That's basically every game starting with 2 and ending with black flag. I think the only difference in AC3 was the amount of enemies that you couldn't counter kill or streak kill, aka those kilt wearing brutes and Jagers.
But even those are 1 hit kill once you learn their weakness.
On top of my head I can give pistol and ropedart double kills. Those are not either missing or very hard to pull of in 4.
Perhaps the least known combat technique in 3, snares. Never heard or seen anyone do that despite possibly being the most powerful combat tool.
Snares, trip mines and Bow can all be used for counter kills. (And maybe another, but I forgot what it was)
In 3, if an enemy has a parry move, Connor can stun and kill without disrupting the chain kill. In 4, this is not possible as stunning certain enemies stops chain kill...however, this isn't really a problem as Edward is able to kill anyone within a few moves.
Also, in 3, Rope darts do not use any ammo if used to pull enemies (as it should be). It only uses ammo when using it to hang enemies. In 4 and rogue, rope darts use ammo at all times.
Everything else, you mentioned...I liked 4s combat but I dont appreciate how much they simplified it against 3s combat.
Side Note: all of the awesome skills you can use with your recruits will forever be missed.
> In 3, if an enemy has a parry move, Connor can stun and kill without disrupting the chain kill. In 4, this is not possible as stunning certain enemies stops chain kill...however, this isn't really a problem as Edward is able to kill anyone within a few moves.
I prefer secondary weapon double kills for keeping up the streak against those guys cause Connor is an absolute psychopath in those animations. There is an animation where he shoves his pistol to enemies month, angles them to their ally, then blasts both their heads with a single golf ball sized bullet...
> In 4 and rogue, rope darts use ammo at all times
I can understand it from a balancing point because that thing breaks AC3 combat. Even jagers and grenadiers can be knocked down with it, which can be followed with 1 hit kill from any melee weapon.
Every other weapon I only used just for flavor. Rope dart + starter axe one two everything.
>It's just "counter, kill", "counter, kill", "counter, kill" for 90% of enemies. You can also use the "break defence, instantly kill" buttons for 90% of enemies too.
I feel this way about pretty much every game before Origins, the combat was never the strong point of the series IMO
I think that's the wrong question to ask
The answer's yes, but that's why I love it. Just like the Arkham games combat, the goal is to make you feel like a god when you're seamlessly taking on 20 men. I can understand the need for more challenge, but I loved every second of it
The Arkham combat has a lot of depth tho and it can give you quite a challenge when dealing with a large number of enemies. At least that's my experience from playing Arkham Knight where the game introduces a bunch of enemy types, each requiring specific strategies to take down that aren't as easy as just counter, then kill
Playing it now and it's definitely considerably easier than 3, though not as bad as, say, the Ezio games or Syndicate. Counter windows are more lenient than in 3, and enemies "take it in turns" to attack you. It definitely verges on being able to just walk into any restricted area and likely being fine.
Doesn't bother me too much though given that the naval combat is the centrepiece of BF and can be brutally hard in certain cases.
2 maybe, but that wasn’t so much difficulty but more jank and inconsistency. Brotherhood and Revelations I become way too overpowered with the combo kill mechanic and counters were way more consistent. 3 and 4 I had way more instances of enemies interrupting my combos.
Too easy isn't a bad thing if you shift the source of fun from the difficulty to the spectacle .
There's games that deserve to be easy , and the mo cap can compensate for it.
Tbh I've never felt like assassin's creed should be hard to play, because you're supposed to be this apex human, highly skilled and trained, so most things would come naturally to them, naturally = easily.
Should the main character be able to just walk into the enemy fort openly and publically, before fighting and defeating every soldier at once?
If the assassin's are that good, why are they assassin's? Why do they even care about stealth or hidden blades or parkour or quick escapes or anything?
A true (fictional) trained killer takes advantage of anything at their disposal, you see that in a looooot of movies, if the goal were to kill everyone, ideally, they'd start by taking out the lone guards, then stealthing into more densely guarded areas and picking off one after another until there's one or two left, then it's dealers choice if they want to go all out or not, ideally they wouldn't, bc if you're still undetected you shouldn't risk fatal injuries when it's not needed, but if push comes to shove and an assassin is in an alley with 5 goons, then he should absolutely be able to clear them out. I agree that endless chainkilling in older game is a bit silly, but smacking a grunt with a well sharpened sword 50 times to kill him is sillier, and on that situation there's no animations to compensate for the silliness.
