Assassin's Creed Comments by Tom Bramwell

@DjFlex52

Well of course, I was being sarcastic (in truth, I'm not sure I even know how NOT to be half the time) :)

I agree the Crackdown demo DID sort of give us the whole game in a way (at least in terms of the demo player not really feeling they were being restricted anyway), except it was limited insofar as it timed out after your skills got to a certain level.

So I played the demo loads, and thought it was a really generous demo. I probably put the "standard" 10 hours into the Crackdown, but I always knew in the back of my mind that the full game would give me even more. I knew what that "even more" would be, but personally that didn't impact my fun when I got the full title.

I tend to like really generous demos. Now I guess that seems obvious, so I'll expand. The way I see it, a demo is an advert. Its purpose is to get me the player interested and increase the chances of me giving asway my money. So when a demo acts like I am privileged to be playing it (strict timeout, quitting at the end, forcing me to watch a whole shed load of advert stills) I get really bloody annoyed.

The Crackdown demo actually spoke to me (not ACTUALLY, that would just be bonkers). I thought "you really get it, you realise that a demo is supposed to be fun, it is supposed to make me like you and your game". So all said, I had a fine old time playing the demo, never once felt I was being ill treated by some stingy marketing peon, but never quite feeling completely satisfied due to the natural limitations of the demo.

Also, in the case of Crackdown the publicity itself wasn't that prevalent. I remember seeing screens a while ago, but not being particularly moved because I think it is fair to say the art style is a little bit benign (very pretty, but no real sense of character). If I hadn't played the demo I almost certainly wouldn't have bought the game (didn't care about the Halo3 beta).

Plus the word of mouth surrounding the demo was amazing. I can't recall how many times I saw or heard the following conversation.

"Have you played the Crackdown demo?"
"Gave it a try. it didn't grab me."
"Me neither at first try it again."
...
"Tired the demo again. Its bloody fantastic once you start jumping about the place."


I am rambling on far too much, but clearly the demo in question left an impression on me, and many others. So I guess what I am saying in such a roundabout way is that demos can be a very good idea if they are done right :)

Hmm, from the looks of all those angry comments I'm the only one who thinks the sci-fi twist is kinda cool. Sounds more interesting than a straightforward mediaeval setting.

Plus (hopefully) it means the plot will be a bit more developed and original than the usual bad-guys-killed/abducted/imprisoned-your-father/sister/cat-a
nd-now-you're-working-your-way-through-seventeen-lieutenants
-with-big-health-bars-before-confronting-chief-bad-guy-thus-
saving-civilisation-from-ancient-evil.

For the record, the Crackdown demo pretty much sold me that game too.

Shrike "I'd say there's a fair generic difference between "magic sand" and "science-based fiction"

Then I hope you never read Dune.

Looks like a brilliant game imo. Who really REALLY cares that much about the story line?

*penny drops*

Ahh! So that's why Lost Planet didn't get glowing reviews. I always thought it was because it's a shallow albeit fun shooter.

I doubt that there is a "sci-fi" setting for the game. At most, it's for the sake of the plot. Like solving something that did not got solved in the past. Jade said the game would only be in Jerusalem and cities like that. I doubt they'll make playable 'present-time' levels.

"I am rambling on far too much, but clearly the demo in question left an impression on me, and many others. So I guess what I am saying in such a roundabout way is that demos can be a very good idea if they are done right :) "

@kangarootoo

You might have rambled on but there wasn't much in your comment I could disagree with. :)
I played the demo loads too and there wasn't much more to the game besides killing the other gangs (same gameplay with all gangs) and getting Achievements.
Most demos cannot do what Crackdown did in theirs though.

Where can we view this bug ridden sci-fi gayness video?

The sci-fi twist sounds ace!

"I'm the only one who thinks the sci-fi twist is kinda cool."

Its bit_mite's fault. GET HIIIM!


"Shrike "I'd say there's a fair generic difference between "magic sand" and "science-based fiction"

Then I hope you never read Dune."

Hehe, nice one.

I had to shut them up somehow, kangarootoo they were doing my tits in.

I work with a woman who won't read sci-fi (it's silly) but will read science-fantasy (not silly) I try to explain that they're pretty much the same thing, that it's just pointless genre splitting. I also ask her to read Mary Gentle's (the magnificent) Ash: A Secret History* and for her to tell me what genre is when she is done.


* and David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas

Everyone's just mad about the game 'cause they're mad about that Jew Raymond. I mean, Jade. Jade Raymond.

@ Martin:

I also love the sound of that sci-fi twist that may or may not be in the game!

Willing to argue this for argument's sake. PoP: Sands of Time is fantasy by virtue of being a fable - it could have been a Disney film, if not for all the violence. The "magic sand" facilitates the plot.

