Skip to content

Assassin's Creed anyone?

QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
image

My favorite is the first. I realize this puts me in the minority. ;)

That said, I enjoyed ACII and I still haven't finished ACIV ... it's quite fun though, and having a good protagonist helps. My favorite will always be Altaïr (he reminds me of Kivan tbh), but Edward Kenway is cool!

Opinions on Assassin's Creed series ... go!

Comments

  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    edited April 2014
    I played both I and II a lot (not mine, just in a friend's (and a cousin's) house), I really enjoyed I as I liked the context, but really, Renaissance Italy in a game is very cool. But what about Templars?
    I still unable to decide. I played III a little and I didn't like being in America nor using ships (I kinda like stealth and other stuff from this game, the 'jump from the 11th floor and tear his neck away'). I haven't played IV so I can't talk about it. III has nice mechanics, but, god, it has more bugs than BG:EE at it's release.
    And about the II's expansion or whatever they are (Brotherhood and Revelations) I don't played them either and I don't think I will, computer gamer here (and I'll try other games a soon as I find out one that is as good as BG).

    Edit btw: is that GIF an Assassin's Creed Harlem Shake? Why no Harlem Shuffle (The Rolling Stones!!!!).
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    Yeah, a lot of people were big fans of II for its setting. I rather liked the Holy Wars of the first though.

    I haven't played III but I doubt I would like it. I bought it for my sister because she wanted to play it for the sake of the series ... I told her most people thought it was bad but went ahead and got it for her, and yeah, her reaction was "So that was pretty bad. Thanks for the gift, though."

    I haven't played the spin-offs either. I do think IV brought some credibility back to the series after III sort of stumbled.

    I have no idea what the GIF is, other than hilarious and very out of character.
  • CrevsDaakCrevsDaak Member Posts: 7,155
    I really liked both I and II, I just can't decide which one I like the most :/

    Also in the gif they look like dancing, sorta weird.
    Really I won't recommend III, it isn't very good. And it's full of glitches, I remember jumping over a cage and getting into it's animation and then being unable to get out :/

    What I ever found weird is that Altaïr/Ezio/whomever is good aligned (mostly) and (besides following most orders) an assassin.
  • SapphireIce101SapphireIce101 Member Posts: 866
    Imo, AC1 is the best. I like the Crusades theme, and the fact that you meet King Richard. Sure, Altair is an aquaphobe, but that's what makes him fun. Even though, technically, apparently Altair's aquaphobia is just an animus bug.

    AC2 was okay, I liked Brotherhood, but when Revelations hit it just felt like a huge cash grab. Ezio is a fun character, and all, but yeah it just felt like this story was dragging on and on.

    AC3, I'll admit, I liked the whole American Revolution theme. That being said, I wish that Haytham was the main character instead of Connor.

    AC4, I haven't played all the way through, but I do like Edward.

    Those Kenway boys are good. Well, except for Connor.
  • ShinShin Member Posts: 2,345
    I also favour AC1. Imo it has the best immersion, and the whole Templar/Assassins plot and the backdrop of a struggle going on through the centuries seems fresh and interesting, which is very much no longer the case by the time AC3 comes around.

    AC2 and its expansions, I felt, were also well-made, especially Revelations. Brotherhood wasn't bad, I'm just not a big fan of the "recruit a team"-mechanic when it's done as padding rather than attached to the central storyline. I liked recruiting a team in Mass Effect 2.

    AC3 had high aims and a lot of promise (very interesting period and setting, deciding the fate of the new world), but suffered from ham-fisted storyline and the lack of an interesting/charismatic protagonist. Also as stated by this point the plot narrative had become stale and I just didn't find it very interesting what was going on anymore. With Desmond getting ever closer to a kind of messiah figure it felt like the game split up into having two protagonists, making it difficult to focus on Connor.

