FANDOM


  • So I think most people can agree that the PS2 trilogy was far superior to any of the PS3 games by a longshot. But what, in your opinion, made the PS2 trilogy (Shattered Skies, The Unsung War, and the Belkan War) so much better than the PS3 trilogy? In my opinion, it was the following aspects:

    - There was a massive emphasis on the campaign. Ace Combat is notable for it's excellent storytelling capabilities, and the trilogy was a work of art in the way of storytelling. Assault Horizon had a mediocre storyline that was basically a rehash of something that Call of Duty would release. And Ace Combat Infinity barely had a campaign at all, hid it behind a paid-DLC wall essentially, and constructed it out of bits and pieces of the PS2 trilogy (thereby acknowledging that those games were better).

    - The soundtrack was magnificent, original, and carried emotional weight. And the final missions always had epic masterpieces to carry you through the climax and the final showdown. "Agnus Dei", "The Unsung War", and "Zero" were all unique from each other (despite "Zero"'s lyrics being rehashed from "The Unsung War") and carried the player emotionally both during and after the climactic end of each game.

    - The gameplay was innovative and unique with each subsequent game. Assault Horizon attempted to accomplish this with the Dogfight system, but that was a total failure and just made the game feel fake to play. Ace Combat Infinity introduced virtually nothing new to the game. The Unsung War introduced flight lead mechanics, which were further developed in The Belkan War, which also featured the Ace Style gauge (which TRIPLED gameplay potential), the "Mission X" secret mission (which reappeared in both portable titles), and the Assault Records (which further increased playability).

    - There was no DLC, and chunks of the game weren't hidden behind pay walls. You bought the game and you got the whole damn thing. ACAH had a good number of aircraft and expansions that you had to buy separately from what was already a $40 game which seriously lacked content, with its short campaign and mediocre multiplayer. Ace Combat Infinity has no DLC but instead has microtransactions, and without dumping tons of money into these microtransactions you won't even place reasonably in tournaments and you will have to spend an exorbitant amount of time grinding if you want to get to the end tree planes.

    With all of that said, what do you think can be done by Project Aces to make Ace Combat 7 as magnificent as the games in the PS2 trilogy? Is there anything you want to see kept from the PS3 games (besides enhanced graphics)? 

      Loading editor
    • I don't think it needs much more improvements to make it great. We just have to look closely at player opinions.

        Loading editor
    • They've essentially set an enormously high bar for the series, and they stated that they would raise it even higher with AC7.

      AC7 must have what fans loved about the series with the right amount of modern tweaks.

      DOOM did exactly that and became a huge success with the fanbase.

        Loading editor
    • All players want the same things : Good graphics, tons of playable planes available without DLC, innovative and immersive story, and optionally, a good multiplayer. But I think fans should keep their expectations high without comparing to the better predecessors. If we keep looking backward to the good games, the newer ones will never be better than those. This is already happening with Resident Evil's players. I really hope Ace Combat players don't turn in that direction. PS2 trilogy was masterpiece, but we need to accept that those are the past and the world keeps going forward. I'll take whatever they give me as long as it's better than ACAH or AC Advance, and free of DLC crap.

        Loading editor
    • SlyCooperFan1
      SlyCooperFan1 removed this reply because:
      Language/harassment
      07:17, June 20, 2016
      This reply has been removed
    • 202.67.40.4 wrote:
      All players want the same things : Good graphics, tons of playable planes available without DLC, innovative and immersive story, and optionally, a good multiplayer. But I think fans should keep their expectations high without comparing to the better predecessors. If we keep looking backward to the good games, the newer ones will never be better than those. This is already happening with Resident Evil's players. I really hope Ace Combat players don't turn in that direction. PS2 trilogy was masterpiece, but we need to accept that those are the past and the world keeps going forward. I'll take whatever they give me as long as it's better than ACAH or AC Advance, and free of DLC crap.

