'real jank', just because the games aren't fucking Minority Report doesn't mean they don't have janky elements.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
AC: Origins plays the way people accuse Witcher 3 of playing
- Thread starter Yasuke
- Start date
'real jank', just because the games aren't fucking Minority Report doesn't mean they don't have janky elements.
The way they're built into the world as well as
You say that as if you literally don't have the option to go into an unknown situation, adapt, and make it out without alerting anyone, both are valid options in the game, and both work as they should.
You mean the right series that before AC4, was so intensely linear that they had a final chase mission that had to be patched multiple times due to how much the player had to memorize the layout in order to succeed? Or design decisions like not having the ability to manually aim projectiles? Or that didn't control anywhere near as well as Origins?
Again, you're only ever required to use it in order to locate the main objective, and that's if you choose to leave the HUD on.
AC:O as a stealth game is way better designed than the previous games which were incredibly limiting in terms of how they're mechanics, (and especially how those mechanics blended together), allowed for a methodical and seamless approach to any given scenario. Even the decision to flag almost 100% of the game's geometry as climbable opens up way more possibilites than what was previously possible.
One of the most common sentiments of the game is how quickly and easily you can get overwhelmed by enemy combatants in large numbers due to the aggressiveness and variety. Especially early on as you don't have an arsenal of weapons with status effects, equipment, upgraded armor and more combat moves. Early on, it's hella easy to get killed if you don't take the careful approach. And the game is better for it, playing Origins compared to the past AC games is not and day not just down to input response but also how easily you switch between modes of play, That's what makes it a satisfying experience, is that every approach is not only viable, but much more polished and well integrated with each other and the world of the game itself. than the past titles. There are elements in this game that have no right to work as well as they do.
With past AC titles, I could absolutely never dream of doing something like, getting a target that's on a heavily guarded boat, creeping up with a smaller boat, jumping into the water and striking the side of the boat with my sword to create a sound distraction, diving underneath the boat while the guards check on the noise, and assassinating my target before swiftly diving back into the water and making a clean escape before the guards knew what was up.
Last edited:
By this threads definition every game has some jank. No, that's not how it works...and I don't know what you're talking about with Minority Report.
You do have that option, but not without the dumb bird being shoved down your throat. I don't even want to acknowledge its existence, so why does the game insist, exactly? Right, because they want you to use it. It was even built with the stupid bird in mind, as you've said.
What does this have to do like at all with what I said? AC4 is a shitty Assassin's Creed game, great game about pirates though. Funny that AC4 and Origins were made by the same team considering they both eat just about the same amount of shit.
How many times do I have to say the same thing, exactly? It's like talking to a brick wall.
It also has the benefit of blatantly cribbing the design of a better game that came before it. A luxury that AC1-3 never had. Even then, Origins couldn't even do that shit right. I don't care if I can climb every surface in the game, what's my reward for doing so, exactly? A nice view? So many possibilities, yet none of the opportunities were taken to make something meaningful. Gotta get working on churning out the next one.
The combat sucks, plain and simple. I'm not going to write a paragraph about it because it feels and looks like shit. The end. You can feel free to like that, I couldn't bear it. At least the previous games had the luxury of being able to get through it quickly right from the start.
The wonders of time and innovation. Amazing stuff.
The bird literally only ever asks you to get the MAIN objective. Senu never is required for anything more than that.
AC4 has better stealth gameplay than all the AC games that came before it. From the return of wider level design to just QoL features like being able to manually aim ranged weapons. It seems you have a very strict view of what an AC game is supposed to be and I'm glad the devs disagree.
You keep saying the game shoves it down your throat when the only time it appears is when you are close to any given objectives.
The verticality aspect of Origins is unique to AC unless you think they came up with that when BOTW was shown at e3. Hell even the systemic elements are directly inspired by Ubisoft's other titles like Far Cry and Watch Dogs, on top of being the culmination of the things they've been talking about game design wise since this gen started.