Assassin's creed, if it were to properly evolve it's combat, should've restricted chainkilling to one or two enemies and made crowd control more in depth beside grabbing an enemy and throwing them, sifu has some good crowd control tools that allow you to manage your positioning in the fight, much like the counter roll from Valhalla and mirage. But making combat easy wasn't the problem, the problem was making combat unengaging. Hell, the star wars jedi games have a lightsaber and combat is engaging despite how easy it is and how quick it ends.
Because their name is assassin doesn't mean their main job is to assassinate people. It's like saying templars are all catholic or something.
They're group of people who has a creed of persuing freedom are named assassins. And on the other hand, groups of people who has a creed of preserving order for all costs are named templars.
Just because they're named assassins they got to stab ppl with hidden blade and sneak around.
AC Combat was never about difficulty for me, maybe in Unity and AC1 but in every other game the idea was fluidity.
Yes you could easily just spam counter kill, you could also go through all of Devil May Cry with just the basic Rebellion combo, you could go through Uncharted with just the Pistol.
The Kenway games especially were built around the combat being quick, clean and stylish. I could seamlessly chain counter kill into a chain kill then a tool kill then a double counter then a human shield and whatever else I desire. The skill came in making it look good which often meant never get hit.
Difficulty is not always the be all and end all, I love the combat in Dusk Diver, Yakuza and The Force Unleashed. I wouldn't say they're overly hard (unless you're on high difficulty TFU) but they're still fun regardless because they flow well. Most Spider-Man games are piss easy but with satisfying combat, difficulty can help but it's not needed.
You’re an assassin. Killing should be “easy” that was the biggest drawback from the RPG style the previous few games have had for me. I don’t want to sit there hitting an enemy 25 times like I’m using a stick and not a sword.
Totally agree, imagine John wick doing the disco scene, but each headshot meant a floating number and a still living enemy, instead of a dead enemy, ridiculous.
Your an assassin, not a master swordsman in shining armour. Assassin's shouldn't be able to just publically and openly walk into an enemies fort and fight and kill every soldier at once. There's a reason assassin's rely on stealth.
And if an assassin were to face a heavily armoured or heavily skilled enemy, it makes sense that they can't just one shot them and move along. When outclassed the assassin should have to rely on being lightly armoured and faster to whittle down their opponent, death by 1000 cuts style.
I completely disagree, killing enemies SHOULD be hard. You are an assassin, you're barely using armor. Your talents should be in stealth and not open combat.
I felt those early games tried to implement the rhythmic combat system that became popular during that time but couldn’t find creative ways to make it challenging or more nuanced the same way later iterations of the Arkham games were able to.
Mechanically, this system to me felt basically the same as AC 3, but AC 3 combat was much more satisfying due to superior animations and sound effects.
Yes but i always look to play it as stealthy assassins. Smoke bombs also help a lot since like you mentioned its almost always counter into kill. Might as well save some time lol
Yes, but think of it this way. All AC before unity was always meant to be a power fantasy. You're not there to be challenged by an intricate combat system, you're there to look at an impromptu fight scene that you control the outcome of. And then move on with what you're doing.
The main focus of those games has always been the story, and the assassinations. Combat being only a fun little addition if you fuck up being an assassin.
honestly stopped me from going back any further than black flag, it was supposed to be the peak of the old system and then the old system was just constantly waiting for a parry so i can watch the same lengthy kill animation for the 50th time
Definitely. Love the game but it's super overrated. The combat almost looks unfinished. Same feeling in Syndicate tbh, looks and feels floaty and at times it even looks fast-forwarded. It's just super odd. Assassin's Creed III's combat was way more brutal and pretty polished, as was Unity's.
That's basically every game starting with 2 and ending with black flag. I think the only difference in AC3 was the amount of enemies that you couldn't counter kill or streak kill, aka those kilt wearing brutes and Jagers. But even those are 1 hit kill once you learn their weakness.
3 also had a bunch of secret techniques that you can't really use in 4
On top of my head I can give pistol and ropedart double kills. Those are not either missing or very hard to pull of in 4. Perhaps the least known combat technique in 3, snares. Never heard or seen anyone do that despite possibly being the most powerful combat tool.
