Deus Ex Alpha

Thank fuck Den Defence is gone

http://imgur.com/a/vfG87#0

Scans from gameinformer

James wrote:I hear AC:R is entirely skippable.

AC1 is a horrible anti-game with repetitive gameplay, also don't get me started on Desmond.
AC2 is a geniune videogame with fun gameplay and an entertaining story minus Desmond
AC:B is cut content from AC2 by the other pool of studios while main teams work on AC3. Also good. Minus Desmond.
AC:R is less than a year dev and apparently shows. If you liked AC2 it is more of the same though. From what I also hear is that everyone still hates Desmond.

If you're new to AC series, just play the 3 Ezio games and give 2 weeks between each as they're all the same. Also; pretend Desmond doesn't exist.

Sounds about right.

I swear, if AC1 had gone on any longer than it did, I would've gotten a bloody hemorrhage.

Everything past that though is like it's been created by an entirely different developer.

James wrote:What makes you think these are a side story? To be fair if Desmond's battle with the original race or whatever they're called is considered the main story, then I'll pass.

I'd rather play the tale about the life of an ancient assassin in rich cultural environments, just my opinion

"First Civilization" would be the correct term, but in any case I can relate to where you're sitting.

If they seriously wanted us to see Desmond as the "main character" and the whole "end of the world in 2012" as the main storyline then I would expect them to flesh out the characters a sight more than they have, and I don't think I'd be playing in someone else's body to this.

Everything else could work out fairly well, except for the fact that ultimately, Ubisoft is probably going to force us to play Desmond, and it's just going to be incredibly awkward for two main reasons (in my opinion):

1. In comparison to characters such as Ezio, Desmond is just crap. He's just... there. Sure, you know a bit about him, but how you could consider him a protagonist is beyond me. This could make it very awkward to play as him primarily.

2. In 2012, people have these things called "guns". You might be able to run and jump as much as you like. You might have the ability to stab people in the throat, fling fancy-looking knives and shoot a pop-gun but honestly, how helpful is parkour going to be against a bunch of Templar's wielding automatic weapons?

I don't know what the stance on the second one is, though. They could have a perfectly reasonable explanation to this but honestly, anything will probably just seem a tad strange for me.

Seperate note, but i had another session with ACR MP last night with a friend, was actually genuine fun, played mostly Chest Capture but when the game isn't bugging out or lagging, and your part of a good team, it can be fun to play.

It's a shame its let down by its servers

Finally got around to beating brotherhood. Absolutely loved it. Currently megauploading Revelations.

Also, I just thought.... Since III takes place in North America, the Architecture is going to be a LOT different.

Another thing. Notice how in each game, the assassin you play as takes a role in every time period of historic importance. Each of these dates become closer, and closer to the present time.

Whoever said ACR is skippable, is WRONG.

ACR explains a LOT in the story line, and In my opinion, is the best AC game. Yes, there are things that show the 1 year dev time spent on it, however these things are very minuscule, and not really anything I care about.

It's the most in-depth AC game so far.


(The ending is very bizarre, and will keep your eyes glued to the screen)

I played through about half of AC1, ended up bored as hell

I played through about 2/3 or AC2, ended up bored as hell

Why are the AC games so zzzzzz

Being bored with AC1 i can understand, 2 though, i'm surprised you got bored with that

ynnaD wrote:Being bored with AC1 i can understand, 2 though, i'm surprised you got bored with that

Much of the games are repetitive grindfests. I still found AC2 fun but that's namely because I liked the setting. Ultimately, it's a game where I finished it once and haven't really had the desire to replay it, like other games.

Whilst I still find AC2 somewhat repetitive and a bit grindy in it's gameplay, it's so much better than the first game. I already knew the first games ending after watching my mate play it, but I was so determined to finish that piece of shit. Now that I have, I'll never install, let alone play that worthless hunk of crap ever again.

I have nothing against the storyline, but the goddamn gameplay. Oh my fucking god.

SMH.


I love all the AC games.

AC in my eyes is one hell of a concept marred by poor execution and little in the way of good innovation.

III is going to be HUGE. At work we have the Case for three, and the pre-order's are already through the roof. I'm considering pre-ordering it myself for the sexy tin.