Besides being much more mobile than your enemies? Besides being an explicit way to encourage exploration and emphasizing the scale of the world they built? Besides basically be the ultimate QoL feature when it comes to navigating the geometry of the world compared to other games like Skyrim where you explicitly have to glitch your way around mountains let alone navigate with the finess of an AC game:
Yea I imagine that it's definitely easier to be immaturely vitriolic instead of actually saying anything beyond "it sucks." This isn't gamefaqs. Meanwhile I can and have articulated the reasons why it succeeds. And now visual examples to bring the point home:
Because articulation tends to work better than "it sucks."
Yes, a game with the scale and detail of AC:O wasn't possible on last gen hardware. Glad we agree.
AC4 still used the base mechanics that were made by the original games, some of which Origins ditched. Like social stealth.The bird literally only ever asks you to get the MAIN objective. Senu never is required for anything more than that.
AC4 has better stealth gameplay than all the AC games that came before it. From the return of wider level design to just QoL features like being able to manually aim ranged weapons. It seems you have a very strict view of what an AC game is supposed to be and I'm glad the devs disagree.
You keep saying the game shoves it down your throat when the only time it appears is when you are close to any given objectives.
The verticality aspect of Origins is unique to AC unless you think they came up with that when BOTW was shown at e3. Hell even the systemic elements are directly inspired by Ubisoft's other titles like Far Cry and Watch Dogs, on top of being the culmination of the things they've been talking about game design wise since this gen started.
Besides being much more mobile than your enemies? Besides being an explicit way to encourage exploration and emphasizing the scale of the world they built? Besides basically be the ultimate QoL feature when it comes to navigating the geometry of the world compared to other games like Skyrim where you explicitly have to glitch your way around mountains let alone navigate with the finess of an AC game:
Yea I imagine that it's definitely easier to be immaturely vitriolic instead of actually saying anything beyond "it sucks." This isn't gamefaqs. Meanwhile I can and have articulated the reasons why it succeeds. And now visual examples to bring the point home:
Because articulation tends to work better than "it sucks."
Yes, a game with the scale and detail of AC:O wasn't possible on last gen hardware. Glad we agree.
The game does shove it down your throat, and you're dancing around it for some reason? I don't wanna be alerted to the birds existence at all. Not near a fucking objective either, hammer that through your skull instead of repeating that it only happens near objectives. I don't want it at all.
This game was so blatantly inspired by Witcher 3 that I'm fairly certain the devs mentioned it at multiple points through the promo cycle. They ditched identity in favor of things that would get them acclaim and cash. Which is fair for the company, but it looks like trash otherwise. The verticality is unique to Origins? Play Unity. The elements are shared from other Ubi titles to a fault. It feels like the same shit different day, as has been echoed by many many people who talk about how similar the Ubi games tend to be now.
Being more mobile than enemies isn't a reward to me, that's just proof that the system is working as it should. Also why are you comparing Skyrim to Assassin's Creed? Apples to oranges, dude. QoL improvements are rewards.
Also you didn't articulate why it's definitively better, you went off on a sales pitch about how early combat is shit because you don't have the correct upgrades. I shouldn't need upgrades for your base combat to feel good. It doesn't feel good to me, and obviously I'm not the only one who feels that way. Slapping some shiny gifs on your pitch doesn't make it factual. Some of the shit you said about it is nonsense, such as:
Thanks for the E3 conference talk, but what is the point here, exactly? There are elements in this game that need serious work, like the combat. The animations alone in combat look stilted as all fuck unless you're in a finishing animation, and even the transition to those can look off.
Last edited:
It makes sense for social stealth to be ditched as you weren't a member of the brotherhood, said brotherhood didn't actually exist. Social stealth makes sense at a single point in AC4's campaign, and it was during the time where Edward purposefully chose not to dress as an assassin.
The turn off the HUD.
