Poll: What is THE best Assassin's Creed game?

[King of Asgaard]

While Brotherhood (and Revelations) had improved gameplay, their stories are far inferior to that of Assassin's Creed 2.
The former two just felt like filler, especially Brotherhood.

 

[95spartans]

Brotherhood has the best gameplay, but assassins creed 2 has the best story. Assassins creed 1 is good because of how simple it is and how if you actually look, everything is building up to the assassinations in some way despite it's repetitiveness.

But revelations always seemed like it was missing something for me. Brotherhood never quite seemed like a cash in because of the changes in the game mechanics (mostly uneccessary but still good) and the development in Desmond's story. But revelations could have never existed and it wouldn't have made a difference.

I like to think of revelations as assassin's creed for retard's as the only thing it does story wise is show you what happens to the "ones who came before" for people who couldn't work it out already and show you what happened to Altair for people who couldn't work it out from the codex (the only thing's it introduces to Altiar's story is the other assassin who you refuse to kill for no apparent reason and the entire thing with the mongolians attacking Masayaf which can be easily worked out with a trip to Wikipedia). I'm probably being a bit harsh but that's just how I see it.

And a hookblade? Really?

 

[Awexsome]

AC2 with AC1's level of difficulty would be my ideal game. I remember escaping guards a bit too easily with AC2 onward, the rushes back to the assassin HQ after a major story assassination in AC1 were always intense with the entire city on alert actually seeing the guy in white with all the weapons and yelling, "ASSASSIN!" at the guy who actually looked like an assassin.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

2. That game is completely magical.

 

[Arkvoodle]

2.

Best story, best protagonist, best gameplay variety and the only one I've ever wanted to RE-play. Very few games do that now.

 

[mega48man]

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3pjuz5/
am i the only one around here who though AC Revelations was better than AC2?

i'll agree that the formula for AC2 was great, real batman story of a boy who lost his family and finds a way to avenge their death and seek justice, but revelations had that going on to and a lot more to go with it. are we forgetting about desmond's memories in the animus? that was pretty ground breaking for an assassin's creed game. while i admit the bomb making and assassin recruiting did feel pointless at times, there were also times when i was SO very glad i had them there to help me.

and of course...multiplayer. come on now, AC2 didn't have multiplayer of any kind and Revelations did. the multiplayer was introduced in brotherhood and was, eh, ok, so ubisoft montreal had the chance to tweak and work on it for Revelations. while i understand AC is solely a single player game, it's just nice to have it there so the player has more to do.

Ezio had waaay more fun toys in Revelations than he did in AC2, which also made the game much more fun to play. When it comes to being an assassin, it pays to be well armed.

 

[endtherapture]

AC1 was the best. Altair was a fucking badass, and you always had a goal throughout the entire game - to kill the seven evil men blah blah blah but the assassinations themselves were fun and basically you had a goal to achieve and by hiving you all your weapons at the start you knew what upgrades you'd be getting.

Also it was challenging and escaping from guards after an assassination was fucking stressful and gave me an adrenaline rush.

AC2 is the only other one I've played, but Ezio was annoying, the game had no focus and was too easy plus FUCK THE MISSION where you have to climb up a tower in like 4 minutes - I could never get the technique properly so I just gave up there.

 

[laggyteabag]

AC1 - When I first played it, I thought it was kinda' repetitive, and it got a bit boring at times, but overall, I thought it was a good game, but after playing all of the other games, I didn't enjoy it at all.

AC2 - My favourite story of the lot, the whole revenge thing just felt epic, with Ezio hunting down a string of Templars who betrayed his family, over many years, and I loved watching Ezio go from noble Florentine teenager, with too much money and time on his hands, to master Assassin. It was the only game in the series that actually felt like a sequel. I also loved exploring all of the cities (Mostly Venice and Florence)

ACB - In terms of gameplay, it was better than AC2, but it felt too easy because you could just call a group of Assassins to kill someone/ a group, The combat felt more polished too, but yet again, it just felt too easy with the addition of the "Killing Spree" system, so you could just carve through a group of 20 guards in a about 10 seconds. Rome also felt a little boring, because it was the same scenery and architecture throughout. It did have multiplayer though, and while that was original and extremely enjoyable, nobody plays it anymore, so now you're stuck with a short campaign, and a pointless multiplayer. In terms of story however, it is completely forgettable, all I can remember is trying to stop Cesere Borgia for some reason, and I cant seem to remember why.

ACR - In terms of gameplay, it is the best, because everything just felt polished, but it too felt too easy (see ACB, because most of the additions in that, are still in this), it also jumped onto the bandwagon of "Slow-mo makes things cool!". Most of the additions felt pointless anyway, the bombs were useless apart from the killing bombs, the hookblade just let you climb faster, and seemed stupidly unrealistic, most of the time I think Ubisoft just want you to finish their game faster because it sure does seem that way. For multiplayer, it just seems exactly the same as it did in Brotherhood, but its better in everyway, yet it doesnt feel as good in Revelations for whatever reason. For story it seems similar to Brotherhood, a short story, and I don't see the relevance of it, you're trying to get keys to a library, and the templars want it for some reason.

EDIT - This applies to all of the games:
Desmond is a horrible character, in all of the games
--Joe

TL;DR - AC2 was my favourite.

 

[Woodsey]

Brotherhood pretty much perfected the gameplay, but AC2 had a better balance between it and the story - Brotherhood's was stalled and didn't really go anywhere. Revelations just added completely useless shit and the story didn't go anywhere again either.

Pro-tip: if a major complaint against your series is that one of your protagonists isn't all that interesting, don't put him in a coma for an entire fucking game.

 

[The Last Nomad]

Having only played AC and ACII in any real depth, I'm gonna havta go with AC II. The little of what I played of Brotherhood just seemed like less of the same as ACII, but revelations looks like it might be a slight bit better, but perhaps too cluttered.

 

[Kermi]

AC1 was too clunky and frustrating and I found the story lacking. AC2 was vastly improved and engaged me a lot more. I did nlike Brotherhood but it was really more of the same. Revelations was too bloated and again, felt too bland to draw me in even after the cliffhanger ending of Brotherhood. I'm divided on whether I can be bothered with AC3.

 

[Weealzabob]

While the original was gorgeous, and I personally liked Altair's story more. (Less Dan Brown conspiracy, more philosophy and character grow.) AC2 just played so much better as a game. So number two.

Concerning the rest of the games I haven't played Revelations or the spin-offs. Brotherhood while totally awesome,and like Ezio a lot more, felt more like badass expansion pack than a standalone game.

 

[baddude1337]

I am still quite fond of the first one. Being the first one, it was very original and I much prefer the Crusades setting. The second one in terms of game play is miles better as the first one had limited and boring objectives, but I still loved running around the cities for hours fighting the guards.

 

[95spartans]

EDIT - This applies to all of the games:
Desmond is a horrible character, in all of the games
--Joe

Desmond isn't a horrible character. His problem is he has no character, no personality, to begin with. He's supposed to be an Everyman kind of character but ubisoft failed and created something as bland as a swede (the vegetable I mean). He isn't interesting enough to be a bad character.