• New Horizons on Maelstrom
    Maelstrom New Horizons


    Visit our website www.piratehorizons.com to quickly find download links for the newest versions of our New Horizons mods Beyond New Horizons and Maelstrom New Horizons!

Assasins Creed 3 - Take the Battle to the Seas Trailer

Thagarr

Pining for the Fjords!
Creative Support
Storm Modder
Public Relations
Hearts of Oak Donator
Pirate Legend
Thanks to Taydeer for the heads up! Ubisoft has released yet another Assassin's Creed III trailer, this time showing some actual naval battle footage! This trailer also reveals quite a bit about just how historically accurate they are in terms of naval warfare. I'll just let you watch the video and save my comments for the comments section. :wp

 

Attachments

  • Assassins-Creed-3-Logo.jpg
    Assassins-Creed-3-Logo.jpg
    40.9 KB · Views: 22
Ayup, that pretty much sums it up quite nicely. Pathetic, preposterous, and pitiful also work.
 
I think it is looking very good. But it seems very arcade-like and will probably be very easy.
I was always disappointed in the fact that killing 20 guards single-handed wasn't much of a challenge.
 
the ppl who play assassin's creed don't like chasing ships. That's why it's not done. That game is not an RPG so no really time consuming. The game is 15 hours long. What did you wanna do than. Making a story of 1 hour chasing ships the other 14 it's not about the sailing in AC3 that's why you shouldn't be looking at it like it's gonna be the next simulator or something like that Ships are only a minor part of the game. They ain't gonna spend time on that.
 
Why do the 18th century ships of the line have 19th century clipper bows? And why are the Americans using exclusively 74-guns?

At least they kind of fixed the futtock shrouds.
 
They are the ones pushing this game as historically accurate, I wasn't even looking at the game and had no clue it even had naval combat in it until their big E3 presentation. They pushed the naval aspect pretty hard making it seem like it would be a big part of the game.

Since then we have learned the truth, it is simply an after thought, an add on that someone at Ubisoft thought would be cool and sell a couple of extra copies. If I can help stop even one PC gamer from buying this game then, it will have been worth my time to write all these news articles. Ubisoft needs to just stop releasing PC versions of their games, it's obvious that they couldn't care less about PC gaming.
 
[...]
At least they kind of fixed the futtock shrouds.

Yes on the player's ship, however the ships in the harbor of Boston are still futtock shroudless. The enemy ship's futtock shroud status is still unkown.
It seems that they forgot some stays either.

It also seems, that they reduced the ball trails (laser trails), however trails are still there. And the main errors (too fast ships and to many explosions) are still there.

The mistakes in the land-part of the game have been already mentioned. And mistakes since Assassin's Creed have been still carried on further.


@Thagarr:

Count me in. I will definitely not buy the PC version of this game either. I would spend 10-15$ on a console version however. It is still worth 10$ on a console IMHO. It's a good fun game but nothing more.

The game will be definitely be not mod-friendly. Another reason for avoiding this game on PC.
 
Thanks Kamil! And I think your target price is right on. :onya

I just ran across an article over at Kotaku by a guy who just recently got some actual hands on with the PS3 version of the game. From what he describes, this game was obviously developed exclusively for consoles, with the PC version simply as an after thought. The article is titled "With Its Sweeping Nautical Battles, Assassin’s Creed III Finally Goes Full Pirate", of course I just had to read that one! Here are just a couple of excerpts :

After a brief cutscene establishing the setting, I was given control of the vessel. The general controls are intuitive—Connor steers the ship with the thumbstick, while the X button raises the sail and the O button lowers it. The mast is crucial for acceleration—half-mast puts you at a good clip, while full-mast gets you going awfully fast, though of course you can't corner as effectively.

I was mostly interested in sinking the man of wars (men of war?), so I concentrated fire wherever I could. As I steered my ship into a rock, and then into an enemy ship, and took cannonball after cannonball, I couldn't help but begin to suspect that this demo was fixed, and I couldn't die. Eventually, possibly assisted by invulnerability, I defeated the two man of wars and re-focused on taking the Randolph.

You can read the full article HERE!

**EDIT** Be sure and read the comments section, the Ubisoft DRM references and the "historical accuracy" of the Randolph are priceless!
 