The game's RPG leanings are inspired by the Witcher 3 yes, but not because that=easy acclaim an cash, but because the developers vastly enjoyed that game as it again, goes in line with things the devs were thinking about wanting to do, like one giant seamless open world, something they couldn't do because AC4 was cross gen.
Did you not read what I said?
Ok, apparently you didn't read the post you're responding to:
The systemic elements absolutely fit with AC, to a great degree actually, so it's not an issue.
You said why should you care? Because it affects every aspect of the game in a very good way.
Ftfy, here's what I said specifically because we're getting more and more confirmation that you can't read:
This is not in anyway shape or form saying that the combat is bad, just that early on, the combat is difficult and takes some getting used to.
Using visual examples to back up the statements i'm making works better in a discussion than providing literally not articulating anything that can't be found on gamefaqs.
It's not an e3 conference talk, I provided the receipts. Put more effort into your posts or this discussion is over. Literally try not including an expletive in your next post. It's not that hard. As an example, the subject animation blending, ofc the more control you give the less polished animation blending can be. In older AC games, animations flowed better much more smoothly than Origins, because those games controlled much more sluggishly in direct comparison to Origins. Like I said, it's night and day. Does this make Origins a worse game or even a janky game? No, the level of polish with a world that detailed absolutely shines through moreso than the times things go wrong.
Last edited:
Bought this in the Steam sale yesterday, my first AC game since Brotherhood. I've only put 4 hours into it so I'm definitely in no position to fully judge the combat, but I haven't found it too satisfying so far. It feels pretty loose and messy, especially in contrast with how snappy and intuitive the climbing feels, though obviously combat is a harder thing to balance. I did get quite a bit of satisfaction from avoiding combat though so maybe I'll just go stealth as much as possible.
OP
OP
Lol ain't nothing janky about any of those games, but I'm amused at your attempt to understand what I define as jank anyways.
Why would the brotherhood not being formed yet be an excuse for the lack of social stealth? Are people not allowed to blend into crowds as a means of hiding because they aren't in the Assassin brotherhood? Excuses.
Why should I have to turn off important information so that I can avoid one annoying mechanic they included?
So I was right, thanks for that. They dropped important aspects of Assassin's Creed in pursuit of the Witcher. End of story.
I did.
Except I did.
No, they fucking don't, lmfao
How in any world does the drone fit into the greater picture here? Did the Assassins later down the line lose access to speaking telepathically with birds to get the location of every enemy within the vicinity? If you have genuinely cobbled together some excuse for that, I'm impressed. I doubt they even came up with one before saying lets just throw the drone into Assassin's Creed.
But what is the reward for being able to climb every surface, if that's such a big thing for you, what do I get out of going to the highest peak of a mountain? Why is that such a rewarding thing? QoL improvements aren't rewarding.
Why are you pretending to take the high road by continuously going after me for being immature and vitriolic when you're being so condescending despite me obviously reading the trite mess you're selling me here?
It feels bad and you have to 'get used to it' because the combat system does not feel built for you to be taking that many enemies on at the same time. That's the end of it. It's not because you need specific moves or upgraded armor, it's because it feels bad to do. Over-leveling and equipping better stuff than the opposition doesn't equal good combat.
Boy, you don't need to reply, I'm outta here. I came to talk about AC, not to get preached at for cussing offhandedly in my posts. It's not as serious as you're making it out to be.
And pretty much brotherhood until 4.
I still feel like combat is passable, but the enemy variety is way too lacking for a game that's like 50+ hrs
Wow. I'm glad the combat didn't bother me THAT bad.
Anyway. That doesn't mean I think it's bad. But people going to such lengths to multiquote people to say it's bad makes me feel weird to have enjoyed my 100 hours with it. It's top AC to me by quite a large margin. Except for the lack of HUD options. That's my biggest gripe.
Anyway. That doesn't mean I think it's bad. But people going to such lengths to multiquote people to say it's bad makes me feel weird to have enjoyed my 100 hours with it. It's top AC to me by quite a large margin. Except for the lack of HUD options. That's my biggest gripe.