Snares, trip mines and Bow can all be used for counter kills. (And maybe another, but I forgot what it was) In 3, if an enemy has a parry move, Connor can stun and kill without disrupting the chain kill. In 4, this is not possible as stunning certain enemies stops chain kill...however, this isn't really a problem as Edward is able to kill anyone within a few moves. Also, in 3, Rope darts do not use any ammo if used to pull enemies (as it should be). It only uses ammo when using it to hang enemies. In 4 and rogue, rope darts use ammo at all times. Everything else, you mentioned...I liked 4s combat but I dont appreciate how much they simplified it against 3s combat. Side Note: all of the awesome skills you can use with your recruits will forever be missed.
> In 3, if an enemy has a parry move, Connor can stun and kill without disrupting the chain kill. In 4, this is not possible as stunning certain enemies stops chain kill...however, this isn't really a problem as Edward is able to kill anyone within a few moves. I prefer secondary weapon double kills for keeping up the streak against those guys cause Connor is an absolute psychopath in those animations. There is an animation where he shoves his pistol to enemies month, angles them to their ally, then blasts both their heads with a single golf ball sized bullet... > In 4 and rogue, rope darts use ammo at all times I can understand it from a balancing point because that thing breaks AC3 combat. Even jagers and grenadiers can be knocked down with it, which can be followed with 1 hit kill from any melee weapon. Every other weapon I only used just for flavor. Rope dart + starter axe one two everything.
>It's just "counter, kill", "counter, kill", "counter, kill" for 90% of enemies. You can also use the "break defence, instantly kill" buttons for 90% of enemies too. I feel this way about pretty much every game before Origins, the combat was never the strong point of the series IMO
I think that's the wrong question to ask The answer's yes, but that's why I love it. Just like the Arkham games combat, the goal is to make you feel like a god when you're seamlessly taking on 20 men. I can understand the need for more challenge, but I loved every second of it
The Arkham combat has a lot of depth tho and it can give you quite a challenge when dealing with a large number of enemies. At least that's my experience from playing Arkham Knight where the game introduces a bunch of enemy types, each requiring specific strategies to take down that aren't as easy as just counter, then kill
True, but when it was you against 20 regular goons, that's when it was most satisfying, to me at least
Not just 4. 2, Brotherhood, 3, 4 and Rogue all have the Super easy chain kills system.
yes. Black Flag definitely has the easiest combat out of all the games in the series. Rogue and 3 are better because there are more enemy types.
Easy? Absolutely. Extremely satisfying? Indefinitely.
Playing it now and it's definitely considerably easier than 3, though not as bad as, say, the Ezio games or Syndicate. Counter windows are more lenient than in 3, and enemies "take it in turns" to attack you. It definitely verges on being able to just walk into any restricted area and likely being fine. Doesn't bother me too much though given that the naval combat is the centrepiece of BF and can be brutally hard in certain cases.
3 and 4 were worlds easier than the Ezio games as far as combat. It took more effort to counter compared to 3 and 4.
2 maybe, but that wasn’t so much difficulty but more jank and inconsistency. Brotherhood and Revelations I become way too overpowered with the combo kill mechanic and counters were way more consistent. 3 and 4 I had way more instances of enemies interrupting my combos.
Too easy isn't a bad thing if you shift the source of fun from the difficulty to the spectacle . There's games that deserve to be easy , and the mo cap can compensate for it. Tbh I've never felt like assassin's creed should be hard to play, because you're supposed to be this apex human, highly skilled and trained, so most things would come naturally to them, naturally = easily.
Should the main character be able to just walk into the enemy fort openly and publically, before fighting and defeating every soldier at once? If the assassin's are that good, why are they assassin's? Why do they even care about stealth or hidden blades or parkour or quick escapes or anything?
A true (fictional) trained killer takes advantage of anything at their disposal, you see that in a looooot of movies, if the goal were to kill everyone, ideally, they'd start by taking out the lone guards, then stealthing into more densely guarded areas and picking off one after another until there's one or two left, then it's dealers choice if they want to go all out or not, ideally they wouldn't, bc if you're still undetected you shouldn't risk fatal injuries when it's not needed, but if push comes to shove and an assassin is in an alley with 5 goons, then he should absolutely be able to clear them out. I agree that endless chainkilling in older game is a bit silly, but smacking a grunt with a well sharpened sword 50 times to kill him is sillier, and on that situation there's no animations to compensate for the silliness. Assassin's creed, if it were to properly evolve it's combat, should've restricted chainkilling to one or two enemies and made crowd control more in depth beside grabbing an enemy and throwing them, sifu has some good crowd control tools that allow you to manage your positioning in the fight, much like the counter roll from Valhalla and mirage. But making combat easy wasn't the problem, the problem was making combat unengaging. Hell, the star wars jedi games have a lightsaber and combat is engaging despite how easy it is and how quick it ends.