Assassin's Creed, and Dune, have a core idea - genetic memory/magic sand (oh, go on then) which the plot explores. Sands of Time doesn't care how the magic sand works, or what its consequences are beyond the prince's adventure. There's every indication that Assassin's Creed is very much about exploring this idea of genetic memory - if it wasn't, there'd be no reason for it to be there as it doesn't seem to contribute anything to the "medieval" gameplay. Therefore, Assassin's Creed is science fiction as opposed to fantasy.

Good call on Cloud Atlas, though.

I was once informed by a clearly wiser poster than I on these pages that anyone who brings a dictionary to an argument is "a twat", but I think I'll take a bullet for the sake of the team on this one.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/f...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/f...

From the above we can determine that fantasy, among other things is, "a hallucination" and also "caprice, a whim". Whereas fiction is "an imaginary thing or event, postulated for the purposes of argument or explanation".

So thats cleared that up then.

cthulhu_steev, the woman you work is clearly mad, and as such probably supports the death penalty ;)

Seriously though, fantasy has one definition of "imagination, esp. when extravagant and unrestrained" and fiction has one of "the act of feigning, inventing, or imagining", which to my twatish eyes are almost identical. So we can probably put this one to bed without too much further effort or disagreement.

"Here it comes the new Ubi franchise, after PoP and SC. Be ready to receive a new sequel every year. I have to try this before buy, and of course, I want to know more about that sci-fi thing... I know i´m not gonna like it if it starts on a medieval setting and ends dodgind bullets. "

Ditto that.

I get the slightest whiff of 'gun play' in this game and it goes from dead-cert purchase to add-it-to-the-huge-pile-of-360-FPS/TPS-games-that-i-dismiss-
out-of-hand ...

Kangarootoo: Yuss, I also have twattish eyes and do not see any real distinction between the two.

The Woman At Work loves reading my Jasper Fforde (in fact, SIX+ people borrow them off me and none of them have ever bought a book by him, even though they adore them. I always hope that by pimping them out they might like to buy their own copies, but no, sorry Mr Fforde) and I keep meaning to ask her what genre she thinks they are, it would boggle her mind.

It's her son's fault, he made the distinction between science-fantasy and science-fiction and she bought it. He is a doctor, so what does he know.

So he has a sci-fi glass eye that he can throw and zoom and stuff?

So ummm yah...its..just..thief then...

and we agree, his voice is a bit pants

Agree with whom? I haven't noticed too many comments on it from other places actually, but I would certainly agree with the writer. And it's not just Altaïr's.

@cthulhu_steev, kangarooto

Hope neither of you think I'm having a go or being reactionary towards the game, but I am going to maintain that there is an important difference between science fiction and any kind of fantasy (be it futuristic fantasy, like Star Wars, or traditional D&D). Of course, if you hold that sci-fi = technology and fantasy = magic then the differences are completely superficial. But that isn't how it works.

Both genres employ speculative elements to achieve their effects - this could be magic, dragons, gene memory, laser swords. Fantasy then builds its story with these elements, where they become part of the story. Their use is, to borrow kangarooto's dictionary definition, capricious, whimsical, etc.

In science-fiction, speculative elements are the point of the story, and they form the crux of the speculative "argument" (again, from the dictionary) that the plot focuses on. The Matrix is a science fiction movie because it relies on its chief imaginative device (the idea of a computer world) to work as a story. You could tell Star Wars quite easily without The Force or the Death Star, because it's not about the idea of the thing as much as it is about the plot that results (see: Eragon.)

The definition between fantasy and science-fiction is actually more apparent in games than in most books or movies, in gameplay terms. A fantasy game gives the player x and y abilities and then provides them with an environment in which to put them to use towards some end - for this reason, most games are fantasy. A science fiction game places the player in an environment where the abilities they have are the core of the experience, and where the player has to work within the mental environment that such abilities open up - Portal looks to be a good example of this. You couldn't do Portal without the idea of portals.

I'd define Assassin's Creed as science-fiction (and believe me, just because I said I don't like the particle effects, doesn't mean I'm having a go at the genre) because the subjectivity of the "gene memory" idea and the fact that the UI jars so much with the medieval setting does funny things to the fourth wall. It reminds you that you're an outsider, controlling something that is alien to you. Whoever is controlling Altair in the game's story is contextually detached from the action in the same way that the player in their living room is. That's, to me, really interesting, and pure science fiction. If it were fantasy, you'd have a ye-olde style health bar and minimap and be done with it, because there'd be no need to start exploring such ideas as "who is really controlling this?"

I'm sorry to go off on one like this, but I think if you gloss the difference between fantasy and sci-fi you lose a sense of the craft of "speculative fiction" as a whole.

/rant off.

*snore*

Wait...so this game is a bit like POP meets thief and hitman? Not a simulation where you play a woman and have to pimp games to geeks?

