Disappointed by Assassin's Creed?

[RagnarokHybrid]

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.

I, too, am waiting for Desmond's story--doing parkour around rooftops in a big city in AC would be amazing! However, I'm afraid that sword combat in the future wouldn't really make too much sense with guns and everything. Unless they go for an MGS Rising mode of combat, I don't know how they'll pull that one off. Maybe it'll be purely stealth focused but, even then, there are silenced tranquilizers that never seem to fail.

I also want a female ancestor. It'd have a much different feel to it than the other games and would be pretty unique, I think. Someday soon... someday soon... I hope.

 

[fenderstrat]

kinda. its getting too easy, and with too much unecesary stuff. who needs to use the hidden blade if you can just kill your target from afar, silently, with your crossbow? and the combat is unchallenging. i dont think i ever got killed in a swordfight in brotherhood.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Number one I thought of as a good concept and enjoyed it a bit. Brotherhood was a very good game in my opinion. Never played number 2. I love short sentences.

 

[Zhukov]

Not so much disappointed as just plain fed up.

AC1 was a really cool gameplay concept hindered by poor execution and lacklustre (fuck off spellcheck, that is a word) story.

AC2 was that same gameplay concept with better execution, but with the challenge and intensity wound back to 0 and a story that shat itself inside out in the final act.

AC:B felt like a expansion pack that had been buried up to its neck in padding and extraneous bullshit. Multiplayer was nice though.

Lastly, AC:R seems determined to not do anything new or exciting. More Altiar? Oh joy. And Ezio again... urrg. At least it's in a new location I suppose, but that's not enough for my money unless it comes out during a dry spell.

*sigh*

I wonder if they'll ever get round to doing that one in Imperial Russia with a new character... hey, a guy can dream. While I'm at it, I could dream about a game that starts with Desmond overdosing on his bland pills and dying in his sleep.

 

[Gralian]

What really bothers me is the go nowhere story. It's like they came up with this great concept that got so convoluted that even the writers have no idea where it's going or how to resolve any of it. The whole "go experience memories of your ancestors" and "struggle against a neo-Templar movement who may or may not be the bad guys" seems like a fantastic setting and idea, but as soon as you try to tackle too much at once (the whole extraneous link to the present day - why can't we at least leave one location to explore the modern world, even if it's just a token hub to run around? Monterrigioni(sp?) does not count!) and start introducing batshit plot elements like alien societies that were mistaken for divine beings as well as doomsday plot devices like "It's the End of Days and only you and the Scooby-Doo gang can save the planet!" it feels like everything's gone right out the window in favour of a cliffhanger ending that will make you want to see the next installment, only to go through another 90% of arbitrary plot in some ancient city before you get to what should be the juicy stuff, only to find yet another cliffhanger that explains nothing. Brotherhood was the third game in the series to do this and the fact they haven't begun to explain a thing yet suggests that not even they know how to deal with this la-la story they've created. Don't get me wrong, i love AC to bits and i can't wait to see how it all unfolds in the end, but the fact Revelations is the SECOND FUCKING EXPANSION (sorry, but Revelations is not AC 3) suggests merely padding and milking a franchise that may not even have a narrative direction to fall back on. It also feels like they're on the cusp of tackling some heavy themes, like whether the Templar oppose the Assassin Brotherhood in order to cover up the fact God may not be real / that these aliens were the ones who actually created humanity, but it never really dares to venture into that territory and it's all only really implied and inferred by what the audience derives from it. I'd like some more solid, concrete exposition if i'm to remain invested in what's going on. Leading you by the nose is "okay" for the first game in a series, but to do so with the third or fourth is a bit of a slap in the face.

 

[iDoom46]

Not really.
The games have gotten increasingly better with each installment.
That being said, the next game looks to be our (thankfully) last romp through Renaissance Italy with Ezio, so we should be getting something new soon. (next year?)

However, it is a little disappointing that it seems like they're wrapping up the story before we can run around killing guards on the rooftops of a few other interesting time periods. Then again, that's what spinoffs are for!

 

[Drexlor]

Expansion packs? Assassin's Creed II is by no means an expansion pack. It improved upon the original in almost every way. I also would not consider Brotherhood to be an expansion pack. It's called a sequel.

