Jump to content

Talk:Assassin's Creed (video game)/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Separate sections for pointless trivia?

I was skimming through the page and noticed that there were separate sections for simple matters of trivia such as the cameo in Grand Theft Auto IV and Metal Gear Solid 4. It's debatable whether or not this should be in the page at all let alone have it's own section for each game! I don't need the Be Bold statement from you people - I'm not here to edit the site as much as I used to - just the primary editors of the page: debate whether or not this deserves to be here! --Bentendo24 (talk) 05:04, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a list of miscellaneous trivia, as you put it, but rather a list of References in other media, as it is clearly titled, and so yes, it does deserve to be on the Assassin's Creed page.--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Teaser Trailer / Download

At the end of the teaser trailer if you click on the symbol a .pdf download will start, on the .pdf the logo will appear again. With a set of instructions say, TO LOAD CORRESPONDING MEMORY FRAGMENT: 1. PRINT ARTIFACT SYMBOL. 2. LOCATE WELL LIT WORK AREA. 3. ACTIVATE LOCAL WEBCAM. 4. INITIATE VIRTUAL INTERFACE. 5. DETERMINE MATCHING PARTITION. I think that should be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by O.neill.kid (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

If anything, the only thing that needs mentioning is the .pdf link. The instructions aren't necessary. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 19:24, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Creating a page for the sequel

Yes, I think it's about time for that, now. Especially since we know there will be many new details coming in the next issue of Game Informer.--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 16:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, we won't know more until the 16th, so I think it should stay as it is until that time. When (or even if) we know more, then we can re-considering splitting this content off into another article. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 16:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually there are plenty of info already all over the Internet. The Italian page has been created already. You may check http://www.destructoid.com/first-info-on-assassin-s-creed-2-glides-on-to-the-net-128198.phtml#ext —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.160.31.133 (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, most of the information that is currently being released are rumors from secondary sources though however reliable these sources are we should hold out until more officialy confirmed information from Ubisoft is released.TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It's time for a separate article about AC2, we already have plenty of information from Game Informer article, a press release and different news articles are just a matter of time. 89.78.155.151 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
What Game Informer article? Nobody has yet actually provided a link to said article, and that date states 16 April so we (probably) won't know anything more until then. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:37, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I support the creation of a new article. The current section on the sequel here has six sources; it's well enough for a new article. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I also agree, it's only a matter of time before even more detailed information is released; there is enough at the moment and it may make it easier to organize information XJonneh (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen a few articles started with even less official info. By the way, here's the Game Informer teaser about it's upcoming issue: [1]. =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 03:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, I saw that in a Brazilian game site. I think that there's enough information about the game. And the game the already has it's official website. –Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 05:08, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, time for a new article. Also there was a video releasing shots from the mag. I put it on the article. (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.99.188 (talk)

