Assains Creed Revelations. Should I even bother?

[Dalisclock]

I've generally liked the AC series but I've also fallen behind on it a bit. I liked the first one(though felt the endgame and most of the side missions were really weak), loved the 2nd one and felt brotherhood rather....okay. I picked up Revelations on a steam sale but haven't gotten around to playing it yet, due to other games and commitments.

I've heard enough about 3 to decide I'm not going to waste my time with it though I rather want to play 4 because of how much it sounds like Pirates!

I think part of the reason I followed the games thus far is that it looked like they were actually building to something as far as the big story was concerned. Now it appears that is not the case. Does revelations actually offer anything in the story department, as in actual revelations, to warrant the investment of time? I got it for cheap so I'm not worried about losing money on it at this point.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

It's a good game. Interesting setting and a nice conclusion to Ezio's story.

 

[Zhukov]

It's basically Brotherhood with some extraneous bullshit stuck on top. Has the same problems with tons of crappy side missions and telling you off if you don't complete the objectives the 'right' way.

Luckily, most of the bullshit can be more or less ignored.

It does wrap up Ezio's and Altair's stories. So if that sounds appealing and you enjoy the core gameplay of the series then it's probably worth playing.

This is coming from someone who is bored to death with the series and couldn't be bothered finishing AC3.

 

[Zacharious-khan]

In my opinion all the assassin's creed games are oh the whole good. and although since they haven't changed almost anything since AC2 and since its been going in a poor direction i set a $20 price limit on the games. So far i've been pretty happy with this value. If you've already purchased the game, you may as well play it. it goes pretty fast and i personally had fun.

 

[RJ 17]

I think part of the reason I followed the games thus far is that it looked like they were actually building to something as far as the big story was concerned. Now it appears that is not the case. Does revelations actually offer anything in the story department, as in actual revelations, to warrant the investment of time? I got it for cheap so I'm not worried about losing money on it at this point.

Well you got it now so you might as well play it, right?

Here's the deal: the story is....ehhhhh, decent. You get to see flashbacks of what happened to Altair after the events of the first game but that's really it. That's what the revelations are referring to, as you don't really learn anything new about Ezio other than how he spends the last days of his life.

If all you're wanting is the story, though, I'd suggest looking up a plot synopsis because the gameplay is just god awful. The first half of the game is spent doing tutorials, the city really isn't that fun, there's a very horrible tower defense minigame forced upon you, and in the end it just really that much of an enjoyable game to play.

Edit: You actually learn a lot more about Desmond than you do Ezio or Altair. Basically Revelations should have been an expansion-pack DLC to Brotherhood as you don't even have any "leave the animus" sections. When you leave the "session" Desmond pops out into a sort of loading world where he can visit puzzle-platform rooms that will have him narrating bits and pieces of his past as you work through them and every now and then Subject 16 (or whatever, some guy that Abestergo was using before they started using Desmond) pops in and talks to you about stuff.

 

[Hero of Lime]

I found it a lot more enjoyable than Brotherhood personally. Maybe it's jut because I really dislike Brotherhood, but Revelations was a bit more interesting than Brotherhood. The setting felt fresh, and I liked the Altair segments.

 

[Compatriot Block]

I liked it a lot actually. The tower defense segments were pretty boring, but I don't think they were necessary other than maybe the first one.

There was one prompt in particular during an Altair segment that made me grin. Anyone who has played the game probably knows which one I mean.

 

[yamy]

Personally, I think it wraps up the Ezio/Atair story quite well and I found the ending fairly poignant. Running around in Renaissance-era Constantinoples/Istanbul was definitely unique and interest. It's actually a fairly good landmark/sightseeing simulator - I knew more landmarks from the game than a friend who actually went there on holiday.

The Tower-Defence sections were annoying but apart from that I actually liked it quite a bit, including the Desmond puzzle/platform sections that some people really hated.

I would give it a shot if you're played all the games before and feel anyway attached to Ezio. If you don't care at all and just want to have fun stabbing people then it's pretty much the same game as the previous ones in a (cool) new location.

 

[Shadow-Phoenix]

I was thinking about getting it today since I saw a friend was playing it on Steam.

Right up until that friend told me that Uplay was involved and I decided not to even bother with buying it.

 

[Sonicron]

Revelations was a good game, just as solid as both its predecessors; mind you, I was delighted by the bomb crafting feature, because wiping out an entire platoon with a single cloud of nerve gas felt unsettlingly entertaining.
Despite the fact that you get stuck with Ezio for yet another game, the guy is still an enjoyable protagonist, and both his and Altair's stories get tied up in a rather satisfying conclusion. Meanwhile, Desmond's plot only advances in terms of ancillary lore, but at least you get to meet an interesting minor character previously alluded to.
One thing's for sure, Revelations was far better than AC3. God, the amount I want to rant and ***** about that boring, unfocussed glitch-fest...

 

[TakerFoxx]

It was all right. Not as good as its predecessors, but I still had a good time.