    With AC4 it seems more like the focus has shifted away from the present day-plot, whereas the pirate setting and gameplay is (mostly) carried out excellently. The only real problem I have is that it's such a bleak tale, almost the entire setting is about how the age of piracy is fading away. Maybe it's just me, but I could have gone for an injection of swashbuckling and matiné romanticizing. Either way, by now it seems like focusing on the time period and the local protagonist rather than on the present day is the way to go.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    @Shin I think they noticed that their formula was getting stale, as you observe, and very consciously switched gears with ACIV. They seemed to set things up to continue the trend of "let's do whatever and wherever we want" while better accommodating the concerns you and many others have of it getting predictable and uninteresting. In my eyes, ACIV proved that the series is here to stay and can truly be manipulated however they please, meaning that we'll be receiving more variation in the formula.
    Shin said:

    I also favour AC1. Imo it has the best immersion

    This is a very good point as well. I agree that it is most immersive.
  • ShinShin Member Posts: 2,345
    Quartz said:

    In my eyes, ACIV proved that the series is here to stay and can truly be manipulated however they please, meaning that we'll be receiving more variation in the formula.

    I hope so, getting to play through and experience a bunch of exciting historical periods and cities is really a solid game concept. So many cool places they could go with it.
  • FlashburnFlashburn Member Posts: 1,847
    Big fan of the AC games before 3. I've played all 6 of the main games but I haven't beaten 4 because I suffered an HDD failure. A hundred hours down the drain, all that collecting and upgrading and all that DOSH - gone. Damn you, Western Digital!

    AC1 astounded me at first because the concept of parkour was totally foreign to me. I'd never heard of it and climbing around on stuff like that was AMAZING. The novelty wore off once I got to Sequence 5 or 6 because the game was so repetitive. The combat was the hardest in this game, whereas now you can just stride right into a guard patrol and slaughter them all as they line up single-file for you to kill them.

    AC2 is my favorite of the series. It improves upon 1 in every conceivable way.

    Brotherhood is where the problems started, like killstreaks and full synch. Rather good nevertheless. Ezio's Roman assassin robe is my favorite outfit of his.

    Revelations was Padding: The Game. There was so much side stuff to do that I forgot about the main plot. The tower defense was the stupidest thing in the AC series so far, but if you were skilled you didn't have to deal with it more than once. Altair's story was very intriguing and the Hookblade was SOOO satisfying. Unf.

    And 3 is where everything just came to a grinding, screeching halt. Absolutely horrible PC optimization. "Simplified" parkour often takes me in directions I don't want to go. An awful protagonist, loads of DLC, and an asspull of an ending that is ALMOST on-par with Mass Effect 3. That was when I decided that I shouldn't be a fan anymore.

    4 is better than 3 in every way, but there's veritable motherlodes of DLC. Switching from piloting a ship back to Edward is satisfying but I don't see how this game has anything to do with the Assassins besides the name, and stealing some poor git's equipment.
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    Never played the games but observed the one in Italy being played. Wonderful artwork and slowish gameplay (not necessarily bad, but I am impatient) are what stood out. My brother has the one for the wii u, and I'd like to try it when he gets home.
  • TJ_HookerTJ_Hooker Member Posts: 2,438
    Flashburn said:

    AC1 astounded me at first because the concept of parkour was totally foreign to me. I'd never heard of it and climbing around on stuff like that was AMAZING. The novelty wore off once I got to Sequence 5 or 6 because the game was so repetitive. The combat was the hardest in this game, whereas now you can just stride right into a guard patrol and slaughter them all as they line up single-file for you to kill them.

    AC2 is my favorite of the series. It improves upon 1 in every conceivable way.

    Yeah, this is more or less how I feel. I remember AC1 being lackluster in a number of ways but ultimately being carried by a few awesome game mechanics, free-running/parkour in particular. I definitely still enjoyed the game.

    I think I enjoyed AC2 about as much as the first, maybe a little more. It definitely improved upon the original in many ways, but that was offset by the fact that the parkour aspect had lost much of its novelty.

    I bought AC Brotherhood but never ended up playing it.
  • ajwzajwz Member Posts: 4,122
    I like assassin's creed, but...
    the world needs another assassin's creed game right now about as much as Athkatla needs another lich
  • LoubLoub Member Posts: 471
    edited May 2014
    Quartz said:

    image

    This pretty much synthetizes my sexual life since I was expelled from the dorms.

    ...That was a joke.
  • FlashburnFlashburn Member Posts: 1,847
    image
Sign In or Register to comment.