As a background, I loved the Ezio games and also enjoyed AC3 somewhat. I also love open world RPGs in general. But I hate grinding and mandatory generic side quests.

I tried it years ago, but did not like it and stopped playing after some hours. Assassinations via sneaking up and one-shotting were not possible AFAIR, which ruined the fun on assassinations for me. RPG mechanics like leveling and skills were present, but were designed in a way that added nothing of value to the experience while requiring a boring grind. There were many side quests, but they felt boring and generic and. I could have overlooked these things and concentrated on the main story, but engaging in the level grind and the generic side quests was to a large degree mandatory to be able to continue the story. That made me feel like I’m wasting my time and made me stop playing.

Overall I felt that the game tried to find some compromise between story-based action adventure and open-world RPG, but just ended up combining the worst of both worlds. It felt like the RPG features were pushed in top-down (“everyone is doing open world, levels and skill trees now, we should put that in the game”) without any regard to WHY these features work well in some games and how they have to be integrated in order to make the experience more fun.

See also: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship's_cat

Why the law of large numbers?

I’d think it’s p-hacking. Meaning if he tried out many different combinations, the chances are high he’d eventually come across some which are only correlated by chance. Here’s a related XKCD:

In that case it actually makes sense because the main goal is to make an artificial entity appear intelligent to the player. This is not the same as calling all ML algorithms/models AI.

Oscar

I see a lot of hate against the concept of doing one’s own research on the internet and it really bothers me. The problem is not doing one’s own research. The scientists that wrote this paper also did their own research. All scientists (should) do their own research. That’s inherent to science and that’s part of what got humanity this far. The problem is that some people lack the capabilities to properly assess information sources and draw correct conclusions from them. So these people end up with incorrect beliefs. Of course they could just “trust the experts” instead, but how are they supposed to know which experts to trust if they’re not good at assessing sources of information? Finding those experts is in itself a task that requires you to do your own research.

TL;DR: I think this hate on “doing your own research” is unjustified. People believing nonsense is a problem that is inescapable and inherent to humanity.