"I've seen a few articles started with even less official info" - but did they actually stay there? And a teaser site isn't really an official site - it doesn't really give us any kind of information about the game. There is no harm in waiting until the Game Informer article comes out (it's only another 5 days!) and then creating a new article based on that. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:35, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Battlefield 1943, Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell: Conviction, Mass Effect 2, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, BioShock 2, and Modern Warfare 2 are a few. No one even knows what consoles MW2 will be released on or any story details, but the article's been up ever since the trailer for it came out. With BioShock 2, the developer keeps changing the title every other week, but there's still an article. Do you have to be so pessimistic about this? We have sourceable story details for AC2, the teaser trailer's out, there's a website; sure it's not very much, but if it can all be sourced then what is the problem? =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 18:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
If you wanna go for it, go for it - I'm not going to stop anyone starting the article. I just think it would be better to wait a few days until we have more confirmed details and then start it. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There is more than that. ScrewAttack, the site where the "rumor" originated, even has a game play video leaked: http://www.ScrewAttack.com/HardNews/041009. They must have a very good insider for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.160.31.98 (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I've seen video game pages form with less information then what we have on AC2.--67.34.181.210 (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Who deleted the AC2 page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.99.188 (talk) 05:48, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It was redirected (and locked) by an admin per this AfD discussion. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 06:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least please someone remove that reference to a "Family Feud" (that even points to a stupid tv show). What's a "Family Feud" anyway? There was not such a thing in Venice. That has been causing already enough confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.160.141.223 (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I got the new GI. The family feud is basically like GodFather style feuds. In the ame Ezio is part of the Auditore family but after they're slaughtered he seeks revenge by killing members of the other families. Some families it listed are also the Pazzi and Medici. Anyway with the new GI we should get a new page for it so we can upload this stuff.--67.34.181.210 (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at I am Alive Assassin's Creed 2 has a magazine, 20 plus pictures, a teaser, a video, a forum, puzzles released by Ubisoft, and more. I think that is enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.99.188 (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I am tired of editing the article with relevant information, only for some inconsiderate bigot to erase what I have written. For example, Ezio's full name and what happens when you follow the instructions after the AC2 teaser. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.166.233 (talk) 00:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the teaser stuff is relevant to the game itself. Anyway, it doesn't matter now, someone locked out the Assassin's Creed 2 article so it can't be expanded. I don't know how to get it unlocked, so I guess my new issue of Game Informer is pretty much useless here. This is ridiculous, an anyone get the page unlocked and get the article started? =/= Ironoclast (Talk) 18:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
An administrator protected it based on an AfD that concluded it should be redirected to this article. If you think there is enough evidence to justify a new article being created, then you can take it to deletion review, and they'll consider whether it should be restored or unprotected.
The AfD in question is located here, and I suspect you'll need to link to it when you submit your deletion review. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 18:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Split it. We've got magazine scans and multiple screenshots, as well as a lot of concrete information about the game. There's no reason not to. Shadic (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Take it to DRV then! ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 21:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. There is enough information about the sequel to be put into a new article. If the admin who locked the article (probably some dork gamer) had any sense, he would have the balls to come here and present HIS OWN case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.166.233 (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Plot/ending section

There is far too much content in the plot section as it is. Does anyone agree that the ending part with stuff on the wall and etc should have it's own section to better fit policies and keep thte plot section on topic? 12.73.22.65 (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That info is also potentially a spoiler. Definitely should be moved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.251.93 (talk) 22:46, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Sequel Page Vote

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was article now has separate page "Assassin's Creed II.--SkyWalker (talk) 15:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Although we all agree AC2 deserves it's own page, we need to put it to a vote. (please only vote once and sign votes using four '~')

I vote Split GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Split now! 67.191.166.233 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Theres more information available for this game than some that already have a page including actual changes to the gameplay. Just do it.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's been locked by an administrator and a vote will help unlock it. So please put your vote in. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 23:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Split — Pictures speak ten thousand words. --SkyWalker (talk) 23:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Split Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Split I don't understand why people are SO reluctant to create a new article, even if the article is a short stub ! hahaha Short articles certainly don't bother me !--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Split. We've got magazine scans and multiple screenshots, as well as a lot of concrete information about the game. There's no reason not to. Shadic (talk) 01:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Split Lots of info —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.99.188 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Split There's enough info, and the game already has it's own website. –Nickin/ShifterBr (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The vote won't help unprotect the page. WP:VOTE shows that article voting is discouraged in favour of discussion (which I believe has already been done in the above section, despite some personal attacks by various editors). As I've already said several times, the way to get the other article unprotected is to take it to DRV. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and even if this vote wasn't technically null and void, GroundZ3R0 002 would have technically made it so by canvassing certain users to get them to vote. The language used was biased (encouraging voting) and it appears that they only contacted people who would vote split. This not allowed by Wikipedia rules. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I came here after responding to an editprotected request at Talk:Assassin's Creed 2. Since it has been through an AfD, I would suggest the following:

  • Discuss with the closing admin User:MBisanz first
  • If you fail to reach a satisfactory outcome, then JGXenite is correct: WP:DRV is the venue.

— Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Split, definitely. There's even a release date, and a shitload of screens —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.108.51 (talk) 14:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Godawful Save System

Are there any sources complaining about the save system? I only ask because I just encountered a totally preventable (on their part) flaw in the system. Here's an e-mail I wrote to OXM UK:

E-mail

There are so many faults I could find with Assassin’s Creed. Why can I do all this cool stuff at the beginning of the game only to have my weapons and skills taken away from me? Anyone who plans to live through their first swordfight has to know how to dodge. Why is this ability sucked from Altair’s brain simply because he was demoted?

