and unlocking higher level tanks faster because the game is free and it's the only way for the game makers to bring in money to improve the game. There is simply no way to make me buy into the idea that adding the FtoP model to a retail game(that may see a couple of bug fix patches and a DLC or three) is either fair for the players or acceptable publisher-side.S0lidSnake

So Publishers making games, keeping this industry alive, and not making profit due to Gamestop's shady business practices = Publisher's Fault.

Gamestop taking 25% of the video game market share without making games = Good business. Got it.

Now you are bringing FToP in this. Who cares if the microtransactions happen in a FToP game or a $60 game? Both are providing a service or in this case early access to items. If people are willing to pay for it then that's all that matters. I can understand the argument that these microtransactions break the mp balance, but see the unlockables already did that when CoD first came out and every other online game followed suit. MP hasn't been balanced since. Now, people have the chance to level the playing field by this new microtransaction option. And that's all it is, it's an option. If people abuse that and you have people running around with level 50 weapons on Day 1, well that you have the option to go buy that same weapon. You have that option. Before this, we would have to suffer hours and hours of getting raped by level 50s before we could level the playing field.

The publishers don't make anything either. They just take the finished product and distribute it. They get it out to the market. All this stuff started going south when instead of buying a game, they started buying studios. And are you honestly going to claim to me that they aren't making a profit? And that the reason EA, Activision and Ubisoft aren't making this profit is because of a single chain of game stores? Toro doesn't go around trying to shut down stores that sell used lawnmowers. Tor and Random House don't try to shut down used book stores. Paramount and Universal don't try to shut down used movie shops. What makes the games industry do special? Because there's more money in it? Nonsense. And the Free to Play model in AC3 was my primary complaint, if you reread the OP. In a game that you don't pay any money for, imbalance in the players' ranks is excusable. It's how the game makers make their money. It's the game's primary reason for existing. But when I pay $60 for a game, I expect to play on a level playing field with everyone else. Very little in life is fair- that's why I play videogames. Now the advantage goes to whoever has the money to buy it. Just like in real life. Woopie.