AC:Unity etc.
So casting about for a game to play again, I went back and installed Assassins Creed: Unity - something that I picked up for free on Uplay (I think when the Notre Dame fire occurred). That came out before the AC series was really on my radar as "predictable, but still generally good games," so I missed it on release.
And it is... predictable, but still generally good?
I saw relatively few bugs (which were a big deal on release). The gameplay is pretty formulaic, which the free-running working a bit clunky now and then. I think that's improved in more recent iterations of the series. Similarly, I prefer the more modern hit box-based combat to the older auto-lock-on system on display in Unity. But it all works well enough.
Revolution-era Paris is a fine backdrop, though I'm a little surprised certain big-name figures aren't given more involvement in the story.
As for the story in specific... hmm... The bones are fine, but I wish it was fleshed out more. As with some other AC stories, it plays up the neigh-incestuous natural of the Assassin/Templar relationship, but it doesn't really do anything to explain why the local leaders are interested in working together (while some members retain strong biases against the other organization). I kind of like to see that, but I wanted to understand the reasons and they weren't presented (at least in the course of gameplay itself, maybe in text logs or something?).
I liked Arno fine as the protagonist. He's the son of an Assassin who, after his father dies, is taken in by a Templar family and falls for Elise, daughter of the household. He's a spoiled young nobleman when his adopted father is killed and the blame publicly falls on him. From there, he crosses paths with an Assassin who mentors him and he joins them in order to find his foster-father's killer. This unearths a split in the Templar faction, puts him at odds with both orders at various times, and reunites him with Elise in a quest for revenge. I like it, though I would have enjoyed it more if it didn't skip quite as much - I wanted to see more of the fallout of certain events on the central characters in the story.
All-in-all, not a bad ride of a roguish game.
There's been a recent social media blitz of Baldur's Gate 3 preview info. I've heard the term "alpha" used for the revealed gameplay, which makes it seem kind of early for this kind of push and I haven't actually seen a release date yet.
I have mixed feelings.
On the one hand, the study is pulling on knowledge from Divinity: Original Sin 2, which has a lot of benefits. The systems in that game were pretty good and a cut above a lot of isometric RPGs out there.
On the other hand, from all appearances it's leaning very heavily on that. While it's clearly set in the Forgotten Realms and illithids make a fine threat, it looks so much like D:OS2 that I wonder why it's being labeled a Baldur's Gate game at all. I'm sure it'll involve the city, but it doesn't (that I've seen yet) seem to tie in with the Bhaalspawn stories of the first two games.
My feeling right now is that it'll probably be a perfectly fine/good RPG, but shouldn't have been named Baldur's Gate.
And it is... predictable, but still generally good?
I saw relatively few bugs (which were a big deal on release). The gameplay is pretty formulaic, which the free-running working a bit clunky now and then. I think that's improved in more recent iterations of the series. Similarly, I prefer the more modern hit box-based combat to the older auto-lock-on system on display in Unity. But it all works well enough.
Revolution-era Paris is a fine backdrop, though I'm a little surprised certain big-name figures aren't given more involvement in the story.
As for the story in specific... hmm... The bones are fine, but I wish it was fleshed out more. As with some other AC stories, it plays up the neigh-incestuous natural of the Assassin/Templar relationship, but it doesn't really do anything to explain why the local leaders are interested in working together (while some members retain strong biases against the other organization). I kind of like to see that, but I wanted to understand the reasons and they weren't presented (at least in the course of gameplay itself, maybe in text logs or something?).
I liked Arno fine as the protagonist. He's the son of an Assassin who, after his father dies, is taken in by a Templar family and falls for Elise, daughter of the household. He's a spoiled young nobleman when his adopted father is killed and the blame publicly falls on him. From there, he crosses paths with an Assassin who mentors him and he joins them in order to find his foster-father's killer. This unearths a split in the Templar faction, puts him at odds with both orders at various times, and reunites him with Elise in a quest for revenge. I like it, though I would have enjoyed it more if it didn't skip quite as much - I wanted to see more of the fallout of certain events on the central characters in the story.
All-in-all, not a bad ride of a roguish game.
There's been a recent social media blitz of Baldur's Gate 3 preview info. I've heard the term "alpha" used for the revealed gameplay, which makes it seem kind of early for this kind of push and I haven't actually seen a release date yet.
I have mixed feelings.
On the one hand, the study is pulling on knowledge from Divinity: Original Sin 2, which has a lot of benefits. The systems in that game were pretty good and a cut above a lot of isometric RPGs out there.
On the other hand, from all appearances it's leaning very heavily on that. While it's clearly set in the Forgotten Realms and illithids make a fine threat, it looks so much like D:OS2 that I wonder why it's being labeled a Baldur's Gate game at all. I'm sure it'll involve the city, but it doesn't (that I've seen yet) seem to tie in with the Bhaalspawn stories of the first two games.
My feeling right now is that it'll probably be a perfectly fine/good RPG, but shouldn't have been named Baldur's Gate.
Comments
Post a Comment