The concept is the main reason I love it.


Imo, it actually feels like a game they've actually created a proper ending for... I'm just going to hope Ubi won't let me down on that.




REMEMBER THE TV SHOW LOST?!?!?!?!
....
....
....
....

I still don't get how they're going to magically incorporate that bad character we know as Desmond Miles.

I also fail to see the practicality of teaching someone hand-to-hand combat when you plan on fighting in modern warfare.

I mean sure, knowing the techniques is nice, but it's 2012. If the Templar's don't use guns then I'm going to call it a serious foul. You think your cool-looking hidden blade is going to defend you against someone shooting you in the head? If it does, that's going to be total bull.

We've been through this before though, and I still don't think most people give a shite about the "main plot" anymore anyway. It's not like Ubisoft made any real effort at developing the characters that are supposed to be set in the present.

But yeah, the suspension of disbelief is gonna get to me, I just know it.

Protocol wrote:Why are the AC games so zzzzzz

I can see where you're coming from, AC2's protagonist and new systems are more than enough for me to enjoy it though.

Magniir wrote:I still don't get how they're going to magically incorporate that bad character we know as Desmond Miles.

I also fail to see the practicality of teaching someone hand-to-hand combat when you plan on fighting in modern warfare.

I mean sure, knowing the techniques is nice, but it's 2012. If the Templar's don't use guns then I'm going to call it a serious foul. You think your cool-looking hidden blade is going to defend you against someone shooting you in the head? If it does, that's going to be total bull.

We've been through this before though, and I still don't think most people give a shite about the "main plot" anymore anyway. It's not like Ubisoft made any real effort at developing the characters that are supposed to be set in the present.

But yeah, the suspension of disbelief is gonna get to me, I just know it.

Yeah, I can definitely see that...

I think Desmond's gameplay will consist of mostly stealth. The hidden gun will be a silenced burst fire or something. Do you think the AC series will evolve to be something of a 'FF Saga'?

I think toward the end of the saga development, they'll begin to focus more on Desmond more, and spring life into that aspect of the game.

You're right though. Most people don't care about Desmond. Perhaps when Ubi figures out how to make Desmond as appealing as Ezio, etc. they'll start involving him more.

-but god damn, ACR's ending was bizarre.



Another thing I just thought of... Most people tend to think Desmond's game will take place in the city. WHY?! There is nothing in the city for Desmond to do.

The Templar are looking for ancient artifacts in ancient locations.

Maybe we will only play short fragments all the way through the AC series. When we do, they will be in foreign locations, looking for artifacts, killing the 2012 Templars will be done through stealth.

THIS would give Ubi all the ammunition they need to keep creating AC games, and ignore Desmond. For all we know, ubi could have 50 artifacts lined up or Desmond over the next 80 games (really hope it doesn't get to that though).

The sad thing about this is, Desmond had potential back in AC1 to be a great main character, but it became clear pretty fast this wasn't gonna be the case.

The Desmond sections in the games always felt like an annoying interruption rather than the intruiging story driven parts they were intended to be.

ynnaD wrote:The sad thing about this is, Desmond had potential back in AC1 to be a great main character, but it became clear pretty fast this wasn't gonna be the case.

The Desmond sections in the games always felt like an annoying interruption rather than the intruiging story driven parts they were intended to be.

Totally agreed.

I love the idea and concept behind the main plot but it's just rather disjointed.

The game doesn't look like a game ripe with conspiracy revolving around end of the world prophecies, it looks like a game ripe with conspiracies set in the times of the Renaissance, where you play an assassin uncovering the so-called "truth".

Both premises are actually fairly interesting but Ubisoft clearly tried to incorporate the two and done a few things wrong.

Honestly though, as said, the biggest issue I have is that Desmond is supposed to be a main character but there's nothing to like about him. He's not a strong character yet we know he's got to make an appearance at some stage (unless they retcon half the plot). You spend most of the series as Ezio, the books are even about Altair or Ezio, not Desmond.

Desmond and all his other present-day buddies are supposed to be important but ultimately, their inclusion in the series amounts to absolute jack all.