Disappointed by Assassin's Creed?

[Hides His Eyes]

I'm wondering if anyone else is as disappointed as I am by the route the AC series seems to be taking. When the second one came out and I learned it was the same idea set in a later time period, I got very excited and spent probably a little too much time and energy thinking about the historical periods I'd like to see in future installments, like a housewife dreamily leafing through the Argos catalogue. My favourite was Assassin's Creed in Victorian England. How cool would that be?

But the series seems to have got stuck in Renaissance Italy. The last two games were more akin to what would have been called expansion packs back when I first started playing games. To be fair I haven't played Brotherhood very much or Revelations at all, so I may well be wrong about SOME of this, but it seems to be mostly the same gameplay, mostly the same experience; worst of all, they are squandering the potential I got so excited about (see above). I guess the series has reached the point where its latest game can sell shitloads PURELY by virtue of being Assassin's Creed, so the developers feel free not to put in much effort. I think it's lazy and it sucks.

 

[ZeroMachine]

Nope.

In fact, I thought Brotherhood was the best. And I'm really looking forward to Revelations. I love it.

As has been said many many many many many times, after Revelations, we'll be going to a new time and character.

To say that they didn't put effort in to these games is an insult. They actually do improve upon and add to the formula, as well as the story and characters.

 

[JochemDude]

I'm just always so damn disapointed by the endings, you have these very authentic looking games. Then near the ending it becomes very bad sci-fi.
Also I don't play it anymore, since the series has gotten so easy.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

Expansion packs?

For start, Brotherhood added an extra layer of fluidity to combat, as well as the assassin recruits and was just as long, if not longer, that AC2, and Revelations isn't even set in Italy.

I still love the series and I see a lot of potential for future installments.

 

[Rule Britannia]

Brotherhood wasn't good in my opinion I like the new combat they're adding though. If they could remake Assassin's Creed 1 with new graphics and the better combat that would be amazing . Fuck Ezio ¬.¬.

 

[sharinganblossom25]

You know, I agree with you, playing as Ezio is getting tiring and really annoying. So I'm especially thankful that Revelations is his last appearance in the series. And sure, while the Ottoman empire is a pretty cool historical period, I'm actually more excited for-- DARE I SAY IT-- Desmond's story, and how he's going to deal with being in a coma. The Black Room sounds like a very interesting concept, one that's worth exploring.

As for suggestions for future installments, I'd be fascinated with Victorian England, as well as the French Revolution. I would also say feudal Japan, however that was more around Altair's time, so that's come and gone. XD

One last thing: I'd really, and I mean REALLY, like to see the ancestor be female. How the hell would Desmond react to that?!?! I think it'd be hilarious.

 

[Chalacachaca]

No, but that's because I love being able to walk through the cities admiring the attention to detail the developers put in them. And I also love the gameplay, being a stealth action my favorite genre.
Besides the story is good, the sci-fi elements remind me of Indiana Jones, and some characters are likeable (yes, even Ezio, although they should REALLY retire him after Revelations).

Captcha: Credio 1.35

 

[SadisticBrownie]

A little, yes. AC was heavily flawed but enjoyable, and AC II did a great job of fixing everything that was wrong with the first. I enjoyed Brotherhood, but yes, it felt too similar to AC II, and Revelations being set in the same period saddens me.

 

[ResonanceSD]

Nope, mostly it's good, except for the last chapter of every game so far, where it goes to shit.

 

[Jamous]

No; while I can see why you would be, it doesn't make sense to move on. Ezio's story isn't finished yet. It would be insanely cool to see Victorian London or maybe Feudal Japan, though. That'd be awesome. Maybe we can hope at a later date? Ah well. We know that ACR leaves Italy, at least. Istanbul looks to be a fairly interesting place to explore. Especially seeing as you then travel further into the middle east back to the Assassin's Monastery from Altair's story. Gonna be goooooood.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

I love it. They can still make more Assassin's Creed games after Desmond's story is over. And they probably will. I would. There's plenty of history to cover. I want ancient Egypt and Greece, I want Roman Empire, Feudal Japan and of course Victorian England.

 

[YuheJi]

It was disappointing that we didn't get to see a new setting, but Brotherhood was freaking amazing. They took everything that made the combat and missions boring in AssCreed 2 and fixed it.

