Game Thrashers

  • I'm not one to promote myself but me and a couple of friends have started a videogame website called Game Thrashers and it'd be great for you guys to check it out and give feedback if you're interested. It's a Weebly website and I've been trying to get to grips with Weebly myself, but it has been worthwhile doing so because now I am able to put up all the videogame reviews I've done since my secondary (high) school and college days. Here's a link:

  • @jdincinerator Also if any of you have an interested in writing for Game Thrashers then let me know and I'll get you on board.

  • @jdincinerator
    Sure, shoot me a DM, need to find something to do with the games I play. And doing more writing might convince me to actually work on my videos

  • I appreciate the debate about Assassin's Creed. I definitely think there is a Ship of Theseus thought experiment to be had with that series and I'm in the camp that it isn't the same boat as it originally was.

    I definitely think so much of what was intended to be in the original trilogy was diluted and lost very quickly. I'd even argue Assassin's Creed 2 started to lose the focus and I loved that game. Mainly, I'd argue that this was supposed to be a historical thriller fiction with stealth assassinations as the climax. Like Hitman in Jerusalem. I can't really cite any of this without doing some pretty extensive research but I did watch a lot of pre-release Assassin's Creed interviews as read about AC in magazines back in 2006-2007, and I'm pretty confident when I say the more action focused AC2 was a result of following player and critic feedback to make a better game, but in terms of following that auteur "vision" for a historical thriller; I think that vision is LONG LOST.


    Maybe if there is time, you can submit Game Thrashers for "Community Showcase" this month. I think the Assassin's Creed debate would be a good piece to share. I bet Jonsey would have an opinion to share if he has time.

  • @dipset
    I'll have to see if I can find it but after the creator of AC left after Brotherhood, there's been some kind of list of "Cant's" that can't be featured in AC, although the only one I vaguely remember is "No time period with Automobiles" .There's also the fact that after Patrice Désilets left Ubisoft they just seem to have a revolving door of what they want to do with Assassins Creed, not only in the historical settings, but the gameplay, and the modern day settings.

    Like 3, 4, and Rouge were all about Naval combat and exploration (mostly in 4 and Rouge), and can be viewed as the Naval Trilogy

    Origins, Oddesy, and Valhalla all have a bigger focus on RPG mechanics, but feature games about Warriors, Warriors Trilogy

    This leaves both Unity and Syndicate as this sort of unfinished set, games where I think the purpose was to make a world similar to that of Yakuza, Dense with things to do. Even if most of those things are "Collect that, steal this", but given how badly Unity was received and Syndicate also suffering sales wise because of it we got Origins. Like I feel like there is one more game that was meant to fill in between Syndicate and Origins. If I had to guess with Unity being the French Revolution and Syndicate the Industrial there would have been a focus on a similar Revolutionary event, maybe the WW1 stuff in Syndicate is some kind of left over idea for said title (which would have been cool to play a direct descendent of the previous character for an entire game)

    But it just seems like Ubisoft has no clear vision as to what they are doing with half the game, like what is the point of the Modern day stuff if you don't do anything meaningful with it. Like I loved that Brotherhood let you explore Ezio's Villa even if briefly. Imagine if AC3 had a mission where you visit Connor's House and the place where his village once stood in the modern day.

  • @dmcmaster

    I can definitely agree that the series can be split up into smaller trilogies or thematic trilogies as you put it, but without digging into Patrice's brain—I am fairly certain he was going for something between a psychological "mindfuck" piece of fiction mixed with a historical thriller.

    Then the feedback from Assassin's Creed came in and Patrice kinda split the difference between the modern day thriller plot, and the Renaissance storyline with a more typical open world game design. The action focus in AC2 is prevalent as opposed to the ancient-espionage vision that AC1 had. Those changes were especially noticeable in a post-Arkham world, so they needed to up the pace and smooth out the combat.

    All this to say, I think the "vision" of the series was one thing (thriller, mindfuck, espionage, stealth), but Ubisoft and Patrice switched gears really quickly into something that works better as an open world video game.


    So I guess the question on Game Thrasher was: Has Assassins Creed Betrayed its Roots?

    I guess I am arguing Ubisoft abandoned it's roots waaaaaaay before AC Origins. I don't think they "betrayed" it, but by having all of these smaller trilogies they definitely don't make this series trademarks easily identifiable other than climbing towers and haystacks.