 

[FuzzyRaccoon]

The only thing that bothers me is probably the exact opposite of what bothers everyone else. I want one of the games in the future to focus heavily on Desmond, because I like the natural progression of that guy coming into his own and being someone and doing cool things.

But I also love sci-fi to death and haven't seen very many good iterations of Sci-fi games.

Except I guess recently there have been some good ones. Huh.

 

[farq1414]

Not so much disappointed as just plain fed up.

AC1 was a really cool gameplay concept hindered by poor execution and lacklustre (fuck off spellcheck, that is a word) story.

AC2 was that same gameplay concept with better execution, but with the challenge and intensity wound back to 0 and a story that shat itself inside out in the final act.

AC:B felt like a expansion pack that had been buried up to its neck in padding and extraneous bullshit. Multiplayer was nice though.

Lastly, AC:R seems determined to not do anything new or exciting. More Altiar? Oh joy. And Ezio again... urrg. At least it's in a new location I suppose, but that's not enough for my money unless it comes out during a dry spell.

*sigh*

I wonder if they'll ever get round to doing that one in Imperial Russia with a new character... hey, a guy can dream. While I'm at it, I could dream about a game that starts with Desmond overdosing on his bland pills and dying in his sleep.

i think that is a book or comic book about assassin's creed set in Russia

 

[Beliyal]

Not disappointed at all.

I always wonder why do people dislike this Assassin's Creed idea to expand Ezio's story and to play with him in more than one game. Don't games usually have one protagonist anyway? What's so unusual about it? Assassin's Creed series gave us three protagonists for now. At first, I was a bit surprised that they'll continue to explore Ezio, but now after Brotherhood, I wouldn't have wanted it any other way. The Renaissance period is absolutely gorgeous and full of interesting individuals, events and places. It is not my favourite time period, it's not even on the top 5 list, but I continue to be amazed by how wonderfully it was done in the games and how much I started to love it since. Now I feel like I would be able to play ten more games in the same setting (also, the fact that I actually visited Venice, Florence and Rome turned it into an even better experience).

Besides, while Revelations is set in the same time period, it will be a very big change in the setting. Constantinople will give a very different vibe, and by being able to explore some other locations and Altair as well, I expect it to be nowhere near similar to Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood. Same character? Yes. Same period? Yes. Same feeling? I doubt it.

About "not putting in much effort", I highly disagree. The amount of effort put to recreating cities such as Venice, Florence and Rome into an in-game equivalent from 500 years ago, and to do it so greatly, takes a lot of time, resources, investigating and learning. They didn't just invent random things and put it wherever they liked, they actually made sure everything was as historically correct as possible. I don't know how much time they spent on it, but it sure as hell looks like it was a lot. That's one of the reasons I like AC games so much.

Of course, I agree that it would be cool to explore other periods, but AC games are not primarily about exploring time periods; they have a set theme and story, and I'd rather have it if they finish the story as they planned it, instead of creating unrelated games that exist only for people to jump on roofs of some city in a time period they prefer. Hell yeah, I'd like to explore Ancient Greece or Victorian England, but I understand that the current story has no reason to go there, as of now. I'd like, however, for AC games to go somewhere else sometime in the future, but I'd also like for the current story to end with the current characters and to have the same theme and overall feel. No need to include more characters and time periods, it would just make a mess (and it would be quite strange for Desmond to have even more famous important assassin ancestors. Having two of them is a stretch already). As I understand, Revelations will finish Ezio's (and Altair's) story and we will be all set to move on to finish Desmond's story. Sure, it could've been done in less games and less extra material, but would it contain such a rich setting and world with its own rich and complex mythology, characters, places and events? Probably not. That's what makes it great (in the eyes of an obviously rabid fangirl, it seems).

 

[Gralian]

I always wonder why do people dislike this Assassin's Creed idea to expand Ezio's story and to play with him in more than one game. Don't games usually have one protagonist anyway?

Because the series kind of touted the idea that it would be about exploring several moments, places and people in history. Ezio and Altair aren't so much protagonists as they are narrative devices. They are a vehicle for the story to move forward. They do have personalities and we do see things through their eyes, but the thing to remember is that it is always brought back to Desmond, the central protagonist. It just feels like they've flitted from "let's explore through history as a whole" to "let's focus on one or two key individuals", which is a bit frustrating - it almost feels like a complete narrative shift.

