New Assassin's Creed Trailer


Jade Raymond is going to make you her bitch. No, that's not what they're saying? Well in any case, here's a new trailer for Assassin's Creed. The PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game hit stores next week.

Get the Flash Player to see this player.

Filed Under
From The Chatty
  • gmd legacy 10 years mercury mega
    November 9, 2007 6:59 AM

    When he is fighting one man and you see 10 others just standing there doing nothing it ruins it for me.

    • reply
      November 9, 2007 7:11 AM

      actually there was almost a 2v1 there for a second... I thought I saw... maybe...perhaps..

      okay you're right!

    • reply
      November 9, 2007 7:13 AM

      That is why I simultaneously loved and hated Ninja Gaiden. Those fuckers don't sit back and wait for you to fight them one on one. The result however was that it was hard as fuck.

    • reply
      November 9, 2007 9:36 AM

      Having never fought with swords I can't say for sure, but I don't think I'd want someone else jumping in and slashing away at someone I'm already engaged in unless I was clear the fuck out of the way. The potential for the teamkill seems pretty high.

      • reply
        November 9, 2007 11:15 AM

        Nah I don't think its nearly as hard as your making it sound. One person forces the target back into another's blade. Its just bad game design....

    • reply
      November 9, 2007 10:20 AM

      lol, IT'S A GAME...Seriously, if it is fun, why should it matter? The problem is that they are trying to represent the real effects of battling with swords. However if they made the AI real too, you would be killed instantly. If 10 guys were surrounding you in real life, you would have no chance. Even 4 guys would likely kick even the best sword fighters ass. So to let the hero win more often, they keep enemies back. This has been done in countless games and movies.

      • reply
        November 9, 2007 11:17 AM

        Or they could you know.... stay true to the idea of you being an assassin? That shouldn't mean sword fighter extrodinaire who can take on 10 armed and armored guards at once and kick ass. You know like the thief series? A REAL stealth series?

        Nah your right, lets bam it up a notch and make him a nearly unstoppable killing machine.

        • reply
          November 9, 2007 11:53 AM

          No publisher wants to put big money into a new IP with the punishing gameplay of THIEF. I loved the series, but it was very far from mainstream gameplay. I would bet money that AC got changed along the way to make it more forgiving to a mainstream audience.

          That being said, we still do not know if the combat is actually easy. I know in PoP:SO I thought the combat was easy until you had to fight your dad. It was still 1v1 with the other baddies sitting back, but wow, was that difficult combat.

          • reply
            November 9, 2007 2:09 PM

            And people say its a GREAT time for gaming. This is why I wholeheartedly disagree. Saying something like THIEF being financial suicide in today's world of gaming is so utterly fucking depressing to me. I can't count the number of games that tried to break the mold, and were punished for it in the marketplace. Examples of titles I miss? Interstate 76.... Descent Freespace 1/2 ... Myth 1/2 .... I mean the space combat genre of games is essentially dead.

            • reply
              November 9, 2007 5:38 PM

              It is NOT financial suicide if you do not aim for a AAA game or if you can make it appeal to a mass audience better. Metal Gear Solid and Splinter Cell are similar to Thief, but they succeeded in making the games more appealing. Publishers ARE making exciting new games, but they won't be putting Halo money behind them unless they have a more sure return on investment. Bioshock is a perfect example of a crazy notion of a game that got the right amount of press along the way right up until the release when 2k really turned the marketing on full force.

              • reply
                November 9, 2007 7:30 PM

                What like Psychonauts wasn't a financial disaster? Or maybe a Beyond Good and Evil? Like most major european releases (which tend to try to buck the trend) weren't major disasters? Say a Gothic 3? (the developers were cut loose by jowood) ... or maybe an X3? Sure those games were buggy, but they were also pushed out the door kicking and screaming due to limited funding and time.

                And while I will agree that Bioshock certainly has a unique style that is pretty atypical for the industry (at least for a FPS), it is otherwise pretty near identical to other FPSs in terms of game play.

