Thoughts on Assassin's Creed?

[Audemas]

I've given both Assassin Creed games multiple tries and I can't play them. I beat the first one, but only because my friend kept urging me to finish it because I would love the ending. (In case you're wondering, no I didn't love the ending) When I was playing the first one after the fourth or fifth assassination, the game just felt like a chore. I just wanted to beat it and not have to play it again. Climbing every tower to see more of the map was annoying and the flags....don't get me started on that.
The second one I could only play for twenty minutes before I became bored with it. I haven't played it since because I guess it's not my kind of game.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

Well, Prince of Persia is focused almost solely on movement. I hate combat in those games though. AC has more than that going for it so it cant focus on just that.

True, POP is more about the flow of the gameplay, as it is primarily a platformer. What would AC be categorized as though? It has action elements, platforming, some strategy in Brotherhood, and the economy system.

Assassin's Creed is supposed to be a stealth adventure. With action thrown in. At least, that's what I've gathered.

My thoughts on Assassin's Creed? Beautiful game.

 

[jawakiller]

I love that game but it definitely needs some renovations. Maybe not a lot of changes but I really don't like the direction its going right now. Ubi can bring it back... I think?

But throwing knives for the win.

 

[voetballeeuw]

I enjoy it. The story and gameplay are quite interesting, but the platforming aspects make me want to tear my door off the wall.

 

[Tdc2182]

Assassin's Creed one was the first game I bought for my Xbox.

My save files got corrupted a little over halfway through, leaving me to restart the game with that horrible game concept of having to gain all your abilities throughout the playthrough of the game.

Assassin's Creed was rather straightforward and linear, so I kinda had to force myself through the game.

Left me with a bad impression.

Absolutely loved the second one in almost every single way more than the first (besides Altair being a bit more of a Bad ass. Wasn't a fan of the Italian accent).

Would have liked Brotherhood, but the ending few fighting scenes forcing you to use the Apple of Eden was one of the worst design choices I have ever seen any game ever make. It screwed the game over for me.

Now I am regarding this new Assassin's Creed with a blank disposition. This is the second game that Sony has pussied out on going into the future with (because you know they won't). They set themselves up for Desmond Miles' story (despite the rather terrible annoying character he is), and won't do anything with him besides the few free climbing missions.

Grow some balls Ubisoft. And if you just use the copy and paste shit you did for Brotherhood, I will refuse to buy your game just to spite you.

(I know, that really hurts them)

Edit: Also, they need to make the Assassinations seem more fluent. I hate having to bumrush the guy from about 5 yards away because that's as close as you can get to him.

 

[Elamdri]

What do you guys think about this series? I find it an interesting beast. I like the story and the characters, and I am very impressed at the scale of the cities featured in the games. But at the same time, I can't get over how bland the gameplay feels to me. Buy house, get cash to buy more house, kill man, stir up shit. It feels like Grand Theft Auto mixed with Prince of Persia thrown in an historical setting.

I find it strange, because I love Ubisoft's Prince of Persia series, but the AC games all seem rather clunky with their controls in comparison.

Like I said, I do like things about the games, like the story and definitely the sense of scale, but at the same time I feel held back by the gameplay. What are your opinions on the series?

It's a good series, but I feel like it's getting progressively easier. Especially in AC:B with the insta-kill arrowstorm and ability to call in assassins. It's pretty easy to get away from whoever is chasing you, which kinda detracts a bit from the whole "Oops, I got caught issue"

Not to mention that unless a mission is insta-fail if you're seen, then a lot of them can be solved by the following process.

1: Climb up really high
2: DEATH FROM ABOVE!
3: Run away and hide
4: Repeat until all guards are dead

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

The gameplay is great fun, but unfortunately it can get repetitive. The fighting however has become progressively easier. A lot of people said the first game could become hard because guards would swarm you, but once you mastered countering, no number of guards could touch you. It was even worse in 2 where when things went South you could throw a smoke bomb, take our your hidden blade, and kill everybody before it cleared.

The controls are most solid, but have a glaring issue. I hate when I'm running and my character throws himself at a wall instead of the ledge I was aiming for. It's also ridiculously easy to launch yourself off a wall in the complete opposite direction of where you want to go. I'm not sure how that could be fixed, although it especially causing head aches for timed events. I also didn't like how I would often drop my weapon to pick up a dead guard's for no apparent reason.

The story is bad. Not the lives of Altair or Ezio. The war between the assassins and Knights Templar is good, but the whole genetic memory with aliens warning of a catastrophe in the distant future was something I didn't enjoy. I can't remember the names of anyone in the present, but it seems as if there's some lead-up to a game where you play in the present as them. I'm not looking forward to that.