Listen you can go all crazy but what would you think they would have done?
A sailing simulator. Following a ship for three hours to catch up with it? Off course not the game is meant to be fun not boring on sea and fun on land. Also this ain't really a navy game or anything. It goes about the Assassins vs the Templars. That's the story the navy they just added because the American Revolution was also fought on water. Do you think even one player might give a shit about how the ships sail? It's supposed to be fun to play ACIII and it's better than the first 4 games. So you can keep crying everytime you see an article about ACIII naval aspect it's not a big part of the game seriously it would be just as big part as riding a horse you will have some missions using it but not seriously much. WTH do you think that it would be a naval RPG? They don't change the game storyline to put in ships and go and make it all RPGish. And ppl who were gonna buy it are still gonna buy it even if it would be arcade sailing. If you don't buy ACIII because the sailing isn't realistic than you shouldn't have thought about buying it in the first place. I saw in the E3 presentation immediately that it would be arcade sailing and nothing else.
 
We normally wouldn't care. However, they've spent the entirety of the game's development advertising it as "historically accurate." In the future, please respond in a more civilized manner, and consider our positions on the matter. Profanity and the like won't do anything to advance your argument in our eyes. In fact, it will more than likely have the opposite effect: making you sound childish and immature.
 
Listen you can go all crazy but what would you think they would have done?

They fixed the futtock shrouds however on the player's ship. This is at least something.

A sailing simulator. Following a ship for three hours to catch up with it? Off course not the game is meant to be fun not boring on sea and fun on land. Also this ain't really a navy game or anything.

All answers lies in the game design. They didn't need to make a correct simulation and if they wanted to exclude chasing sequences there are tons of workaround (e.g. scripted cutscenes). However letting the ship sail against the wind and speed them up to this crazy extent is too much for a highly appraised "historical accurate" game.

It goes about the Assassins vs the Templars. That's the story the navy they just added because the American Revolution was also fought on water. Do you think even one player might give a shit about how the ships sail?

We give "a shit" about it. This is at least one player. Hereby your argument is refuted .

It's supposed to be fun to play ACIII and it's better than the first 4 games.

Nobody told that this game will be bad or to be blunt "that this game will suck". We are just criticizing some wrong aspects of the presentation, which shouldn't be there due to the promise of being "historical accurate".

And I wouldn't say it is the best of all four games. On which account is it better?

The naval aspect: Of course, because the other titles didn't featured this aspect.
The land aspect: Of course it is more fluidly.
The presentation: Are seriously suggesting that you prefer edged weapons without their accouterments than with them. In the first Assassin's Creed and even in the PSP spinoff Bloodlines they had at least scabbards.


So you can keep crying everytime you see an article about ACIII naval aspect it's not a big part of the game seriously it would be just as big part as riding a horse you will have some missions using it but not seriously much.

Even if it isn't it contains mistakes, which should be pointed out.


WTH do you think that it would be a naval RPG? They don't change the game storyline to put in ships and go and make it all RPGish.

Who in the world cried for it. Just because something lacks of simulation aspect doesn't mean that by changing it into an RPG will fix this. Sorry I don't understand your point.



And ppl who were gonna buy it are still gonna buy it even if it would be arcade sailing. If you don't buy ACIII because the sailing isn't realistic than you shouldn't have thought about buying it in the first place.

OK, if we are not going to buy it then we shouldn't criticize it. We shouldn't point out mistakes, which eventually other developers won't make hopefully. Or that some players might actually SEE these mistakes and tell the developers that they don't wish to see such mistakes.

Sorry, with this kind of attitude there will be never really any kind of progression in games besides the graphical progression. But unfortunately many people seems to have this attitude.

Again nobody said that this game is BAD, only that the promised historical accuracy is missing and the mistakes they made on the models and the naval part.



I saw in the E3 presentation immediately that it would be arcade sailing and nothing else.

An arcade sailing with a promised historical accuracy, which hasn't been kept however.



We normally wouldn't care. However, they've spent the entirety of the game's development advertising it as "historically accurate." [...]

Exactly, if the term historical accuracy was thrown in the round than the expectations are of course higher. And it's a broken promise. It's a pity however that you tend take this lightly. But this is your choice you have to live with it :)
 