                • reply
                  November 10, 2007 5:29 AM

                  Or how about a developer that can't meet deadlines or finish a product? Often the reason that devs release buggy games is because of poor planning or execution on their side. A publisher can't keep pushing a release date back forever. Marketing and agreements with retailers are not easy to move around. While there are times when publishers have pushed for titles to be released when extending the time would have resulted in a better game, this is not as common as many gamers would think. Often developers are just not that organized when it comes to landing a product. They are scrambling to add last minute features, have inadequate/are ignoring QA testing, or are still working on content and features that could have been done months ago. So there is a mad rush at the end of the project with little time for testing, so new bugs do not get fixed and polish that they hoped to get to just does not get done.

                  • reply
                    November 10, 2007 5:30 AM

                    BTW I am NOT saying that the above is the reason why the products you mentioned were not seen as a "success" by the developers. I do not know why those did not succeed financially.

          • reply
            November 9, 2007 2:12 PM

            I find that, more and more, I really appreciate games that simplify and streamline stuff. I loved that Bioshock was "dumbed down" with it's fairly simplistic upgrades and inventory. It made the game a lot more enjoyable for me.

            I think the industry should create new, more adventurous IP, but I also think they should keep games simpler where possible.

            • reply
              November 9, 2007 5:40 PM

              absolutely. Deep, engrossing gameplay not have to equal complex and frustrating mechanics. Portal is a good example of that.

        • reply
          November 9, 2007 12:05 PM

          Stay true? You mean by committing dramatic assassinations in full public view?

          They were meticulous in killing the targeted individual, seeking to do so without any additional casualties and innocent loss of life, although they were careful to cultivate their terrifying reputation by slaying their victims in public, often in mosques.

          • reply
            November 9, 2007 2:03 PM

            Uh I think we have a disconnect here. Slaying your vitctim in plain sight is NOT the same thing as killing him in front all of his guard buddies in full armor and swords at their sides. One instills terror.... the other is pretty similar to suicide. Honestly people defending this are just grasping at straws. If you like it and have fun with it, I understand, thats a gamer's choice. But please don't tell me how this shit is logical and even remotely approaching some semblance of realism.

            • reply
              November 9, 2007 2:31 PM

              Actually, if you want to send a message that nobody is safe, anywhere, ever (which the Hashashin definitely did; they're famous for it), I can't think of a better way than to kill targets surrounded by guards and then get away with it.

            • reply
              November 9, 2007 2:35 PM

              Oh, and it's not like Thief was realistic. Thief had some pretty contrived circumstances to make the "hide in the conveniently placed inky black shadows" gameplay work.

    • reply
      November 9, 2007 10:47 AM

      There've been some amusing threads about this on QT3, where at least one of the developers posts. His point was that in quasi-realistic swordfighting, if the player were to actually get ganged up on by the guards, the player would be fucked. They wanted to give a swordfighting feel to the combat without pissing people off. I.e. the "IT'S A GAME" response from byorn here. When you're playing the game and concentrating on your fight with Guard A and Guard B, rather than watching a trailer, you don't (reportedly/hopefully) worry so much about the fact that Guard C and Guard D aren't pressing the attack as much as they might.

      From what the dev said in a recent thread, it sounds like they've added in a bit more ganging-up behavior in response to feedback, and the dev was basically saying "well you got what you asked for... I hope you're ready for it".

      • reply
        November 9, 2007 11:01 AM

        This is definitely true. At the same time, while a certain amount of ganging up on a single target is realistic, there are two factors that can mitigate it even in a realistic scenario:

        First, if you put too many people swinging swords into an area, they're liable to start hitting each-other accidentally.

        Second, if the single target just gutted two of your buddies like fish, you're much less likely to want to get near enough for the same to happen to you. Sure, if eight guys rush him most will probably survive, but most isn't quite the same as all.

        But, yeah, it's mostly a gameplay issue.

        • reply
          November 9, 2007 11:20 AM

          Good additional points (and I think those came up in the discussion as well). Overall I'm not going to stew about this particular part of the game.

    • reply
      November 9, 2007 5:31 PM

      Yeah I think in this type of game if you get in a situation like that and try to fight, you should die.

Hello, Meet Lola