Poll: Am I the only person who likes Assassin's Creed 1 better than 2?
- Thread starter Spencer Brower
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Assassins Creed 1 was really fun to play because i had never really played something like that. But of the 2, AC II was BETTER, because they added a fair bit of depth to it, and it feels like theres much better depth or whatever you wanna call it.
But doing that usually leads to you getting detected and having to fight off a bunch of guards and the target, which almost always leads to some long-ass chase. Without foresight, the odds of your assassination getting botched up is higher. (Though like someone in the game said, can't remember if it was Al Mualim or Malik, you should always expect something to go wrong) Planning it all out leads to some extremely satisfying stealth kills that you most likely would never have gotten without it.Exosus said:
By the way, why would I give up on a gameplay element that I liked? The sequel truly doesn't give you these chances, it doesn't even have a list of collected information to reference like the first game. It truly is just 'The target has been sighted, go stab him in the face.' And believe me, the few times it actually 'sort of' lets me pre-meditate my assassinations, I jump on the chance. Like that one side mission where you have to save a girl whose being chased without being seen by either of them, I'd stay on the roofs and watch them run around so I could figure out the route they're taking, and then find the best possible hiding spot. I didn't give up on it in the least bit.
AC2 is a better game, but I like AC1 more. In the first one, there was actually some feel to being an assassin. The minigames were repetative, sure, but it was really satisfying to get a map of the guard locations and makes plans accordingly. Also, you could actually make a few stealth assassinations if took the time for them.
AC2 throws all that out the window. All the assassinations are "Here's the guy, go kill him now." On top of that, everytime you try and sneak up on a guy, a cutscene start playing and the dude start running away. Not to mention that the notoriety system was broken, and could easily swordfight your way out of anything, even if you sucked. AC2 isn't about an assassin. Its about a guy with a sword that can free-run when he needs to get from point A to point B.
Also, Ezio is a doosh compared to Altair. But I suppose its fitting that the difference in character reflects the difference in gameplay.
AC2 throws all that out the window. All the assassinations are "Here's the guy, go kill him now." On top of that, everytime you try and sneak up on a guy, a cutscene start playing and the dude start running away. Not to mention that the notoriety system was broken, and could easily swordfight your way out of anything, even if you sucked. AC2 isn't about an assassin. Its about a guy with a sword that can free-run when he needs to get from point A to point B.
Also, Ezio is a doosh compared to Altair. But I suppose its fitting that the difference in character reflects the difference in gameplay.
I have to say, I do much prefer the combat and the general feeling oif AC1 a lot more that in the later games (tho AC:Brotherhood has awesome fighting).
There was something just so much more impressive about AC1. The first time you walked through the games of Damascus, the first time you climbed the church spire in Acre, the first you pulled off a perfect fight without you getting hit at all, the first time you pulled off a perfect assassination and a parfect getaway, these things just weren't replicated in later games to the same degree.
And there was something so much more all comsuming about walking through a city like Damascus, Acre or Jarusalem in AC1. You felt small, insignificant and you felt alone in this gigantic city. That wasn't replicated in the later games somehow. You felt like you had control at all times in AC2 and Brotherhood, wheras, in AC1 sometimes shit could just get crasy and you'd have to leg it as fast as possible to safety.
The one thing I relish more than anything in the later games though is the combat system. How it's evolved is both a good and bad thing. On the upside, you feel in control and you feel awesome and powerful. On the downside, you don't feel the same rush when surrounded by twelve guys at once.
There was something just so much more impressive about AC1. The first time you walked through the games of Damascus, the first time you climbed the church spire in Acre, the first you pulled off a perfect fight without you getting hit at all, the first time you pulled off a perfect assassination and a parfect getaway, these things just weren't replicated in later games to the same degree.
And there was something so much more all comsuming about walking through a city like Damascus, Acre or Jarusalem in AC1. You felt small, insignificant and you felt alone in this gigantic city. That wasn't replicated in the later games somehow. You felt like you had control at all times in AC2 and Brotherhood, wheras, in AC1 sometimes shit could just get crasy and you'd have to leg it as fast as possible to safety.
The one thing I relish more than anything in the later games though is the combat system. How it's evolved is both a good and bad thing. On the upside, you feel in control and you feel awesome and powerful. On the downside, you don't feel the same rush when surrounded by twelve guys at once.
The thing is that in Assassin's Creed, the Targets were directly revealed, so you had an objetive to do. in AC2 it's more like a TV Drama with new targets coming right after you've whacked one. In AC 1 the cities were directly connected, while in AC2 you could either do stuff on the country side, or swap between cities directly. etc etc
perso, i prefer AC2 due to the time period and architectures, it's funny to see the places you've already been to...
perso, i prefer AC2 due to the time period and architectures, it's funny to see the places you've already been to...
Assassins Creed was a good follow up and did everything a sequel should. Not the best sequel in gaming history but good enough to be remembered.
I don't see how it's even possible to like 1 more than 2, unless you just like less game. I can't think of one thing AC1 does better. Not a single thing.
I adored the setting to the first game, loved it so much. Being an assassin in the desert is alot cooler than being in Italy.
Otherwise, everything is the sequel is done better.
Otherwise, everything is the sequel is done better.
To me, there was just to much to AC2, the armor, color, weapons, etc... I liked the very basic and still fun feel to Assassins Creed.
The first game will always be remembered for it's innovation, but AC1 did as much wrong as it did right and I could never quite enjoy it because of that.
I definitely prefer the second game.
AC: Brotherhood on the other hand went way overboard, breaking any sense of difficulty. The crossbow was overpowered as hell and having your own band of assassins basically made the game piss easy.
I definitely prefer the second game.
AC: Brotherhood on the other hand went way overboard, breaking any sense of difficulty. The crossbow was overpowered as hell and having your own band of assassins basically made the game piss easy.
I think it's really gone from strength to strength. AC1 was a lot of fun, but it was definitely repetitive, but that's not to say it is bad in any way. I actually enjoyed collecting the different bits of info. However, I didn't miss it when AC2 came around. I preferred the streamlined experience and I still had the opportunity to wander around the city, getting upgrades and such. I've been playing AC:B for the past couple of days and I prefer it to AC2 already, they've worked out a lot of the kinks from AC2.
Given the way it's going, Ubisoft should have something incredible on their hands for AC3.
Although I'm still excited about Lost Legacy on the 3DS...
Given the way it's going, Ubisoft should have something incredible on their hands for AC3.
Although I'm still excited about Lost Legacy on the 3DS...