Because social stealth and blending in with civilizations was a tactic developed centuries later. Why would Bayek, a medjay, be blending in?
Because it's annoyance is overblown by your vitriol.
Literally the only aspect that was dropped altogether was social stealth, navigation, combat, and exploration are also core pillars of the franchise, and they were greatly expanded on and reworked.
So you read what I said and said something nonsensical in response? Your response to the statement "The verticality of AC:Origins is something that's unique to AC." was "Unique to Origins?! Play Unity." You either misread the post and responded in kind, or are being disingenuous, have some humility & take the L.
Yes they absolutely do, in past AC games regardless of the passage of time guards were completely static with their patrol routes and visibility. On top of that, despite there being very explicit times where we were in the wilderness, the interaction between guards and the wild was pretty much minimal let alone systemic. Now guards have schedules, roles, and objectives that make much more sense and make them feel much more organic as a result. Guards go to sleep, switch patrols, work, train, use the bathroom, etc., this makes the approaches dynamic as these things are even affected by the TOD, even the visibility of guards during the day compared to when it's night. On top of this, because of the world, animals and civilians function similarly, none of these things exist as completely separate entities who don't know what to do if they encounter one another, these elements are now capable of and often do intertwine regardless of the player's presence. So bandits, for instance, set up ambushes, regardless of whether or not the player is gonna come through there. To say these elements don't fit a game franchise who's entire premise is that you're playing through a simulation is an exercise is intellectual dishonesty.
I already explained how it benefits the design of the game itself on a micro and micro sense so I'll just repost it:
Besides being much more mobile than your enemies? Besides being an explicit way to encourage exploration and emphasizing the scale of the world they built? Besides basically be the ultimate QoL feature when it comes to navigating the geometry of the world compared to other games like Skyrim where you explicitly have to glitch your way around mountains let alone navigate with the finess of an AC game:
A trite mess would be more along the lines of "this shit sucks, o'm not gonna actually articulate why shit sucks, shit, fuck, shit, fuck."
You're not actually articulating how the game's design doesn't succeed and that's where the failing in your argumentation come from, i've done more than enough to articulate and back up my statements.
It doesn't feel bad, input response is great as is the response to experimentation. Crowd control is something you learn by playing the game and investing in combat. The player isn't expected to start the game and be able to raid a base and kill twenty guards, that's not the mission statement of the game as such a thing is even difficult by the end game. That doesn't mean the combat isn't built for fighting groups of enemies, it means that the beginning of the game is difficult, and you learn to manage skills, mobility, and attacks the more you play the game.
Good, because your vitriol and simplistic argumentation are grating.
/iamverysmart/
Edit: I should clarify why I'm not taking you seriously instead of dismissing you with that.
Instead of having a genuine conversation about this topic, you chose to get mad that I cuss when I type, regardless of it not being derogatory towards you at all. Then when we don't have an agreement about liking some of the mechanics in the game, instead of acknowledging that some people don't like them, you go on soliloquies about how well implemented they are and how they work so well in the confines of the game world. No means no, I don't like them, you going on for a paragraph about how you feel it works so well in the game world isn't changing my mind.
Then you telling me to have some humility is the funniest shit I've read this month considering the dumb shit you typed that I actually laughed at, such as:
How many different ways are there to say that the combat in this game feels like shit, exactly? It's clunky to move around, the animation for moving while locked on looks clunky, it's just not good to me. That's besides the fact that this system was not made in a way that it feels good fighting multiple enemies at once. I've articulated how I feel with it perfectly fine, but you took offense that I dared use a cuss word so you disregarded the entirety of what I said based on that. Then you continued this frankly hilarious condescending tirade by stomping your feet at me and telling me how vitriolic I'm being.
Get used to people not having the same opinion or liking the same things as you do, and this might not be a problem for you in the future.