Not really liking AC3 though. After Haytham left, it felt more like a chore, so I eventually gave up and just watched the cutscenes on Youtube to keep up with the plot. Looking forward to AC4 though. Because pirates.

 

[Magix]

Just curious, why did you think BH was alright when you loved AC2? It's practically the same game with a couple of added features.
One could argue Rome was a bit more boring than Venice, but yeah.

 

[MarsProbe]

It was a good game, but I feel the series had peaked before then. The thing I miss most about the series was hunting the glyphs in AC2 & Brotherhood, or more specifically the puzzles you had to solve once you found them.

You may as well play it, seeing that you own it now.

 

[Robert Marrs]

I thought it was pretty good. Way better than 3 but not the highlight of the series exactly. Way worth it for the price you can get it at now.

 

[CommanderL]

its what killed my intrest in the franchise to be honest it does wrap up ezio story but I wanted him to say goodbye to leo and that and he didnt the city is not as fun as rome

 

[nokori3byo]

What I liked most about Revelations--the conclusion to Altair's story and Ezio's uncovering of it--would probably be served just as well but looking up the relevant clips on Youtube. Apart from that, gameplay and story are mostly so so, though the art direction is pretty sharp. It's not as bad as people say and unlike AC3, all stuffed to the gills with feature creep,I could actually be arsed finishing it.

 

[Dalisclock]

Just curious, why did you think BH was alright when you loved AC2? It's practically the same game with a couple of added features.
One could argue Rome was a bit more boring than Venice, but yeah.

I think because it pretty much felt like AC 2.5 instead of an actual sequel. However, to be more specific, while I really liked the whole villa development mini-game in 2(Mirroring Ezios rise from nobody to master of assassins, take a dump of a village and develop it into a rather nice home base) , expanding that to the whole city of Rome felt like a step in the wrong direction for the series. To paraphrase Yahtzee "I wasn't sure if I was supposed to kill the Templars or just evict them".

Also the assassin management mini-game felt like the wrong way to handle the whole "brotherhood" aspect. I would have preferred to, I don't know, take the novices out on missions with me and show them how to stab so they get better at stabbing. Instead of "assign novices to a target, and wait for a report of success or failure and watch the stats go up".

AC2 improved on AC by realizing that the purpose of an assassin is to assassinate people, not look for flags on rooftops or do 3 random busy missions before you can actually kill the dude. Sure, it added the villa but at least that fit in with the story. Buying half of Rome just didn't seem to have a point(other then to provide a money sink) and it felt like some of the busywork was back and considering the setting is the same as 2, doesn't help the comparison of 'Same yet worse".

And I've heard that 3 was even less interested in the whole "Assasinate" aspect of the job with you being a funiture production and trading mogul for reasons.

 

[Magix]

Just curious, why did you think BH was alright when you loved AC2? It's practically the same game with a couple of added features.
One could argue Rome was a bit more boring than Venice, but yeah.

I think because it pretty much felt like AC 2.5 instead of an actual sequel. However, to be more specific, while I really liked the whole villa development mini-game in 2(Mirroring Ezios rise from nobody to master of assassins, take a dump of a village and develop it into a rather nice home base) , expanding that to the whole city of Rome felt like a step in the wrong direction for the series. To paraphrase Yahtzee "I wasn't sure if I was supposed to kill the Templars or just evict them".

Also the assassin management mini-game felt like the wrong way to handle the whole "brotherhood" aspect. I would have preferred to, I don't know, take the novices out on missions with me and show them how to stab so they get better at stabbing. Instead of "assign novices to a target, and wait for a report of success or failure and watch the stats go up".

AC2 improved on AC by realizing that the purpose of an assassin is to assassinate people, not look for flags on rooftops or do 3 random busy missions before you can actually kill the dude. Sure, it added the villa but at least that fit in with the story. Buying half of Rome just didn't seem to have a point(other then to provide a money sink) and it felt like some of the busywork was back and considering the setting is the same as 2, doesn't help the comparison of 'Same yet worse".

And I've heard that 3 was even less interested in the whole "Assasinate" aspect of the job with you being a funiture production and trading mogul for reasons.

3 was arguably the worst game in the series, I'd like to have forgotten it even existed, but with the protagonist of 4 being the dudes (grand)father, it's kind of difficult

Anyway, If you liked AC 2 then logically you should like 2.5 as well. When I think about it, yeah, the whole buying up the entirity of Rome felt a bit strange as well, but I fixed that problem myself easily by just.. ignoring them? I don't know, I guess I just don't let that stuff bother me. I bought like maybe a couple during my playthrough just to get quick access to a store. And I wasted literally no money - played with the default stuff until I got the romulus armour. I think I did buy some huge ass mace in the end for fun.

As for the assassin management, I found it quite satisfying to hold down T and have everybody die, or be able to fight with a bunch of people instead of solo. At first I thought "hmm, doesn't this take gameplay away from ME by making other people fight for me when there's a lot of opponents?" But then I realized that that's a good thing, because whacking away at a lot of opponents and waiting to counter attack isn't exactly thrilling gameplay to begin with.