Ubisoft scored some major negative points from me by withholding entire sections of the game as DLC in 2. I was pissed to Hell when I found I skipped two entire sections, and restarted back at my last save trying to find them only to realize what game Ubisoft wss playing. When I played Brotherhood and met characters in these sections being referenced, it really upset me.

Overall, I think it's a good series with great landscapes, history, and gameplay with potential to be a lot better.

 

[rossable]

I lost my mind over the first one! the second I was disappointed with while the third was really just 2.5... imho, they would be better with a non-whiny-***** as a main character (I'm looking at you Desmond!) Ezio just pisses me off all around. it's hard to go from such a bad-ass like Altair to another character with the same momentum though. the first was a rise and fall dynamic while the second(s) were a coming of age tail, which is often difficult to make compelling without being verbose. I keep hoping for a return to awesome and the ditching of the failed Ezio character. The first game was focused on the genetic ancestor, the second on Desmond, the third was just plain crap for both. is it too much to hope that they retcon 2 and 3 in 4?

 

[WolfEdge]

What do you guys think about this series? I find it an interesting beast. I like the story and the characters, and I am very impressed at the scale of the cities featured in the games. But at the same time, I can't get over how bland the gameplay feels to me. Buy house, get cash to buy more house, kill man, stir up shit. It feels like Grand Theft Auto mixed with Prince of Persia thrown in an historical setting.

I find it strange, because I love Ubisoft's Prince of Persia series, but the AC games all seem rather clunky with their controls in comparison.

Like I said, I do like things about the games, like the story and definitely the sense of scale, but at the same time I feel held back by the gameplay. What are your opinions on the series?

I've actually found AC's controls to be incredibly responsive and tight, and the gameplay is great. My problems mostly stemmed from the difficulty in LEARNING the controls, which I feel the series (especially the first) does a poor job of explaining. It took me the entirety of the original AC to work up a groove that felt right, but that made all subsequent playthroughs of all the other games in the series smooth and rewarding. There really are a lot of maneuvers you can only pull off reliably when you've mastered the controls, which is admittedly a difficult task.

I lost my mind over the first one! the second I was disappointed with while the third was really just 2.5... imho, they would be better with a non-whiny-***** as a main character (I'm looking at you Desmond!) Ezio just pisses me off all around. it's hard to go from such a bad-ass like Altair to another character with the same momentum though. the first was a rise and fall dynamic while the second(s) were a coming of age tail, which is often difficult to make compelling without being verbose. I keep hoping for a return to awesome and the ditching of the failed Ezio character. The first game was focused on the genetic ancestor, the second on Desmond, the third was just plain crap for both. is it too much to hope that they retcon 2 and 3 in 4?

That would be awfully difficult, as the AC team has made it pretty clear they have a specific narrative arc in mind for the series. I'm sure you and I could BOTH agree that each of the games held very important conceptual information and story bits that would wreck the narrative if they were suddenly retconned. Not to mention the fact that Ezio was awesome and shut your face.

 

[DustyDrB]

It's probably one of my top 5 favorite series (lets see...Zelda, Mass Effect, KotOR...then Assassin's Creed). And I say that despite not really liking the first game. The gameplay mechanics are, to me, the most satisfying and polished in any open-world game. I don't really even care about the non-Ezio parts of the story. But the fighting, platforming (I looooove the platforming challenges), and even just normal traveling (it's second to Red Dead Redemption in terms of best horses) are really fun for me.

 

[rossable]

Growing into one of my favourite franchise, however the story feel a tad loose at time especially in assassin creed II (although in some aspect its better than ACI mostly character wise, but I didn't like how the templar became cartoony evil or that they tried painfully hard to have assassin to stand for something that would resonnate through the age but just can't)

the reasons for this stem to the game's origin. I followed this game from announcement 5 years prior to launch. It was initially set to be a one-shot PS3 exclusive game in a 1-2 game launch with "HAZE" being the game more marketed. between years 3 and 4 this changed as popularity and anticipation for the title grew, so the transition to any and every medium was made... but at the cost of the ending of the game. A month after AC1 was released it was announced that in 6 months the ending would be released as an expansion/DLC. this quickly got scraped, presumably in favor to take advantage of raking in cash to compensate for HAZE's failure, and thus the sequel was born. the stories don't seem to really fit together well because they were never intended to, with the initially planned ending being altogether removed or indefinably held off.

