Jason Rayes said:
Rack said:
Not bad? I'm not sure I'd go that far but it isn't so awful that it stands out as particularly terrible next to the many, many examples of abysmal writing throughout the series.
I can understand that you gave the first game a shot, you had never experienced it before. But I always wonder about people complaining about things like "abysmal writing throughout the series". You must have known after the first game that you hated it, why play the whole series? Its not like work or school or something where you have to go. Its voluntary, you must have known you despised the writing from the get go, why force yourself through the entire series? I'm always baffled, it seems like some kind of bizarre form of masochism. Lets be honest, for the majority of people the story and writing was the draw of the game, the gameplay was just a means to unravel the story. You can't have come for the gameplay, so you must have come for the terrible writing. Why???.
It's a problem with many gamers, myself included. Assassins Creed: Revelations is an abhorrent scar on the otherwise attractive face of the Assassins Creed franchise. I played about 3 missions, and hated it. I kept playing and disliking it, finding something to complain about every time I watched a cutscene (dialogue, story, motivation) and yet I played through to the end, hoping for some closure.
--- SPOILER ALERT ---
None came, apart from the tragic end to Subject 16, whom I like more than Desmond. The only redeeming factors it had were the Masyaf Key memories (closing AltÅir's story) and the final scene with Ezio addressing Desmond through time.
I kinda lost track there, but my point is it's like reading a bad book. You don;t like the writing but you want to see how it ends. I did this with the Hunger Games trilogy. I didn't like much of the 2nd or 3rd books (or even the first really) but I read 'em because I needed to know.
It's like when Hayes is talking to Jimmy about Heart of Darkness in Peter Jackson's King Kong.