So many, many faults. How the game is packed full with ridiculous game mechanics like the one above. How I can’t explore an entire city right from the start thanks to large blue barriers that completely destroy my suspension of disbelief. How only Dead Rising beats this game for the unreadability of tiny text on my ancient standard definition TV. How I can’t skip cutscenes full of badly-modelled, badly-animated people spouting badly-written lines of ‘dialogue’ at each other no matter how many times I’ve heard the nonsense before. How Altair, supposedly an elite assassin, can drown in any body of water more than a foot deep. How there are absolutely no subtitles in the game, forcing hearing impaired gamers to play it with no knowledge about what the heck is going on. How Altair and Desmond handle incredibly awkwardly when moving slowly (which is all Desmond can do). But do you know what really, really ticks me off? The save system.

One savegame. That’s it. That system should have died out a century ago. RPGs are the only game genre that has even the slightest excuse for this (so that you can’t simply reload and see what might have been) but Assassin’s Creed is hardly an RPG. “Saving – please don’t turn off your Xbox console.” Yeah, well, power cuts don’t tend to give you a warning, do they? If you experience one while saving, well, tough luck, mate, start the whole game over again because an event entirely out of your control just corrupted your one and only savegame. However, while that has happened to me before, that wasn’t what happened this time. If that had happened, I would have been far more accepting of it. This time, I switched the console off. I waited for a few seconds to make sure that it had finished saving, then turned the game off to go and do something else. I’d restarted the game about a week beforehand to rewatch the Desmond conversations (another fault of the one save system, forcing you to restart everything if you want to better understand the plot) and had done everything up to that point (even wasting my time with the flags for the achievements). I’d just killed Robert de Sable and chatted with King Richard for a bit. When the scene ended, I was going to be kicked out of the Animus. The game saved just before that happened, though, and so I quit then and there.

I boot up the Xbox again later that day. I’m back at the beginning of Arsul and I wait for the Animus to turn off and to put me in control of Desmond again. And I wait. And I wait. And I wait some more. Damn it. I run down to wear Robert was, expecting the game to want me to kill him again. Something’s wrong. There are no enemies (barring those just outside the map). I get to Robert’s deathplace. There’s no-one there. Invisible walls block my path onwards. Damn it. So I turn around, decide to head back to Masyaf. One of those damn blue barriers stops me with an arrogant “Subject cannot access memory at this time” message. Damn it! I spend the next hour or so trying to figure out how I can fix this problem. There’s only one solution I know of: restart the entire game. *insert swear word of your choice here*

What kind of a moronic game designer lets you save into a position where you absolutely cannot continue? This is not a bug, this is simply sheer stupidity. This may have been acceptable back in the days when games were taking their first unsteady steps, but nowadays it should be punishable by not being allowed to design a game ever again. I was looking forward to Assassin’s Creed II, I really was. It wasn’t the top priority on my list, but it was close. Now I’m not sure. I’m not naïve enough to think that one sale is going to impact Ubisoft’s coffers in the slightest; I simply don’t know if I actually want to buy the game. I don’t even know if I want to replay the original. Thanks a lot, Assassin’s Creed developers. I enjoyed your game, once. It was fun and I was aiming to have one hundred percent completion on it. Now I’m trying to decide if I ever want to touch it again. Good job, well done.

Sorry about ranting at you, OXM. I know you’ll never fit this onto the letters page without cutting out at least three-quarters of the content, but I just needed to get this off my chest.

Has anyone else encountered this and commented about it on a reliable source? --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 10:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

switches to Desmond a "glitch"? what?