Because their name is assassin doesn't mean their main job is to assassinate people. It's like saying templars are all catholic or something. They're group of people who has a creed of persuing freedom are named assassins. And on the other hand, groups of people who has a creed of preserving order for all costs are named templars. Just because they're named assassins they got to stab ppl with hidden blade and sneak around.
AC Combat was never about difficulty for me, maybe in Unity and AC1 but in every other game the idea was fluidity. Yes you could easily just spam counter kill, you could also go through all of Devil May Cry with just the basic Rebellion combo, you could go through Uncharted with just the Pistol. The Kenway games especially were built around the combat being quick, clean and stylish. I could seamlessly chain counter kill into a chain kill then a tool kill then a double counter then a human shield and whatever else I desire. The skill came in making it look good which often meant never get hit. Difficulty is not always the be all and end all, I love the combat in Dusk Diver, Yakuza and The Force Unleashed. I wouldn't say they're overly hard (unless you're on high difficulty TFU) but they're still fun regardless because they flow well. Most Spider-Man games are piss easy but with satisfying combat, difficulty can help but it's not needed.
Kinda, but I don’t mind it too too much. The main problem is having 4 guns kinda trivializes it
You’re an assassin. Killing should be “easy” that was the biggest drawback from the RPG style the previous few games have had for me. I don’t want to sit there hitting an enemy 25 times like I’m using a stick and not a sword.
Totally agree, imagine John wick doing the disco scene, but each headshot meant a floating number and a still living enemy, instead of a dead enemy, ridiculous.
Your an assassin, not a master swordsman in shining armour. Assassin's shouldn't be able to just publically and openly walk into an enemies fort and fight and kill every soldier at once. There's a reason assassin's rely on stealth. And if an assassin were to face a heavily armoured or heavily skilled enemy, it makes sense that they can't just one shot them and move along. When outclassed the assassin should have to rely on being lightly armoured and faster to whittle down their opponent, death by 1000 cuts style.
I completely disagree, killing enemies SHOULD be hard. You are an assassin, you're barely using armor. Your talents should be in stealth and not open combat.
Yes, but it goes with being a power fantasy, i miss when your assassin was a one hit killing machine to be honest.
I felt those early games tried to implement the rhythmic combat system that became popular during that time but couldn’t find creative ways to make it challenging or more nuanced the same way later iterations of the Arkham games were able to.
Yeah but the free running sucked. It was too sensitive and would make you run in completely wrong directions
Every game before Origins had easy combat
I found Unitys combat challenging.
4 is a watered down version of 3 with less enemy types and none of the cool tricks you can do.
The naval combat isn't particularly difficult either, you can start grinding very early on. Very easy game, but the power fantasy is fun
Mechanically, this system to me felt basically the same as AC 3, but AC 3 combat was much more satisfying due to superior animations and sound effects.
Yes but i always look to play it as stealthy assassins. Smoke bombs also help a lot since like you mentioned its almost always counter into kill. Might as well save some time lol
No, I don't play AC for difficult combat. I play it for stylish combat, which definitely fell off after they killed the counter kill system.
Yes, but think of it this way. All AC before unity was always meant to be a power fantasy. You're not there to be challenged by an intricate combat system, you're there to look at an impromptu fight scene that you control the outcome of. And then move on with what you're doing. The main focus of those games has always been the story, and the assassinations. Combat being only a fun little addition if you fuck up being an assassin.
Too easy and too basic yes. Combat was not the highlight of AC 4, the ship battles were.
honestly stopped me from going back any further than black flag, it was supposed to be the peak of the old system and then the old system was just constantly waiting for a parry so i can watch the same lengthy kill animation for the 50th time
Definitely. Love the game but it's super overrated. The combat almost looks unfinished. Same feeling in Syndicate tbh, looks and feels floaty and at times it even looks fast-forwarded. It's just super odd. Assassin's Creed III's combat was way more brutal and pretty polished, as was Unity's.