Although that method had the advantage of getting the player back to the action more quickly than a cutscene might have, it completely failed in giving the player any investment in the relationship between the two characters. Instead of having any sort of gameplay or cutscenes to establish the relationship between the characters, the game opts to fade out during the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and then fade back in a couple of years later where, magically, Connor and Washington now know each other. As a player, you're equally invested in that relationship, so when Leonardo gets really excited about his flying machine, it's hard not to smile a bit.Д¬ompare that to Connor and Washington in AC3. By the time the game gets to the halfway point, there's been enough interaction that it feels completely natural that the two would be lifelong friends. Second, it establishes that they know each other so that when you need to go back to have Ezio's hidden blade fixed, it isn't completely out of the blue that you'd go to Leonardo to have the work done. First, is gives you insight into both Leonardo and Ezio as characters - Leonardo is really passionate about science and the arts and changing the world while Ezio just wants to get back to chasing skirts. Admittedly, you aren't doing much, but the mission serves a few purposes. In AC2, you first meet Leonardo during a tutorial mission that has you carrying a bunch of his pictures for Ezio's mother. how AC3 handled Connor and Washington (which was poor). A good example is comparing the way AC2 handled Ezio and Leonardo (which was good) vs. Barring that, a cutscene (showing) is generally better to establish characters and gameplay than audio logs or just straight dialogue describing events (telling). Because players tend to experience the story vicariously through their character, stories work the best when they allow the play to actively participate in them (i.e. I guess the formula is doing > showing > telling. I have not played Unity, so I can't comment specifically on that game, but I think the common element of 'good' stories is that they take their time to establish and develop their worlds and characters. Im just going to walk away from it, its not for me anymore. Like if they doubled the number of icons in the city people would be happy about a game where kind of nothing happens.Д«ut hey, in the last game people were able to vote on missions. Its like at some point they were going to go back into the future but then just pussed out and replaced that content set with a dozen identical missions. And there's a mission early in the game which seems super high in potential because it sort of deals with Animus stuff but then that doesnt go anywhere. Historically its very difficult to portray the Marquis De Sade in cinema and very rarely does an actor capture the raw nature of him without making him into an obnoxious cartoon. Maybe they like playing assassin dressup cus that's about the only thing Unity has going for it.ДЄs for the story, and not going into spoilers beyond what was in the quick look. I have to think people who are content with that just don't give a shit about story or mechanics. How could anyone be surprised by the outcome. So in addition to the setting taking away the possibility of the funnest stuff from the newer ACs (tree traversal, ship combat, hunting, etc.) they took away the big things that made the AC2 trilogy such a hit. Like a quarter of AC2 and Brotherhood story missions took place in modern times. As in, the two giant things the old AC games were all about. Their big throwback to the old AC didnt have a brotherhood thing or much of a modern day thing. I hear people say this a lot (X has terrible story), but they never really expand upon why. The thing is that I'm mostly wondering what constitutes a 'good story' to some people. I can understand not enjoying the 'modern day' stuff because that has a heavy conspiracy theory bent and not everyone enjoys that, but for me a good conspiracy theory is like crack. I thought those were well written, well realized, and well paced narratives that honed in on central themes and never let go. Yet I don't think my disappointment colours the impression/experience I got from playing through Ezio's and Connor's life long adventures. I understand where you're coming from I was so incredibly disappointed with the way AC3 wrapped up the 'real world' story that I swore off the franchise all together. I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way. The are games based on moments for me but by the end I'm disappointed. Too each their own but I have beaten most of the AC games and not once have I enjoyed the story. Haven't played the game but YES because all AC games have terrible stories.

Assassins creed unity story