/confused

That was canceled as soon as the public realized that the geeks really were interested in the game.

I hate spoilers! Portal has been ruined by EG for me too. It's OBVIOUS that you're giving away major, major plot points: warn us better or better still don't do it in the first place!

Meh.. I prefer spoilers - prevents me from playing a dull boring game just for the story then.

If a game is spoiled by giving away the plot, then it's not much of a "game" imho.

I play for fun, and not story lines..

(exception to rule being gta - but then the story is pretty throwaway in those too)

In terms of demos, I can't think of a single one I've ever played which has given me too much.

The best I've ever played was Deus Ex, which let you play the first two levels in their entirety with nothing blocked off. My interest, initially piqued by a decent (if spoilerific) review in PC Gamer, soared into a vengeful game lust after those two levels.

So long as you can transfer your savefiles over, I'm not complaining.

So its like POP with some stealth elements thrown in, for an open world, is it in some ways like crackdown in that you have to do hits in whatever fashion you see fit? Im intrigued, but the presentation in microsofts conference, the character was quite slugish and it just didnt look as fluid as pop. Still, im looking forward to it either way.

Add me to the could-do-without-the-sf-elements crowd. Personally one of the whole draws to the game was the whole setting. The Holy Land during the Crusades are a setting that I don't think has ever really been explored in games, and definitely not from the perspective of a Muslim Assassin. The science fiction genetic memory crap totally ruins that, IMO. The concept of a story told from that perspective in that setting is vastly more interesting to me than the concept of a story about some turkey in the near future remembering what his ancestor did via some pesuedo-scientific and rather implausible genetic memory.

Why can't they go the whole hog? Are they afraid of some kind of anti-terrorist backlash or some such rubbish?

Why would they fear any backlash? If they had kept the story simple, you would still get a Muslim hero, he's a good guy trying to stop the Crusades.

I think the crux of the whole sci-fi agument here is that it's disappointing that we can't seem to have an action game set in a historical period before the second world war, that doesn't involve magic, mythology or a funny science fiction plot device that means it's not really set in the real past at all.

Surely it should be exciting enough being an athletic assassin in the medieval/renaissance period without having to tie in some futuristic nonsense to it?

@Shrike

Hey, no apologies man. Discussion is good (discussions backed up by thought anyway, which is what you are bringing).

So if I understand this right, sci-fi is defined by saying if the specific science in questionb did not exist, the fiction would be unavoidably changed, as the fiction results directly from the implications of the "science".

Whereas in a work of fantasy, the story drives itself and the fantasy forms the "scenery". If the specifics of the fantasy were changed, the fiction (story) could continue with minimum modification.


It seems to me that the borders of those definitions could be pretty hazy deoending on the subject matter.

E.g. Star Wars. The basis of the force is changed. Its not midiclorians (spelling?), its some kind of Harry Potter esque magic. Does that affect the story? The character development could still continue (which suggest that it is fantasy), but would key parts of the plot be affected by the change?

E.g. 2. Matrix. Lets says the world of the Matrix is not inside a computer, but is actually a magical world. People are locked in dungeons in a magical transe, and believe that they are in a real world when in fact the "Matrix" is the result of Harry potter-esqe magic. Fundamental change to the science behind the scenes, but surely the key story components could exist unchanged (a few cosmetic changes withstanding, goblin instead of program, and so on).


I also think, based on what cthulhu_steev said, that there is a seperate issue here, and that issue is the weight or value given to the distinction. He has experience of someone disregarding a written work because in their eyes it falls into one category and not the other.

So on the one hand we have an open discussion and about what "fanstasy" and "sci-fi" actually mean (which I am sure we shall never resolve fully, language being the transient and contextual thing it is). And on the other we have people attributing value based on transient and contextual definitions (in some cases pretending these definitions are more objective than they are, to serve personal agenda), which I am sure cthulhu_steev is not alone in finding annoying.

Not saying you are serving personal agenda Shrike btw; sounds like the cthulhu_steev colleague's son is though :)


Back on topic. Would the absence of any suggested memory gubbins in AC really affect the plot a whole lot? It seems like there might be several layers of plot, one of which may be concerned with the immediate experience of the assassin, and another that is concerned with "what is really going on".

So on that basis are some aspects of the plot are fantasy and some are sci-fi (meaning we can't really tag the whole game as one or the other)?

@smelly

"*snore*"

Was the discussion getting a bit high brow for you there? I think The Tweenies might be on the other side if you can find ther remote ;)

@Mentalist(air)

Although I don't like the idea any more than you do, I don't really see it as a deal breaker. I think the core gameplay is much more important overall.

Some people have actually said they like the sci-fi suggestions, so I guess they can't please all of the people all of the time. So long as climbing and sneaking is fun, I'll accept that some other aspects of the title simply aren't for me (though it would be interesting to eventually hear what drove the plot direction at some later date, if you are listening Ubi, purely from a dev diary point of view, no finger pointing we promise).