Last edited:
If you don't wanna articulate outside of "it sucks" how do you expect to be taken seriously? It's not condescending to understand the mission statement of a game and actually articulate the purpose and intent. Your main issue seems to be "they changed things and I don't like change" regardless of the reasons why and whether or not they succeed when compared to past entries. Like, you genuinely tried to say that systemic elements don't fit an AC game when even as far back as twelve years ago they were advertising the game franchise as systemic:
Listen to the things she's saying, AC:Origins is basically the culmination of the things they were talking about wanting to do.
I'm not mad that you curse when you type. I am annoyed that you choose to engage in a manner that's not really good for discussion. Understanding the basic premise of a game is the first step to seeing how well it handles it's mechanics, themes, etc., my issue, is that you never really formed any sort of argument outside of "It sucks." You never articulated why and how it fails, or compared it to past games, just that "it sucks." And that' just not very good for game discussion.
You literally couldn't admit to misreading my post. I directly called you out on the misreading and you doubled down on what was a very nonsensical response to what I had typed.
What does this mean?
Not every weapon type is suited for crowd control. Perhaps you should've gone for weapons that do a better job at that, (axes for one are great at crowd control with their wide swings). If anything, never before has fighting multiple enemies at once felt this good, because you can first the first time, swing your weapon and genuinely damage multiple enemies.
Last edited:
My entire point is that in my opinion this game doesn't fucking succeed in comparison with past entries. In the pursuit of the Witcher, this game lost Assassin's Creed. I've said it before multiple times but you skipped over that in favor of going on rants about how wrong I am for not liking 'systemic elements' despite me not saying that even fucking once. I said I don't like the stupid bird and you told me I was vitriolic because I dared suggest that I don't wanna turn my HUD off to get rid of Senu's stupid prompt.
I like good change, this franchise is changing for the worse. Instead of writing paragraphs about arguments that aren't actually happening, read what I'm saying.
The game is still undoubtedly an AC title though. AC was never a title that couldn't and shouldn't be influenced by other titles because even as far back as AC2, several design elements of that game were directly inspired by other open world games that came out around the same time as AC1.
I never said that you were wrong for not liking systemic elements. I articulated the reasons why they work in the context of the series, because your reply to me saying that they fit right in was:
When that's literally one of the core conceits of the franchise that they've been building towards since their e3 demo.
I was saying the game doesn't force Senu down your throat, going by your posts you'd think she pops up every 5 minutes. Literally the only thing the game asks is "use Senu to locate the main objective(s)." because in universe, that's what Bayek does. Other than that her implementation is entirely optional, useful yes, (for the reasons I stated before that being the camps, especially the biggest ones, being designed very explicitly so that visibility from the outside is low), but optional.
IMO Witcher 3 is carried, by it's story, dialogue and writing. Everything else falls very flat imo. AC: Origins plays infinitely better than it.
AC2 was influenced by several games, yet created its own distinct identity for itself. Origins doesn't maintain that identity, it veered too far off the pasture and now as a result feels like a whole different thing, taking it even further with Odyssey.
I was talking about specific things, very specific things they added to the game and removed. Not overall, very specific things.
I've seen this demo before, but watching it again right now again brightly outlines to me that social stealth was definitely core to this franchise and it has been abandoned completely. I'm fine with whatever systemic bullshit you wanna talk about, but that's not what I was originally talking about. I'm concerned with the core concepts of this franchise being thrown out in favor of dumb, poorly made RPG type elements.
You wanna go off on how Senu is optional, and to a degree it is, but if I can't get rid of it without turning off my entire HUD, there's a problem. If the game wants to sit here and annoy me about it, I have the right to complain about it. The end. Senu appears way more often than you're saying, too.
Origins absolutely maintains it's identity. No one is going to be confused about the fact that they're playing an AC game while playing AC:Origins. It doesn't feel like anything BUT AC even the things that are directly influenced by other games.