They talk about Historical accuracy in the complete game. Just cause they fuck up some ships that most ppl who play the game won't even see. You guys are telling it's not historically accurate. Believe me on this part. Maybe naval isn't historical accurate the rest of the game is. Also if I see you guys your comments you haven't ever played it. Like that you might not even judge a game serie you never played. If you would have played before you knew they do the most they can to make it historically accurate. Also in what movie do you see that they sail against the wind? I haven't saw it yet. But like i said before it's not an rpg or a simulation. If you can't sail against the wind the missions would become quite long. too long for most gamers especially because most of the AC gamers have followed the storyline and don't give much about ships. If they would have loved ships they wouldn't have be playing AC. If they want a good game with a good storyline. With not much big mistakes. You guys are telling stuff from that's not historically accurate what I haven't heard about ever. But maybe it's added as a small addition so they wouldn't have asked for a specialist. I could allready see it in the E3 presentation that it was realistic sailing but mentioned before that's not what the game is about. It's just about killing your enemies not about sailing. That's why they don't gonna make it perfect. the ships look nice like Hammie said. Most ppl would even know if the ships are historically completely accurate. And also I wonder when it's historically accurate? When a ship has a not completely correct rope ladder to climb in. Who sees that with not studying old ships for half a century? I know you are crazy about ships but most ppl aren't why do you think pirate games start running worse and worse? just because ppl only wanna play nice games with or a very good multiplayer (COD,BF,GOW,ME,WOW) or a good singleplayer (Sleeping Dogs,AC) stuff like that. Cause tell me the last RPG of the age of sailing? A decent one. I ain't mentioning PotBS cause really it looks like crap!
 
Profanity and the like won't do anything to advance your argument in our eyes. In fact, it will more than likely have the opposite effect: making you sound childish and immature.

And it has succeeded wonderfully.

So; from the beginning...

Everyone who plays the game, everyone, will see the ships. They've made that very clear. It's absurd to assume otherwise; a false statistic conjured up to support a weak argument.
The rest of the game is not accurate. There are many other mistakes.
You've never played the game either, and you already seem to be billing it as the greatest AC game ever made.
They haven't done much at all to make the Naval aspect accurate. Nothing looks close to being right. Even the guns.
The yards remain squared, and the ships turn at least 180 degrees in at least one trailer. That's enough to make any square rigger move backwards.
It's not just the rigging that's wrong. Frankly, that was a stupid comment. (There is not a single rope ladder in a proper ship's rigging, by the way.) The hulls are wrong, the guns are wrong, the clothing is wrong, the hatches are wrong, the sails are wrong, the steering is wrong, the weapon handling is wrong, the boarding is wrong... I've made my point, I think.
 
In the future, please respond in a more civilized manner, and consider our positions on the matter.

Well said Post Captain, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, but please respond in a mature manner or don't respond at all.

With regards to the game, I have played AC I + AC II and really aren't that bad if you play them in the manner they are intended, which is a quick 20 minute brainless hack and slash fest. But, if you want to sit down for a couple of hours and actually use your brain, I wouldn't go anywhere near this personally.
 
They talk about Historical accuracy in the complete game.
Just cause they fuck up some ships that most ppl who play the game won't even see.

It's not just the ships. They made mistakes on the land part as well.



You guys are telling it's not historically accurate. Believe me on this part. Maybe naval isn't historical accurate the rest of the game is.

There are no signs of reloading, there are no scabbards, there are no carrying straps for the rifles, there are no axe frogs, and there are no bayonet sheaths. In addition, the fact that EVERY solider has ALWAYS socket bayonet ALREADY mounted on their firearms. These were the visual parts, which could be seen from the trailers already.



Also if I see you guys your comments you haven't ever played it.

Not playing a game takes you the right to criticize and point out obvious mistakes? Good to know.



Like that you might not even judge a game serie you never played.

Oh, I have played Assassin’s Creed and I am proud to own the first part and Bloodlines. Regardless of the mistakes, the developers at least tried to invest some time in the game’s presentation. Moreover, they didn’t claimed historical authenticity on the first part or at least not in the extent of part 3.



If you would have played before you knew they do the most they can to make it historically accurate.

Yes and if they want to make a historical fiction it’s fine with me. But to heavily propagate historical accuracy and not delivering it is a completely different scenario.



Also in what movie do you see that they sail against the wind? I haven't saw it yet.

Please take a closer look at the waves.



But like i said before it's not an rpg or a simulation. If you can't sail against the wind the missions would become quite long. too long for most gamers especially because most of the AC gamers have followed the storyline and don't give much about ships.

There are plenty of ways to cope with tedious sequences like cutscenes, which show a chase in a cinematic style with a faster time progression.




If they would have loved ships they wouldn't have be playing AC. If they want a good game with a good storyline. With not much big mistakes.

It’s not just the naval part. There are also mistakes on the land part as well.



You guys are telling stuff from that's not historically accurate what I haven't heard about ever.

Please use google/books and try to gather some information if you don’t believe the said things.



But maybe it's added as a small addition so they wouldn't have asked for a specialist.

