Assassin's Creed sucks
- Thread starter Lookingglassman
- Start date
They aren't. They are in Italy.
You should definitely try AC1 but if you find yourself bored after the first couple of assassinations, just watch the ending on YouTube. Each assassination goes the same way, nothing new happens until the end.Thanks, you just reinforced my opinion that I have to play both AC1 and 2 before getting into Brotherhood.
AC2 is a must because it's a vastly more enjoyable game and AC:B continues the story of Ezio. Like I said, AC2 was my game of the year in 2009 and is one of the best sandbox games around.
Yeah, I had pretty much the same issue with the first Assassin's Creed. It was a fantastic concept that fell very short on the execution. The game was just a repetitive bore. The second game though, wow. They listened to practically every complaint from the first game and fixed them. The result is a highly polished and fun experience. I can't recommend it enough.
S
Stone_Cold_Sisko
Guest
I never even played Assassin's Creed.
I skipped it and went straight to Assassin's Creed 2 based on the reviews.
AC2 is AMAZING, and every review I've read indicates it's a quantam leap over AC1
I don't care how many people might insist you "should" play AC1 before 2... I say ignore them.
When a system has as many A games as the PS3 does, there is no reason to slog through C and B+ games. Skip it and go straight to AS2. Just read a wiki entry for AS1 to understand the general premise of the animus and move on.
I skipped it and went straight to Assassin's Creed 2 based on the reviews.
AC2 is AMAZING, and every review I've read indicates it's a quantam leap over AC1
I don't care how many people might insist you "should" play AC1 before 2... I say ignore them.
When a system has as many A games as the PS3 does, there is no reason to slog through C and B+ games. Skip it and go straight to AS2. Just read a wiki entry for AS1 to understand the general premise of the animus and move on.
I also didn't play AC1. But AC2 is awesome.
Just finished AC1. The whole game was short enough that I don't feel I wasted my time. Took maybe 20 hours max? Of course during the last few memory blocks I stopped doing all the info-gathering missions, and I didn't waste time looking for flags or templars or anything (though had there been trophies I hate to say I probably would have been more diligent).
I'll probably start AC2 after the holidays - I have high hopes now given all the praise it's getting in here.
I'll probably start AC2 after the holidays - I have high hopes now given all the praise it's getting in here.
I played AC 2 first and loved it. I picked up AC 1 and as I was playing it, I kept wondering why i was bothering with this instead of just getting 2 out again.
I'd really like AC3 to take place in victorian london. It would just....work
Yeah London would work too. Though I'd still prefer it to take place in Paris. But London would be good too.
Victorian England could work, yeah. I just suggested Revolutionary France because it fits the same criteria as the Holy Land during the Crusades and Renaissance Italy: a very violent and chaotic period in that particular region's history, with lots of danger and intrigue. Victorian England doesn't quite fit that description.
AC-1 felt like the Gameplay team went in vacation after sketching a few ideas on the tablecloth during lunch break while the Design team worked their ass off all year long to produce a magnificient scenery.
AC-2 felt like the Design team found the solution and proceeded to chain the Gameplay team to their desk.
AC-B I haven't played it yet but it seems it's as good as AC-2
As for AC-3 as long as it's not Desmond's "contemporary" era I'll be happy. I'd rather explore a beautiful city of the past (Victorian London, Revolutionary Paris, 16th century Prague, Edo Tokyo, anywhere I don't care as long as it's in the past and canno't be explored except via 3d recreation) than free run on steel & glass buildings. I already did that in Mirror's Edge or Crackdown. No game provides the AC1/AC2 experience of exploring cities than can no longer be explored.
AC-2 felt like the Design team found the solution and proceeded to chain the Gameplay team to their desk.
AC-B I haven't played it yet but it seems it's as good as AC-2
As for AC-3 as long as it's not Desmond's "contemporary" era I'll be happy. I'd rather explore a beautiful city of the past (Victorian London, Revolutionary Paris, 16th century Prague, Edo Tokyo, anywhere I don't care as long as it's in the past and canno't be explored except via 3d recreation) than free run on steel & glass buildings. I already did that in Mirror's Edge or Crackdown. No game provides the AC1/AC2 experience of exploring cities than can no longer be explored.
I tried and tried to get into this game, but every time I got into a fight with 4-5 Soldiers I got sick of dying over an dover again. I took it back to gamestop and got another game. The fighting system was absolutely HORRIBLE! many times I am mashing the "square" button on my controller trying to fight and the guy is just standing there getting hacked to pieces. I was like "What the heck????"
I could see that. Big crowds, shady underworld, etc. The only thing is, if there were a lot of assassinations, people would get upset in London
Pretty much. It's all about rhythm. Some days when I wasn't really feeling it, 4-5 guards would kill me over and over too. Other times I could take on 20 at a time no problem, just counter-killing all of them.
I feel much the same, but, having now found out the end of AC2 (which I still haven't got) thanks to yesterday's GameFace, I fear it'll pretty much have to be Desmond's thing...
I actually hope there's more Desmond action. Find the temples, save the world and ring the Bell, damnit!