Arguably social stealth was the weakest part of the franchise compared to navigation and combat as it was always the most limiting mechanic compared to the other two pillars of the franchise, even when they expanded on it like letting the player summon their own group of 4 guards. The RPG elements aren't even poorly made, they encourage and reward player expression by focusing on three viable approaches that also mingle very well with each other and the world itself. The traditional sneak and stab experience is still there, but this time it's not at the expense of everything else the game has to offer. And that even comes down to features that were removed coming back but now contextualized for the modern day design, for example, the ability to use mercenaries to cause a distraction, that's a social stealth element brought back to fit AC;Odyssey.
Last edited:
I would hope no-one is confused considering AC is on the box. It doesn't feel like AC to me though, and I know I'm not the only one that feels that way. People are getting more vocal about it with Odyssey too.
Social stealth was such a weak part that they had to try and fix it multiple times, right? Wrong. Combat was always the weakest part, thus the bad reinvention in Origins. The upgrades provide you with what are more or less superpowers. Not interested. I would take social stealth back over curving the arrow or slowing down time any day of the week. If they really wanted to reward player expression, they might have made social stealth its own tree or something along those lines. A lot of the ability choices are lame anyway.
Every time i hear someone say the Witcher 3's combat sucks, I get so confused. Everyone says it sucks but I can't seem to run into an explanation as to why. Now, apparently, AC:O has 'jank' in it. As I haven't played it yet, and I will, I now have to figure out what they meant by this. So I guess I'll have to go play AC:O, since seeing videos and gifs of the combat seemingly being fine doesn't seem to end their arguments.
People say a lot of things pre-release. There were people who were even saying that we shouldn't be able to climb everywhere in an AC title when they announced that that was a feature. When things evolve, there's always pushback, regardless of the quality of those changes.
They tried to fix and integrate it into the core gameplay as a compelling mechanic and it was never meshed well with the other aspects of the game. Especially the part where the franchise always wanted to emphasize player freedom.
Origins has the most satisfying combat in the series, like genuinely, in previous entries you couldn't even switch between weapons mid combo and by AC3, enemies literally didn't even health, they were immortal until the player completed a combo.
We're talking about the same series that even ended it's second installment on a boss fight where you clone yourself as a result of a PoE. Don't even get me started on having a wrist mounted pistol during the renaissance era. And like I said in my edit, things that were previously a part of social stealth are being brought back and turned into player abilities, like being able to summon mercenaries to distract enemies.
I honestly didn't find ACO thst janky. A couple of issues here and there but it was mostly fine.
TW3 on the other hand? Fucking janky as hell. I'm actually playing it right now on a Pro, trying to get through the expansions. Input delay, jank, weird ass hit/hurtboxes, rolling and dodging just being impercise etc.
The frog boss in the first expansion, my god, that was bad. Had to respec to a signs build just so I didn't have to deal with the sword and dodging aspect of the combat.
TW3 on the other hand? Fucking janky as hell. I'm actually playing it right now on a Pro, trying to get through the expansions. Input delay, jank, weird ass hit/hurtboxes, rolling and dodging just being impercise etc.
The frog boss in the first expansion, my god, that was bad. Had to respec to a signs build just so I didn't have to deal with the sword and dodging aspect of the combat.
The issue with TW3 for me was how Geralt controlled. In the type of game TW3 is, I really don't care about the combat. Geralt just didn't feel good to control and his animations were so janky. I didn't have that issue with AC Origins. It does suffer from a bit too much "weight" in the controls, which have noticed from a lot of western developed games this gen.
Hmm i don't know about AC: Origins but Witcher 3 combat was average and janky, i was planning to play AC Origins but this might have changed my mind.
I agree that Origins doesn't have good combat at all. I wish these studios would focus on gameplay not flying hawks that are basically drones and open areas that are lifeless. Have some pride in creating a game.
Odyssey doesn't look like an AC title, even more so than Origins. This isn't evolution, it's degradation, tbh. We clearly have different ideas of what this franchise should be, there's really no point in going back and forth on this all day, we're not going to agree.
I don't want bits and pieces brought back, it needs to come back wholesale.