 

[ultrachicken]

I invariably find myself disappointed that none of the assassinations in the game are as cool as those displayed in the trailers.

 

[rossable]

That would be awfully difficult, as the AC team has made it pretty clear they have a specific narrative arc in mind for the series. I'm sure you and I could BOTH agree that each of the games held very important conceptual information and story bits that would wreck the narrative if they were suddenly retconned. Not to mention the fact that Ezio was awesome and shut your face.

i read star wars novels and comic books... retcon is lifeblood! and no, Ezio is an unlikeable street orphan with abandonment issues which even the games storyline is using as a bridge to get from game one to unforeseen end or next stepping stone character... the game(s) have always been about Desmond with the rest just being his self-discovery vehicle.

 

[WolfEdge]

That would be awfully difficult, as the AC team has made it pretty clear they have a specific narrative arc in mind for the series. I'm sure you and I could BOTH agree that each of the games held very important conceptual information and story bits that would wreck the narrative if they were suddenly retconned. Not to mention the fact that Ezio was awesome and shut your face.

i read star wars novels and comic books... retcon is lifeblood! and no, Ezio is an unlikeable street orphan with abandonment issues which even the games storyline is using as a bridge to get from game one to unforeseen end or next stepping stone character... the game(s) have always been about Desmond with the rest just being his self-discovery vehicle.

...Zuh? Am I missing something here? Ezio was part of an extremely wealthy family with connections and power like nobody's business. He was motivated by revenge, not abandonment, which wouldn't makes sense as he was never abandoned by anybody. Even after his father and brothers were killed, he still lived in his Uncle's villa with his mother and sister, hardly an orphan by any stretch of the imagination. And why SHOULDN'T AC 2's storyline, which was about Ezio with Desmond's situation as a framing device, use Ezio's motivations to advance the plot? Your argument isn't making any sense to me, as the points you're bringing up are non-existent.

Also, the EU of Star Wars, which is a collaboration of hundreds of individuals across multiple decades' worth of non-cannon fiction, is a tad different from a very specific planned series of narratives. To build off your argument, it'd be like if Return of the Jedi completely disregarded the build-up of the first two Star Wars movies: people would have been... angry, to put it nicely.

 

[RyQ_TMC]

The first game was good, but it used to annoy me to no end that stealth was pretty much nonexistent - more often than not, the game would force you into group combat anyway. And since all you needed was to hold block and counter whenever an enemy attacked, being mobbed by 30 guards was just boring. The game had no feel of challenge to it, all it had going for it was the crowds and landscapes... And the open-world parkour, of course.

The second was much, much better, and I loved it. Ezio was still undefeated in melee combat, but now at least there tended to be fewer guards mobbing you and stealth runs were actually possible, even if I was only challenging myself. Brotherhood added stealth requirements for 100% completion, so it's going the right way, I think. Giving you many options, but strongly suggesting stealth is the best one.

However, Brotherhood also felt like a big bundle of minigames thrown together just to cash in on the success of AC2. The entire segment of the story was unnecessary and only drew out the time you got to spend in Reneissance Italy. About halfway through the game, I felt tired of the setting. I'm with Yahtzee in that I expected the series to be about exploring different historical periods with Desmond as the framing device.

The story... It pulls you through, but it's really simplistic with its extremely black & white conflict and often feels drawn out just for the sake of padding (pretty much the entire Catherina Sforza act feels unnecessary, for example). And one thing that bothers me is that despite priding itself on historical detail, the series exploits lots of the shallow pop-cultural pseudo-historical preconceptions we have. Yes, I can ignore the bullshit "genetic memory" premise, but despite the "Animus simplification" and "Templars rewriting history books" handwaves, it bothers me that we get Hollywood History from a series about exploring historical periods little-found in fiction.

Also, they gave Copernicus an Italian accent. Fuck you, Patrice Desilets.

 

[StormShaun]

I love the story and the gameplay so far...

but the story needs to go to the PRESENT!

 

[Iskander_Estel]

i'am kind of sad... i felt like betrayed when i played Brotherhood.

somehow i got the feeling the story is ****up

Am I. the only one that noticed that the apple Desmond finds at the end of Brotherhood is supoused to be destroyed in Denvenr? and he never asked Lucy why they where looking for something that is supoused to be destroyed?

i just don't get the point in Brotherhood story... My last hope is to see if they explain this on the next one, if not al burn all the games...

I fell like betrayed, i was so in love with the story and concept... and then they come with this, i'm hoping someone here got an explanation to this plot hole.

 

[epikAXE]

Its badass