@kangarootoo

I always looked at fantasy and sci-fi as separate genres.

Science Fiction for me, was always based on the author building on real world science and ideas to create a 'what if' scenario, usually in the future or alternate reality. Typically the central conceit of any Science Fiction will be something that however outrageous is based in the rules of the real world and is something that we might imagine could come to pass in future (Time travelling robots, genetic mutants, alternate computer worlds, aliens etc). Fantasy, on the other hand for me has always been about the author presenting elements which do not need to be grounded by any scientific explanation or theory and are purely fantastical in nature (dragons, magic, goblins etc)

Star wars is a good crossover, in that space ships, lightsabers and aliens would be thing I would consider sci-fi, as they have some grounding in 'real world science & rules, whilst the force is a fantasy element (unless you count the midichlorian bollocks, which I personally choose to ignore.)

Oh, I'll still buy it if it's good.

It's just that adding 'scifi elements' to an ostensibly historical setting seems like a sop to some theoretical mainstream that don't buy action games unless they're filled with thick-necked space manires.

@afghan_jones

So I guess the division you make is,

1. Sci-fi - Possible based on expansion and development of currently known scientific principles (or at least claims to be in the absence of future knowledge).

or

2. Fantasy - Never possible based on current scientific principles (and never claims to be).

All of the above of course depends on us actually being correct in our assumptions about current scientific principles (hence my "absence of future knowledge" caveat).

On that note it does seem that the boundary between possible and impossible (and therefore sci-fi and fantasy) is actually determined by our current understanding of science. So in 10k years we may expand our knowledge of science to a degree that things which we previously deemed 'fantastical' and now accepted as possible.

I'm sure witches were burned in years gone by on the same basis. So maybe me and cthulhu_steev were right to in the sense that the two things are essentially the same thing, but perhaps we just aren't equipped to know it yet...


@Mentalist(air)

Agreed.

@kanga

Yeah, I guess I see Sci-Fi as doing what it says on the tin, so it would be fiction that has been grounded in or born out of science. Fantasy is just that, anything goes.

I wouldn't necessarily say sci-fi had to be futuristic as I'd say alternate pasts such as in Resistance FOM are also sci-fi given their 'what if' premise.

Maybe if you think of it as the force powers in Starwars being the 'fantasy' mental power versus the powers in say, Scanners which although equally fantastical, is given a pseudo-science grounding and I would therefore term sci-fi.

Also, I'm with mentalist on saying I thought the game looked strong enough to stand on a historical premise rather than needing sci-fi elements involved. That said, we've only seen a whisper of what they might be so I'm holding off until we see more as I do really want to like this game.

I'd still consider Star Wars to be pure fantasy regardless of space ships, midichlorians, etc - I can't think of an example of a storyteller being careless or "capricious" with a fictional device than Lucas suddenly deciding that you can detect "the force!" with a needle. If Star Wars was sci-fi then a) the force would probably already have a detailed explanation before the prequel films and b) this explanation would not be introduced as a completely transparent plot motivator.

So yeah, I agree with much of what has been said regarding sci-fi being about perceivable "what if's" (i.e, fictional science! who'd have thunk it) and fantasy not really caring how things work as long as they do. And I too am annoyed by people's reactionary judgements of things just because they fall into a certain genre - a similar thing happens to games in the mainstream press, of course. I maintain though that there's a difference between sci-fi and fantasy which goes beyond speculation and which concerns how we treat fictional ideas in our stories. Fantasy devices like magic are, ultimately, an elaborate deus ex machina. In sci-fi the idea of deus ex machina is challenged.

As far as this relates to Assassin's Creed, this could be exactly what they're doing. I guess we'll see. The cynic in me is deeply worried though that there's something quite nasty behind this, and something which SeesThroughAll suggested: worry that a story where a muslim hero assassinates christian warriors will not sell to the mainstream.

So here's your deus ex machina - you're not really a muslim! Fear not, imaginationless people who always play the allies in WW2 games - you are controlling this FROM THE FUTURE! Few games are brave enough to challenge the player politically or morally - in fact, if UbiSoft learn anything from Thief while making this game, I really hope it's that.

If you put the pieces together, Altair's American accent included, it makes quite an ugly picture.

It's funny.. I've never really put much thought into why is something called Fantasy and something else Sci-Fi only because I could somehow "sense" the difference (that distinction probably "forced" upon me through the years). While writing the sentence above, something else sprang to mind: isn't Sci-Fi a sub-genre to Fantasy, much like horror genre is (only in a different way)?

fantasy, sci-fi???

@Daymare

not at all because fantasy is to do with magic the majority of the time and science fiction as the name suggests is to do with science

@afghan_jones

I personnaly would choose to ignore you