First game had a decent amount going for it even if some parts wandered into frustration and even bad design. Overall it was pretty decent and I imagine unless they add some utterly horrible new feature it should be fine.
Poll: Assassin's Creed 2: Yay or Nay?
- Thread starter balimuzz
- Start date
Recommended Videos
im halfway excitied. i really liked the 1st one, but it seems like they're picking the easy route going medival again. would've liked to see something in the 20th century
I loved the first, despite being slow and repetetive... I also loved its combat, as weird as it sounds... Sure, it was simple, but I just loved seeing Altaïr's "I WIN" moves complete with spins, crotch-kicking, neck-slashing and face-stabbing... from awesome angles. And of course, chasing down the last survivor who goes "Please! NO!" and planting the wrist-blade in the buggers neck.
I know. I particularly liked that one Hidden Blade Counter where he stabbed them in the chest, punched them in the throat, stabbed them in the face. Awesome.Fraeir said:
The first one is one of my favorite games, so I can't wait for the second.
Oh... and I LOVE cliffhangers. So I also loved the end of this game. Seriously, why do so many people hate the anticipation a cliffhanger brings? We all knew they were most likely going to make another one, so it's not like we weren't going to find out.
Oh... and I LOVE cliffhangers. So I also loved the end of this game. Seriously, why do so many people hate the anticipation a cliffhanger brings? We all knew they were most likely going to make another one, so it's not like we weren't going to find out.
I tend to cliffhangers too, but not AC's. Strange, it was really the only part of the game I disliked. I didn't like it because there was no resolution at all. An example of a good cliffhanger is in Mass Effect: you feel accomplishment from taking down Sovereign, and everyone's temporarily safe, but it's clear there's still more to do. AC just cut out in the middle.ZeroMachine said:
orannis posted a link to his thread about the AC2 article in the latest GameInformer a few posts up, I suggest you check it out.WanderFreak said:
The Renaissance is not Medieval. Besides, they'd have to completely reinvent the game to make it work with guns.devildog1170 said:
Also, YAY!
EDIT: I seem to have accidentally reported this post.
![[Gavo]](https://eg-forums-escapist-data.nyc3.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/33/33764.jpg?1620201950){kind=avatar}
man, i always associate swords with medival, my History teacher would kill me. but im not talkin guns, like, early 1920s, and they would have to find some way in the story to exclude guns. i just think that a modern setting could help better than something old again.Eldritch Warlord said:
I loved the first game even with the flaws and repetitive missions. This new one just looks way more fun.
A big selling point of the first was that it was set in a time period relatively unexplored by video games. And not to be rude but I don't really see any benefit for a parkour beat-'em-up being set in a more modern setting.devildog1170 said:
Agreed. The most I can see in that direction is Desmond getting his ancestors' abilities and escaping.Eldritch Warlord said: