Poll: Am I the only person who likes Assassin's Creed 1 better than 2?

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Assassin's Creed 1 was boring and repetitive.

The game went like this:
Find viewpoint
Do three of the same six quests
Kill some guy
Run away and hide
Repeat nine times.

Don't forget helping Aasiv or whoever find their meticulously scattered yet all-important flags within three minutes in order to prove your trustworthiness.

I love ACII. I personally think it's better in every way, although I don't like how some targets death monologues repeat. I mean, come on, Ubisoft. At least PRETEND that some people care about those things. (Like me) But I digress. Ezio beats the HELL out of Altair. The guy was a blank fucking slate. Ezio had character development and a fully developed personality. And, like everyone's saying, ACII is much less repetitive. Although sometimes the whole "assassin" thing gets stretched a little in favor of all-out war on a target.

 

[Spencer Brower]

All good points, but I guess the things I liked the best about AC 1 were Altair, The Setting(1191), and the combat. (in AC 2 they dialed down the blood to make it more realistic, which is far less satisfying). But come on. In the first game, you feel like an Assassin, because of the clothes and time period. Italy just isn't the same. And sure I like Oblivion and Zelda, but In AC I'd rather the Zelda approach to obtaining equipment.

 

[Marsell]

AC2 had better gameplay, but Altier was a better protagonist.

 

[Spencer Brower]

and the reason Altair is better is because he's a blank slate. He's a assassin, he game itse;

Assassin's Creed 1 was boring and repetitive.

The game went like this:
Find viewpoint
Do three of the same six quests
Kill some guy
Run away and hide
Repeat nine times.

Don't forget helping Aasiv or whoever find their meticulously scattered yet all-important flags within three minutes in order to prove your trustworthiness.

I love ACII. I personally think it's better in every way, although I don't like how some targets death monologues repeat. I mean, come on, Ubisoft. At least PRETEND that some people care about those things. (Like me) But I digress. Ezio beats the HELL out of Altair. The guy was a blank fucking slate. Ezio had character development and a fully developed personality. And, like everyone's saying, ACII is much less repetitive. Although sometimes the whole "assassin" thing gets stretched a little in favor of all-out war on a target.

Altair is better because of how he's characterized. The game does all the work with little story being needed. He kills for a cause and avoids killing innocents. That's all. Nothing's wrong with a good story, but Ezio is supposed to feel like a person, whereas Altair is characterized as an assassin. They are both very different but I still prefer Altair because he was a guy who runs around and kills people. I felt connected to him. Ezio is a person with relationships that the player doesn't develop themselves, and therefore I felt distanced from him. he's not the character I want to be in the game.

Note: I have not played a lot of AC II yet, so it still may change my mind.

 

[unoleian]

There are a few things I miss from the first game. I rather liked planning my assassinations after collecting all the information on a target. I would literally rehearse it by going to the area the guy was going to be and plan my entrances, hiding spots, escape routes, etc. You never really get that sort of chance in AC2, it's just "There's the target, go get him." And while you saved way too many civilians from guards in the first, I still would have liked to have done it a few times in the second.

But that's pretty much it, I'd say everything else was improved on in the sequel.

I really agree 100% about the planning and rehearsal aspects of the missions in the first game. Doing the side-jobs to gather information became ultimately satisfying when the plan they helped work out went off without a hitch. These tactical aspects in conjunction with Ezio's wider range of abilities would have made for an extremely entertaining experience.


That said, I greatly prefer the gameplay of the sequel and the sequel's sequel. Also, citizen rescues make a somewhat brief but enjoyable return in Brotherhood.

]No, you fight all enemies in AC2 in the exact same way. You go unarmed, disarm, instant kill using their own weapon. It works against every single enemy in the game, and it just shows how little of an effort Ubisoft actually put into making the combat more varied in AC2.

No, YOU fight all enemies in AC2 the exact same way. I prefer to utilize all the tools at my disposal. The fights are as varied and entertaining as I can make them, for my own entertainment and visceral satisfaction. Start off with a double assassination, counter the next guard's attack, throw another through some nearby scaffolding, and finish with a stylish disarm as a final insult to the remaining poor bastard. There's a wealth of combat options, it's up to you to choose how to utilize them. Just because disarms are insanely effective does NOT mean one needs to limit themselves solely to their use.

 

[Rakun Man]

Just letting you know, in the forum tabs this reads:

"Poll: Am I the only person who likes Ass..."

and it's really funny.

OT: Just to add something relavant, I like the Italian Renaissance setting, A LOT.

 

[KindOfnElf]

I too prefer Assassin's Creed 1 before the second one. I liked Altair better than Ezio, the character of Al Mualim and the story in general. Yeah, dark ages over Renaissance any day. I've beat Assassin's Creed 1 three times and I intend to do it again and that is not something I'd like to do with the second one.
OP sorry, you are not the only one.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

There are some things I miss from the first AssCreed that I weren't in the sequel.
Some being the key word.

I miss how the towns felt more crowded (probably because the buildings were all blocks that were close together), the ability to save civillians from guards and the ability to replay missions.
The rest of Assassin's Creed 1 was all greatly improved in Assassin's Creed 2

 

[Dogstile]

and the reason Altair is better is because he's a blank slate. He's a assassin, he game itse;

Assassin's Creed 1 was boring and repetitive.

The game went like this:
Find viewpoint
Do three of the same six quests
Kill some guy
Run away and hide
Repeat nine times.

Don't forget helping Aasiv or whoever find their meticulously scattered yet all-important flags within three minutes in order to prove your trustworthiness.

I love ACII. I personally think it's better in every way, although I don't like how some targets death monologues repeat. I mean, come on, Ubisoft. At least PRETEND that some people care about those things. (Like me) But I digress. Ezio beats the HELL out of Altair. The guy was a blank fucking slate. Ezio had character development and a fully developed personality. And, like everyone's saying, ACII is much less repetitive. Although sometimes the whole "assassin" thing gets stretched a little in favor of all-out war on a target.

Altair is better because of how he's characterized. The game does all the work with little story being needed. He kills for a cause and avoids killing innocents. That's all. Nothing's wrong with a good story, but Ezio is supposed to feel like a person, whereas Altair is characterized as an assassin. They are both very different but I still prefer Altair because he was a guy who runs around and kills people. I felt connected to him. Ezio is a person with relationships that the player doesn't develop themselves, and therefore I felt distanced from him. he's not the character I want to be in the game.

Note: I have not played a lot of AC II yet, so it still may change my mind.

I find it rather hilarious that you feel more connected to a dude who runs around and shanks people for a living rather than a person who kills for a cause. Altair actually had relationships, but all of them were either "I am in awe of your assassin prowess" or "I hate you because you're overconfident". Neither endeared me to the character.

OT:

Definately preferred ACII, so much that when a guy who i lent my copy to so he could try it returned it with scratch marks, i wanted to kill him.

But its cool, I had more important things to do at the time, so he lives

 

[Marsell]

Also, you could redo missions if you wanted in AC1.

 

[ultrachicken]

I played the first game 3 times, so there's...something...about it I like better than AC2.

Maybe it's the setting. And Altair's robes are much less...flashy.

Overall, the minor improvements to the series' combat will keep from from going back to AC1 a fourth time. I can't imagine not having double assassinations anymore...That, and the unskippable cutscenes. I hate the speeches given to you by the boss-man at the start of each memory block due to hearing them so much when I wanted to go back to town after beating the game.

The reason that, even though I loved AC1, I can't go back to it is because I hated the climbing in that game. AC2 improved on this a bit by making it possible for Ezio to alternate hands while climbing, but not enough.

OT: I greatly prefer AC2, but I think Altaïr looked way cooler than Ezio. But the character model for Ezio in Brotherhood is the coolest of them all.

 

[Spencer Brower]

I too prefer Assassin's Creed 1 before the second one. I liked Altair better than Ezio, the character of Al Mualim and the story in general. Yeah, dark ages over Renaissance any day. I've beat Assassin's Creed 1 three times and I intend to do it again and that is not something I'd like to do with the second one.
OP sorry, you are not the only one.

