I've experienced that. Once you've made the initial jump onto the building you want to climb, stop holding the trigger and x button(ps3). Instead use your thumbstick to control your climb. Up to go up etc. If you can't go up, its because there isn't anything Ezio can grab onto to continue his climb, so you have to navigate accordingly.Assassins Creed Hype
- Thread starter Van Piorsing
- Start date
I've experienced that. Once you've made the initial jump onto the building you want to climb, stop holding the trigger and x button(ps3). Instead use your thumbstick to control your climb. Up to go up etc. If you can't go up, its because there isn't anything Ezio can grab onto to continue his climb, so you have to navigate accordingly.I prefer the whole climb-up-the-wall-next-to-them-so-you-can-drop-down-on their-heads, method.
ive just completed the game today, great game, much better than the original, amazing how much detail there is in it.
Dropping down onto two guards and killing them at the same time is pretty satisfying!
If theres more than three I like to lob a smoke bomb and either dissapear into the night or easily clean them all up with the hidden blades.
What's everyone best method of dispatching the big bastards? I can never seem to counter them so either have to do the smoke bomb trick or keep dodging and swiping.
If you use the hidden blades and counter you can usually get them quite easily.
I never use the hidden blades for actual fighting, might try it.
i find it easier with the bigger guys just to switch to your hands then counter disarm and take their weapon then kill them
this or hidden blades
if you take a swipe at the other dudes to back them off you can usually charge in with several quick hits with the hidden blades and eventually get the 'critical' where you kill them with one attack
almost finished the second one, have loved it all so far
The hidden blades seem over-powered.
Oh yeah, once i found out i could use them for battle i didn't use anything else.
Same, they take atleast one star of health on each good hit, plus if you spam the counter move you often just assassinate enemies in one move.
People get bare hyped over razz shit these dayz. Assassins Creed is a good example of this.
I wouldn't call Assassin's Creed shit by any means. It's what i expected from it, the battle aspect wasn't the greatest but then it wasn't in the first. Doesn't stop this being a very good game graphically, vocally, exploration and storywise.
So although i thought the first Assassins creed was shit and played it for a total of probably 2 hours, should i still bother investing in this next instalment?
You better stay away then. I finished the first one but the second one feels a bit repetive already and I have only played about half the game or something.
If you didn't like the first and didn't get the story then you might want to skip it. It's good fun to play and graphically it's much better (mainly because it's more colourful). The missions are a lot less repetitive and there's more customisation options. If you didn't like the first rent it first.
i didnt play the first one
initially thought the second one was great but its starting to get very tedious - a bit too much climbing up buildings and trying to do stuff which makes it very repetitive and boring
it lacks the gameplay of the likes of bioshock which was excellent
initially thought the second one was great but its starting to get very tedious - a bit too much climbing up buildings and trying to do stuff which makes it very repetitive and boring
it lacks the gameplay of the likes of bioshock which was excellent
It's a completely different type game to Bioshock, a bit odd to compare it to that. The main selling point of the game is the freedom and being able to climb up buildings and look over an entire city.
The only thing you can realy compare AC to iare the Spider-man games, and even they are quite different
Anyone else liked the settings in AC1 better? Italy is so boring somehow...
i know what you mean - totally different game
just meant that it isn't as gripping and doesn't have the whats going to happen next effect some games have
It's got a different way of telling the story to the first. The main story with Ezio isn't the most interesting and i was always more interested with the story outside the Animus. The gaps between telling the parts of that story are more spread out which works better for the game but not as well for the main story arc of the trilogy. Although the ending is absolutely brilliant and means i can't wait for the third round.
The thing that gets me is how a game like this has a framerate all over the show on the PS3 (yes a solid framerate is important), yet still gets called good graphically. There is no excuse for it. It's over two years since they released the first one, which framerate wise was a disaster on the PS3, and they still haven't got it. Uncharted 2 runs at a locked no tear 30, why doesn't this, because although pretty to look at in stills, performance wise it's an ass, and it's not pulling half the tricks that UC2 is pulling either.
Isn't a woman on the development team? That probably explains it.
Not had a problem with it on mine.
It runs fine on the 360 so i couldn't comment.
It's not perfect there either.
I started playing it yesterday and played it for a few hours today. Its good - far more variation that in the last one. I think the setting is fantastic - they have done a great job of capturing Renaissance Italy.
So far, so good.
So far, so good.
For a multi-platform game, it performs quite well. I was just being picky.
I have played it for about 8 hours - not noticed any framerate issues so far.
Had a look on a few forums and some ppl are reporting it while others say they havnt had a problem. Strange.
Im guessing you havnt played it.
inFamous has similarities, especially the climbing and free roaming.
I wouldnt know, ive never played it
I haven't played it no, and I'm not going to when it has those sorts of issues, it's fecking shoddy work IMO, but then I trust digital foundry analysis over what people's eyes tell them. Most people wouldn't have a clue between 60fps and 30fps.
Ok i just clicked on that link and watched the video of the gameplay. And i'm not sure what i'm looking for, it was talking about tears, now excuse my ignorance but i don't know what it means by that.
And surely for that reason, it doesn't actually matter?
A tear is where you get two frames on the screen at the same time. The main reason for it happening is that the game took too long to render a particular frame.
Games normally work with a double buffer. That is a back and a front. The front is being displayed whilst the back is being drawn. Once the back has been drawn, the front and back are flipped. In this method, you don't see the drawing of the frame as it is displayed. However, if the front and back are flipped as the data is being output to the display device, you see a bit of both, resulting in artefacts such as this:
Something which that video does highlight and something that i've noticed when ever i play a on a playstation, is just how washed out the PS3's picture is compared to that of the 360. Why is that?