In the Plot section, it says that the game is primarily in Altair's point of view, while switching to Desmond occassionally due to glitches. So I repeat: what? This is referring to two possible things:

1) Desmond not being able to access Altair's "final memory" of the event the Templars want. Which is possibly a glitch, but it can also be explained by the fact that Desmond can't access it, or he can't handle all that information: remember, Desmond wasn't really trained to be an assassin, or at least the "hard core" stuff Altair or Ezio had. Not to mention the sensory overload the Animus must cause.
2) Switching back to Desmond and him going to sleep; not a glitch at all. Lucy was stalling to try and possibly save Desmond's life. I don't see how thats a glitch?

Thanks for your time. -- 24.77.74.248 (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Changed to "The game then primarily takes Altaïr's point-of-view, with occasional swaps to Desmond when he exits the "Animus"." BlazerKnight (talk) 07:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I changed it back and just noticed this now. I think I would have changed back regardless. There were glitches were in the Animus that caused it to breakdown a few times, remember? I think Lucy hinted somewhere that they were put in by her on purpose, but they're still glitches. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 10:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
He is forced to exit the Animus during (Lucy's planned) breakdowns, but he also exits them at the end of the day and when the player prompts him to. I would say that merits the change in wording. BlazerKnight (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hmm... okay. Revert me at will. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 21:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

La-Ahad or Al-Ahad?

The name is Altair ibn La-Ahad or Ibn Al-Ahad. La-Ahad is VERY uncommon in Arabic language.There must be an error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor6 (talk • contribs) 14:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Just because it's uncommon doesn't mean it's not the actual name and that is perverse logic. Anyway, it took me a five second trip to the manual to confirm that it is La-Ahad. --ThejadefalconSing your songThe bird's seeds 14:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is la-ahad. if you read the treanslation of his name it is "the flying one, son of none" altair means the flying one, ibn means son of, la means no, and ahad means person. so it makes sense that altair ibn la ahad means the flying one son of none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.192.128 (talk) 22:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Character of Al-Mua'lim

Who ever said that Al-Mualim is in fact the same Rashid ad-Din Sinan? Although Rashid Al-din Sinan was contemporary to the 3rd crusade and his fortress was in Masyaf, they say "The game places Alamut in a location other than Iran, perhaps in Masyaf, which might justify the travel time within the game. ...It is not clear whether Al-mualim is Hassan-i Sabbah ([The Iranian leader of the order of Assassins])..." http://journals.sfu.ca/loading/index.php/loading/article/viewFile/51/46 The case is different from Robert de Sable, that they used his real name in the game. They wanted us to know who he is. But there has never been any Al-Mu'alim in history, they don't want us to think that AlMualim is RashidaDin Sinan! So how is it that in the article you gave us a link of Sinan --Hame fan harif (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Assassin's Creed (series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 11:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved per discussion. - GTBacchus(talk) 16:30, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


Assassin's Creed (video game) → Assassin's Creed –

  • And the existing Assassin's Creed to Assassin's Creed (series). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • SimCity follows same convenient. SimCity (series) for the series and SimCity for the first game. (I've moved Assassin's Creed to Assassin's Creed (series)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brightgalrs (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose That is actually contrary to many video game articles and several previous consensuses. The Legend of Zelda, Final Fantasy, ect. In fact video ganme naming cnvesntion also states If a video game series has a naming conflict solely with the first game in the series (e.g., Final Fantasy), the series page should reside at the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Otherwise, the first game in the series should occupy the primary name, and the series article should be disambiguated with "... (series)". That seems to be the case here. Also the move of the series article has already been reverted by another user for that reason. Finally, the series page was at in fact at (series) previously but was moved last December after a successful and strongly supported move request and I am not aware of any changes since then to overturn that.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 22:37, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • If anything the Sim City articles should be moved.--76.66.188.209 (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • And I'll note that one of the opposers of the previous move consensus in December was the one to take care of the {{db-g6}}. SimCity is the game and series incorrectly named per the VG guidelines and should indeed be renamed. --Izno (talk) 23:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that Assassin's Creed is a franchise (multiple media outlets) while Sim City is just a video game series (I think there was a card game, it's been a while). More importantly, Sim City the first game is likely more recognized than Sim City the series. AC on the other hand clearly is more likely to be taken as the franchise than the first game, so this suggested move is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Assassin%27s_Creed_(video_game)/Archive_5&oldid=1253376713"