Yay! Finally!

 

[Soluncreed]

I'm not going to vote because to me eaach game was different. Assassins Creed 1 felt more immersive to me. I enjoyed each assassination as it felt like I had to work hard to get to it. While some of the missions were a little repetitive, I really didn't mind. I felt more like an assassin in this one.

Assassins Creed 2 however was more action packed. It had more exciting scenes and made the player feel really awesome in certain areas. It felt a little easier and made you seem less like an assassin and more like a skilled fighter.

Its not that either game is bad, they're just different.

 

[Spencer Brower]

and the reason Altair is better is because he's a blank slate. He's a assassin, he game itse;

Assassin's Creed 1 was boring and repetitive.

The game went like this:
Find viewpoint
Do three of the same six quests
Kill some guy
Run away and hide
Repeat nine times.

Don't forget helping Aasiv or whoever find their meticulously scattered yet all-important flags within three minutes in order to prove your trustworthiness.

I love ACII. I personally think it's better in every way, although I don't like how some targets death monologues repeat. I mean, come on, Ubisoft. At least PRETEND that some people care about those things. (Like me) But I digress. Ezio beats the HELL out of Altair. The guy was a blank fucking slate. Ezio had character development and a fully developed personality. And, like everyone's saying, ACII is much less repetitive. Although sometimes the whole "assassin" thing gets stretched a little in favor of all-out war on a target.

Altair is better because of how he's characterized. The game does all the work with little story being needed. He kills for a cause and avoids killing innocents. That's all. Nothing's wrong with a good story, but Ezio is supposed to feel like a person, whereas Altair is characterized as an assassin. They are both very different but I still prefer Altair because he was a guy who runs around and kills people. I felt connected to him. Ezio is a person with relationships that the player doesn't develop themselves, and therefore I felt distanced from him. he's not the character I want to be in the game.

Note: I have not played a lot of AC II yet, so it still may change my mind.

I find it rather hilarious that you feel more connected to a dude who runs around and shanks people for a living rather than a person who kills for a cause. Altair actually had relationships, but all of them were either "I am in awe of your assassin prowess" or "I hate you because you're overconfident". Neither endeared me to the character.

OT:

Definately preferred ACII, so much that when a guy who i lent my copy to so he could try it returned it with scratch marks, i wanted to kill him.

But its cool, I had more important things to do at the time, so he lives

When I played AC, Part of the fun was running around shanking people, who didn't Hidden blade a guard just to start a fight because it was fun? it's like GTA, part of the fun is randomly killing people.

 

[CaptainKoala]

The 2nd one has more gameplay elements. But the first one had more stealth, and more chances to actually be an assassin and not just a killer with a sword.

 

[unoleian]

When I played AC, Part of the fun was running around shanking people, who didn't Hidden blade a guard just to start a fight because it was fun? it's like GTA, part of the fun is randomly killing people.

Actually, I preferred to silently murder a guard, sit on a nearby bench, and watch all the other guards walk up and get freaked out by the dead guy. Then start a fight, right after silently murdering another guard...heh.

 

[Spencer Brower]

I'm not going to vote because to me eaach game was different. Assassins Creed 1 felt more immersive to me. I enjoyed each assassination as it felt like I had to work hard to get to it. While some of the missions were a little repetitive, I really didn't mind. I felt more like an assassin in this one.

Assassins Creed 2 however was more action packed. It had more exciting scenes and made the player feel really awesome in certain areas. It felt a little easier and made you seem less like an assassin and more like a skilled fighter.

Its not that either game is bad, they're just different.

yes but the game is called ASSASSIN'S creed. not fight people with swords. The First seems truer to the name, the 2nd is good but its more like pirates of the carribean 1 for the original xbox (the RPG one that had nothing to do with the movies)than AC.

 

[SextusMaximus]

The poll speaks for itself. AC2 is a much bigger, much more polished and much better game. At least in my opinion, to each their own after all.