I would also say it may not be so much that it's focusing on one character, but that Ezio himself is not very likable to certain people. I'll admit, i couldn't stand him at first and while i know that was the point at the start (you're meant to see him as a bit of a twat at the start of AC2 and see him develop and mature in the course of his adventures, something i think Ubisoft pulled off well as you rarely see such genuine characterisation) i didn't much like him throughout most of AC2 either. It was only really when he fully matured in Brotherhood that i warmed up to him, when he had gone from the student to the mentor figure. This is also a personal thing, but constantly hearing him say "gratzie", "prego" or "raquesca en pace" grated on my nerves a bit. We get it, he's Italian - we don't need the token phrases every five seconds. I suppose the remedy to that would be to just play the game in Italian with subtitles sine i seem to recall being able to do that.

 

[Waaghpowa]

I personally haven't really thought the series was good enough for me to get all excited for. First game was so repetitive that even with my obsessive compulsive nature to complete every side quest and hidden item collection, I could't bear to play through the end and quit. Assassin's Creed 2 I felt was a great improvement from the first, but once again, I didn't think it was as great as everyone else was going on about.

To this day, I have yet to play Brotherhood for a few reasons. First being how much I disagree with Ubisoft's DRM practices, therefore I refuse to pay full price for the game. This means I've been waiting for it to go on steam sale, probably this Christmas, depending on how much money I have to spend between the other releases I have my eye on. The second reason being that it's set in Italy again, which disappointed me as the entire premise was based on the ability to relive the memories of your ancestors, yet they went back to Italy. I felt that there was a lot of wasted potential in doing that. Third reason being that I buy PC games, and I'm sure as hell not going to spend money on a game I'm not sure I'll like that I can't trade in.

 

[dashiz94]

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.

If there's anything you can fault the AC development team for, it's NOT putting in a lack of effort. I know this is an opinion, but really, if you're saying that the developers are half-assing it than you're just being mean for the sake of being mean. I have enjoyed all aspects of the series so far. The story is still well written between the historical/modern period, the gameplay has the same fundamental core but always has new tweaks and changes to it that make it better, and as said previously the attention to detail and the way the AC team brings the time periods to life is something that I rarely see in other games.

The team has stated multiple times that this is the LAST game with Ezio in it, after this it's going to be a new protagonist and time period. I actually admire what they did. The team recognized that they needed to make three games to fully tie up all loose threads rather than just throw out an unrelated new protagonist and say "What? You expected closure? Here's some guards, go stab their neck or something you mindless SHEEP."

 

[dashiz94]

I just don't understand why everyone hates on Activision for releasing Call Of Duty on a yearly basis, yet gives Ubisoft a free pass on the same thing. Ever since Assassin's Creed II, they've been pumping games out on an annual basis, and I honestly think it's starting to show.

Assassin's Creed expands their gameplay. Call of Duty does not. Also the AC stories are much better and more sensical.

 

[I.N.producer]

I love the whole Assassin's Creed series, and I think they've gotten better with each game. I've only been able to play the main games, not the handheld ones. Altair was a badass, but every guard had more personality than him, the game repeated the same bit a dozen times.

Maybe I would have liked him more if he had development other than "I was arrogant and I've seen the error of my ways." He sounded fascinating from the Codex messages though.

I liked how they took Ezio and made an assassin out of him. His games have been great for his development, and I like how you can see him aging a bit, even though he denies it. I bet in Revelations, he will be struggling with his age and end up with a heroic sacrifice. It would be a fairly fitting end for him.

With Desmond's story, well Desmond is a bit disappointing. Hopefully he gets a bit more characterization in Revelations. Seems like his current mental state would be perfect for development.

One of my favorite things about Assassin's Creed is the giant conspiracy plot.

 

[DirgeNovak]

I'm still not done with AC2, so I wouldn't exactly know, but I do find it a bit disappointing that they're doing a third Ezio game. How old is he in Revelations? 60?

But hey, they're still kickass games.
[small]Except for the first one. It was shit.[/small]

 

[BristolBerserker]

Nope i like ezio and his story.

 

[BanicRhys]

The series is great (even though Brohood screen tore like a ***** on my PS3), they've always improved the gameplay with each installment.

As for AC3's setting, I'm surprised no one has thought of setting it in the 20th century and make the protagonist a member of the Italian mafia.