Or it needs to evolve as a franchise while retaining it's identity. Such a thing is the common trend this gen.
Let me know when it happens, I have yet to see it for this franchise.
Well there's this great game called AC:Origins which throws off some of the shackles of the series and modernizes other aspects of it's mission statement for the sake of moving forward and as a direct result plays better than every other AC game by a very large margin.
As far as I can tell, there are people who didn't like it because 1) they button mash which screws them over since you can't easily break out of animations which makes it feel like Geralt isn't responsive, 2) they ignore all of Geralt's abilities except sword swing, dodge, and Quen which leads to really dull combat of swing, dodge, dodge, dodge, swing, etc., or 3) they feel that the combat isn't challenging once they've played 50+ hours and gotten to level 30+ and have a full set of Witcher gear, thus the combat is terrible.
You should re-read what I wrote, then read what you wrote, then let it stir in your mind a bit and think on it. See if you can't find what's really amusing.
They made an educational mode because of how amazing their world is, with shit tons of detail. Tell me they have no pride in their work..
AC Origins is one of the best game worlds ever built. And yes, Egypt has some pretty big empty areas.
OP
OP
Man, speaking of, it would be better for them to just not use Assassin's Creed name for Odyssey, perhaps? From what I see, the game is really not about assassination but more of a straight up brawler? Lol.
You cannot have serious damage abilities unless you somehow splice mutations onto the sign intensity and skillpoints to the sign tree. The game isn't built for using abilities as the primary source of damage: it is all about utility and stuns, built to have a single ability equipped at a time. Even if you can build an Ignis-spamming character, it is not how the game is designed to play, neither how the Witcher fights, and I really doubt that you could match a full sword damage in the first place. It is really the game's fault for giving players a repetitive and efficient way to play the game, while providing little variation in the human/animal enemy design.
First off. You can't just make shit up. Your definition of jank is not THE definition of jank, yet you're still hanging on to it even after several people have called you out on it in this thread. But forget that. Let's discuss what you quoted. I never said those games are jank, you need to read that shit again because like I said, by some peoples definitions of jank in this thread those games are also janky. Pretty obvious I chose those games as stupid/ridiculous examples. Hence, again, why I told you to read that shit again, fool.
OP
OP
This and Origins definitely kinda just feel like...other games. Even Black Flag seemed like a game they wanted to call something else (Skull & Bones), but didn't to benefit from the series' name.
Seeveral people have also agreed with me.
Jank is just something or unreliable quality. I never claimed Origins was the shittiest game that ever existed, but my experience with the combat system is that it's quality is pretty inconsistent across the board. And plenty of people have agreed with me. It's more a subjective thing than anything, but that's what it is for me.
I know you didn't say those games were janky; what you did do was claim that, by my reasoning, those games would also be called janky, which is why I noted that isn't anywhere near what my claims about Origins would insinuate. So I shut that shit down.
If you don't agree with my views, that's cool, but you can take your insults and go *something that'd likely get me banned* In any case, I'd save any further replies to me. I have no patience for idiots, especially when they don't know how to voice disagreement without jumping to insults, so you're outta here.
Last edited:
Pride in making great gameplay aka combat and stuff. Pride sounds bad though. Maybe utilizing their talents...
You're still failing to see the whole point of me telling you to re-read what you and I both wrote. Which is funny because failing to do so ended up getting you upset when it was really, actually, kinda amusing. Fool is hardly an insult though, but you're really gonna go and call me an idiot after crying about insults? At least you're consistent. Let me help you out though because you're right, this ain't going nowhere, so click my username, then click ignore.
No it's garbage. I actually thought witcher 3 combat way more enjoyable than it.
OP
OP
Seriously, the seemingly perfect split in opinions on this fascinates me lol
I pretty much agree. I keep wanting to get into W3. I've bought it twice, started it several times, but the movement and combat are agonizing to me. Just feels terrible personally. Origins isn't spectacular but I don't have any real complaints.