There are many good resources about ships and the mistakes on the land part are TYPICAL mistakes nearly every developer makes.



I could allready see it in the E3 presentation that it was realistic sailing but mentioned before that's not what the game is about. It's just about killing your enemies not about sailing.

Being an action-adventure with a historical accuracy claim does not justify to make visible and obvious mistakes in the presentation of the land/naval part of the game.



That's why they don't gonna make it perfect. the ships look nice like Hammie said. Most ppl would even know if the ships are historically completely accurate.

By claiming to be historical accurate, the aforementioned people will believe what they see and thus the developers are creating a false picture. And this is not good!! That's the way clichés are born.



And also I wonder when it's historically accurate? When a ship has a not completely correct rope ladder to climb in. Who sees that with not studying old ships for half a century?

There are many good books out there, so there shouldn't be any problem to get some information what are the main parts of the ship and the ship's rigging in a few hours/days. If you want to go deeper, it will take more time. However, you don't need to invest half a century in order to get the knowledge.

Nobody is asking to present the texture of the wood of the ship in that age. However, logical and obvious things HAVE TO be there, yet they aren't. And what's funny they concentrated on actually meaningless aspects like the correct weather on a certain day and intentionally ignored the obvious aspects. My assumption is, that they were simply lazy nothing more and nothing less. Please look at this video and you will hopefully understand.




I know you are crazy about ships but most ppl aren't why do you think pirate games start running worse and worse? just because ppl only wanna play nice games with or a very good multiplayer (COD,BF,GOW,ME,WOW) or a good singleplayer (Sleeping Dogs,AC) stuff like that.

I agree with you on this point. And I think this is a pity. Oh and I personally also love the aspects of historical land warfare as well.



Everyone who plays the game, everyone, will see the ships. They've made that very clear. It's absurd to assume otherwise; a false statistic conjured up to support a weak argument.
The rest of the game is not accurate. There are many other mistakes.
You've never played the game either, and you already seem to be billing it as the greatest AC game ever made.
They haven't done much at all to make the Naval aspect accurate. Nothing looks close to being right. Even the guns.
The yards remain squared, and the ships turn at least 180 degrees in at least one trailer. That's enough to make any square rigger move backwards.
It's not just the rigging that's wrong. Frankly, that was a stupid comment. (There is not a single rope ladder in a proper ship's rigging, by the way.) The hulls are wrong, the guns are wrong, the clothing is wrong, the hatches are wrong, the sails are wrong, the steering is wrong, the weapon handling is wrong, the boarding is wrong... I've made my point, I think.

Perfectly summarized. And we shouldn't forget the mistakes on the land parts as well ;)
 
I'm hoping to watch this video soon. Anyway, to me it sounds like they're developing a fun enough game and any naval aspects would be welcome.
The overdose of arcadey-ness is unfortunate, of course, but only to be expected based on the land-based action I've seen from that series before.
The sea part is probably fun enough, but I think the best we can hope for is that either:
a. They realise the potential in the concept and make another game that is focused more on the sea part and has more realism
b. Actual players who enjoy the game, but find the naval aspect lacking, will be searching for other sources to quench their thirst

Their E3 presentation proves that people DO have an interest in the conceptn (just listen to that applause upon the annoucement)
and the comments to the YouTube video of it proves that quite a few of them would not mind a bit more realism.
That's where we come in, eh!

In any case, I'm willing to give them credit for adding something like this to the game at all.
It may not be executed the way we would've done, but it's more than nothing.
It's unfortunate though that they're advertising with "historical realism".
They could've advertised with "exciting gameplay in a fictional historical setting" and I don't think their clientele would mind.
 
One thing I just watched that movie that Kamil posted. And what i make from that is that you can mostly blame their historicians on their teams if it's not historically accurate. They should be the ones who are telling the shit about ships and on the land. If they don't do that how could the producers know it's just plain fucked up. However I liked the first movie how he takes over the Helm and goes sailing himself is that a little bit the idea of the game that you guys are making?
 
Post Captain, Kamil, Silvertongue and Pieter, thanks mates! Before I left for work I almost posted a much different reply. Thanks for taking the time to reply properly and explain things much better than I could have, it is very much appreciated! :dance

Killerjoy96, if you wish to be taken seriously on this forum, you need to take the advise that these mates have given you above. Personally, I couldn't care less. I have tried on at least three different occasions to explain to you that I am not bashing the game it self. I am blasting Ubisoft for their pathetic PC marketing strategy's, this game is simply the latest to employ such marketing tactics.
 
Back
Top