 

[Rylot]

I kinda gotta agree with the OP. I loved AC and AC II improved on it in every way possible. I've just gotten tired of Ezio. Everyone has their own personal preference but he just rubs me the wrong way; I definitely preferred Altair. I also have grown tired of the story line, or not so much the story but having to play through entire games to get ten minutes of cut scenes for Desmond's part of the modern day plot. Maybe it's just that I never gave Brotherhood a chance but that's my two cents worth.

 

[Esotera]

I've played I and II, found the first one infinitely better, just because it felt more of an immersive experience. Even though gameplay was more repetitive than II, it was more realistic (read: plot not centred around Leonardo Da Vinci). And don't get me started on Ezio.

Playing as Desmond in II was really cool though. There are good aspects to both games.

 

[StBishop]

I'm wondering if anyone else is as disappointed as I am by the route the AC series seems to be taking. When the second one came out and I learned it was the same idea set in a later time period, I got very excited and spent probably a little too much time and energy thinking about the historical periods I'd like to see in future installments, like a housewife dreamily leafing through the Argos catalogue. My favourite was Assassin's Creed in Victorian England. How cool would that be?

But the series seems to have got stuck in Renaissance Italy. The last two games were more akin to what would have been called expansion packs back when I first started playing games. To be fair I haven't played Brotherhood very much or Revelations at all, so I may well be wrong about SOME of this, but it seems to be mostly the same gameplay, mostly the same experience; worst of all, they are squandering the potential I got so excited about (see above). I guess the series has reached the point where its latest game can sell shitloads PURELY by virtue of being Assassin's Creed, so the developers feel free not to put in much effort. I think it's lazy and it sucks.

Just because people don't tend to know these things.

1: Ezio leaves Italy in the prolouge of Revelations.
2: It was originally supposed to be a trilogy with only one game spent on Ezio.
3: Brotherhood came about because the story for a canon novel written by Oliver Bowden was considered brilliant by the game designers.
3.5: There's about 3 novels. AC: Renaissance, AC: BroHo, one I don't know the name of.
4: From Wikipedia:
"Some Ubisoft Montreal's developers stated in their interviews that Assassin's Creed III will be released eventually. The game will introduce a new character in an entirely new setting.[footnote]^ a b "Ubisoft reveals first ever details on Assassin's Creed 3". Gamerzines.com. 2010-06-08. Retrieved 2010-11-17.[/footnote] There has been much speculation about possible settings of this game. Corey May stated that Assassin's Creed III will not take place during World War II.[footnote]^ "Assassin's Creed II - History". Blogs.ign.com. 2009-10-22. Retrieved 2010-10-21.[/footnote]"

 

[HazelrahFiver]

I know exactly what the OP is saying, and I agree to a certain extent. Is the prospect of reinventing the series by taking it to new locations with different characters being squandered? Yes. Is this due to a lack of ability and a missed opportunity by the developers? Nope. This is a gain of money, a dragging out of the series for what will likely end up being a dozen games if not more. If Ezio has three games (and btw, he's an awesome, awesome man, so I don't mind that much) then the next fella/lady (how AWESOME would it be if you got to play a woman for a change?) will probably have four. The OP is also correct about the expansion pack comment, as Brotherhood really could have been simply included in ACII. Ubisoft knew this, likely purposefully detaching the Rome section of the game, and then added more content to make it seem worthy of it's own release. It was not, but still should be played by any fan of the series.

In this vein, I have purchased Brotherhood for only $30 and will get Revelations for only $30 patiently. The game after I will hopefully be intrigued enough to purchase on day one.

 

[Woodsey]

Well, Revelations isn't set in Italy, and this is the last game with Ezio and Altair.

And to be fair, Rome was by far the most impressive environment so far.

 

[agentorange98]

I hated assassin's creed 2, it's one of the most poorly put together games I've ever seen. There's no stealth involved and yet it's marketed as a stealth game while at the same time it forces you to play the sandbox as a good guy, restarting the game if you try to do too many "villainous" things, completely hamstringing the fun of a sandbox map system, red dead redemption had the same problem. The cutscenes are all long unskippable and not interesting at all and basically act as road blocks in your way of enjoying what little potential the game has. The only well done thing about the game is its par core movement system which sometimes just refuses to work and was already done better with prototype