      Not just Resident Evil players, but apparently those in Call of Duty as well. It's best we look at the future instead when ons of technologies are being invented for better or for worse. The UAVs that were mentioned in Ace Combat 7: Skies Unknown is one example.

      Speaking of Call of Duty, I would recall one of their producers doing a talk regarding the future of warfare. I could show you a link if you want.

        Loading editor
    • The mistake with Call of Duty is it now heads in the direction of future warfare, and the stories are almost always stereotypical : US military dominance battling either terrorists or Russians, or both.. I think most people will agree. The good military stuff are in the past, in the two World Wars. With all the WWII games out there, I say WWII stories are no longer interesting. And nowadays you can't create a war game that doesn't offend a single country, so obviously you can't be creative and make the US an enemy country without getting hammered by the real US.

        Loading editor
    • 114.120.232.214 wrote:
      The mistake with Call of Duty is it now heads in the direction of future warfare, and the stories are almost always stereotypical : US military dominance battling either terrorists or Russians, or both.. I think most people will agree. The good military stuff are in the past, in the two World Wars. With all the WWII games out there, I say WWII stories are no longer interesting. And nowadays you can't create a war game that doesn't offend a single country, so obviously you can't be creative and make the US an enemy country without getting hammered by the real US.

      Speaking of that...

      https://warisboring.com/the-billion-dollar-game-designer-who-became-a-future-war-theorist-64331508ea5d

      EDIT: Sorry. Forgot to mention World War 2 to emphasize the point.

        Loading editor
    • While it is true that you can't dwell in the past and hope to get by making the exact same thing over and over again, you also can't just ignore the past and not attempt to learn from what helped make you successful in the first place. 

      There is a certain inertial intractability in these sort of things. The reason AC could be so successful on the PS2 was that there was nothing else like it for it to compete with, so anyone with an interest could hop on board. It was also at a time where the affordability of both the console and the games were very good, so it was a low barrier to entry. Again, say what you will about how many people bought the Xbox 360 and whatnot, but there is a deflationary effect on the base and its momentum when AC6 came out as an Xbox exclusive. I myself remember at the time buying my PS3 specifically with the thought in mind that AC would continue on that system, and they instead went Xbox exclusive. That hurts momentum, which was an especially big problem in Japan where the 360 did rather poorly. 

      Add on top of that the decision to change up as many things as they did - trying too hard to take advantage of DLC, the lack of basic content in the games themselves, taking it out of strangereal. I look less at mega blockbusters like COD. Those sell well in part becuase they have huge pushes behind them advertising wise to get them going and keep them going. How many internet ads, TV commercials, do you get inundated with when a new COD comes out. Heck, even Watch Dogs 2 has had the same commercial running seemingly constantly on every website and Hulu commerical break since last week. This skews what new and different the game has to do becuase the hype put out to the populace to drive sales puts a thumb on the scale. I look at something like the Conquer franchise, which got in its head the same ideas AC has seemed to get, in terms of wanting to change things too much. And now, the C&C franchise is dead, despite once being the only real actor in its field. It kept moving further and further from what it was, what made it successful, in an attempt to accomadate the prevailing "wisdom" of what they should be. 

      There is a balance that has to be struck. Saying they can't look back to figure out what they need to do is folly. They don't need to make a remake, but they do need to study those past successful games and make intelligent decisions about what worked and what didn't in terms of generating that success.

        Loading editor
    • I never played Ace Combat 6 so I can't speak for it. I have played Ace Combat X and X2, I thought Ace Combat X's MPG made gameplay very innovative and fun. I probably should have mentioned it as one of the excellent Ace Combat examples.

      But Joint Assault did not introduce anything new other than expanding tuning for all planes and adding the option of choosable emblems. And like Infinity, it recycled music from earlier games at several points. There were some epic musical themes and the plot was good, but it was the first step in the decline of the series.

      I haven't placed Assault Horizon Legacy or Cross Rumble so I can't speak for those either.


      I think the previous anonymous poster summed it up perfectly. You can move forward without abandoning what made you successful.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message