@HapiJoel @reindertot I really think that's my favorite part of the whole franchise. Seiing templars and Assassins and their political points of view about the power through history (rewriting even the bible in the process!) was amazing. The Tesla-Edison-Ford bit was so accurate (i mean, THAT happened, but without the "piece of eden" mystic stuff)
"but never fully tackle more powerful themes like race and gender in the age of colonialism, but such narrative flirtations are one of the few shortcomings in an otherwise terrific story. Even the modern-day chapters--brief and innocuous as they may be--manage to add a refreshing and occasionally humorous take to the Abstergo story arc."
That doesn't sound very good. I loved Assassin's Creed II because it takes the drama and politics seriously (and no sacrificing humor in the process). Even the details in that game (the glyphs, the truth) were amazing. The political context, the reinterpretation of power struggle, the menace. You really care about the Assassin`s.
One incredible mistake in the gameplay were the displays of the "do those 3 things exactly while you're living the story and you will get 100% in this mission". Terrible design choice. It sucks you right out of the story and makes you think in mechanics and railed activities. And when you "fail" by, for example, choosing to kill your target in other way different that the one displayed, thar red line, that "X", "you failed!". Coitus Gameplay Interruptus from the start.
@Deadly_Nemesis The current objectivism is just forced. The first games were really subjective, yet, you can view some templars (even tho they were clearly the villains) points.
When Ubisoft started to underestimate their awesome reinvention of history (in the forms of, for example, eliminating the glitchs/the truth after Assassin's Creed 2) and starting to focus more on "what would be more entertaining and fast", they started to lose the suspense and the mood around the saga. AC2 was interesting, clever, deep and frightening at times. AC3 was just fun sometimes.
The other thing is that silly "objectivism" that the saga has been developing since "Revelations". We got Assassin's and Templars, each faction with a certain view of power and development of human race. Yes, the majority sided by the assassin's because of their politics and struggle. But no, now we have some weird blurry "middle ground" where templars are "not that bad" and assassins "maybe were wrong". And is just a political statement of the creators, not a character-driven consequence. Maybe Abstergo bought Ubisoft? :-)
So, feedbackula's goal is to make fun of viewers that don't agree with gamespot, caricaturizing them as some kind of angry nerds? That is groundbreaking. Douchy, but groundbreaking.
Is simple: McShea review of The Last Of Us is HIS. And is WAY disconnected for the vast majority of gamers point of view.
reindertot's comments