Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Gamerlord]

AC1 is worth every penny and the others aren't. That's all there is to it.

You put forward a solid argument with many great points. Readers will take your opinion very seriously. It was totally worth you posting.

My reasoning exactly.

Have to agree with Lectorog. I've played the first three games and out of them only the first is worth any recognition. Playing with the same mechanics time after time gets boring.

[Virtz]

How about playing with a combat system that throws in some variation? In 1 you can counter everything to no limit, 2 at least throws in opponents you have to do something different with (or maybe that was brotherhood?).
2 also holds the most appeal to people due to the fact that Ezio is so far the only protagonist not to be a total moron and at least seem like he knows what he's doing.
1 has these really flaccid unskippable pre-assassination cutscenes where you stand among a circle of gawkers and watch some two assholes staticly talk while you can't do anything other than move around this circle.
2 had the common sense to make certain really uneventful mission types rare, whereas in 1 it was about equally distributed, making the eavesdropping missions really tedious.

To me, 1 was unbearably repetetive and formulaic, whereas 2 had just enough features and refinement to make it playable and not feel stagnant after an hour.

[Gamerlord]

Hm. Too me the story got boring after 1; mainly because I was only paying attention to the 'memory' storyline and not the modern day one. The modern day one is just stupid.

[mainiac]

2 was the highpoint of the series.  After that they were just rehashing what 2 did well.

The boats were a fun for a little while in 3.  The plot (The brits suck but wait no both sides are to blame but actually yay america but wait we will show them being bad once) was derp.  It's excusable to mangle the personality of people from the 1400s, who we don't have all that much information about.  But 3 mangled historical events that took place really, really recently.  I'm not saying just in the "Templars and Assasins buried the truth" ways, but more in the "this backstory makes no earthly sense" ways.  Anyone who knows american history halfway decently is going to be going wtf a lot.  And the part where Connor...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

singlehandedly destroys a man-o-war

Is just wallbangingly bad history for anyone with a passing familiarity with european history, american history, chemistry or basic military logic.  I'm sorry but the death star did not exist in 1781.

[hemmingjay]

4 is better than 1 which was better than 2& 3 combined. 4 is full of so much to do and isn't the same boring content repeated ad nausea um like the others. It's like AC 1 meets Sid Meir's Pirates. It really is so much better than the others in the series.

A solid, long lasting game that stands on it's own. 

[nenjin]

As much as people hate Altair, at least I believed in him as a character. He had an arc, grew as a character. I like how it started out as a jaded asshole and then realizes he's got a lot to learn about everything. Ezio, as likable as he is, is kind of generic. A genuinely inoffensive, rogueish character who gets some tragedy thrown at him and spends the majority of the series saying "Bene, I will do this." He's a confident Desmond.

And the way the (historical) conflict was presented overall in AC1 was much more gray than anything that has come after. Templars had believable (if twisted) world views that they truly believed in. The Assassins weren't always the heroic protectors of goodness and freedom.

Every other villain from there AC1 on out out is a mustache-twirling bad guy who craves TEH POWAH. When guys told me why they did what they did during their confessions in AC1, I'd actually stop and go "Huh. Yeah, I can kinda understand even if I don't agree. But you're still dead." Ever since then every confession is "FU Assassin!" or "I'm such a wussy and now I die." None of the bad guys in Assassin's Creed games now have a reason for what they do other than guys in the previous games did it. The writing is completely Hollywood now. The info blurbs allude to the fact the "good guys" aren't necessarily good, but none of that comes across in the rest of the game.

If AC1 had AC:Brotherhood's mechanics and design, I'd consider it the best of the series. As it is, what I like about AC is spread out over all the games, with none of them hitting all the high notes, and my love of the aesthetics being the one thing that takes me from game to game.

[jocan2003]

4 is better than 1 which was better than 2& 3 combined. 4 is full of so much to do and isn't the same boring content repeated ad nausea um like the others. It's like AC 1 meets Sid Meir's Pirates. It really is so much better than the others in the series.

A solid, long lasting game that stands on it's own.

As always, hemmingjay speaks with my word ( I mean, he said exactly what i tought word for word ).

[WealthyRadish]

I actually haven't played any of them, but it was still physically painful to hear that they had selected the American Revolution as a setting. Because, you know, an assassination game where you explore beautiful cities should be set in buttfuck-nowhere rather than, I dunno, that other place with buildings taller than two floors and a revolution where assassins running around would actually make any sense. You know, uh, France. It's such an obviously wasted opportunity to make a game in a perfect setting, and they blew it to pander to Americans. Why? Even without ever having played the games, that still gets me gibblies in a bunch.

[Jack_Bread]

I actually haven't played any of them, but it was still physically painful to hear that they had selected the American Revolution as a setting. Because, you know, an assassination game where you explore beautiful cities should be set in buttfuck-nowhere rather than, I dunno, that other place with buildings taller than two floors and a revolution where assassins running around would actually make any sense. You know, uh, France. It's such an obviously wasted opportunity to make a game in a perfect setting, and they blew it to pander to Americans. Why? Even without ever having played the games, that still gets me gibblies in a bunch.

This is the most annoying thing I hear about AC3. How is it pandering to Americans? Just because the chose the American revolution doesn't mean they were. But I have to agree that AC3 was the weakest of the series.

[MasterFancyPants]

Fair warning, you will get pennies for original xbox stuff these days.

I totally agree with this.
When I sold my 360 two years ago (when they were still going strong), I only got $50(USD).
Some day you'll want to play an old Xbox game again, and the extra $20 won't be worth the loss. 

Quote with obvious anti-american sentiment.

This is the most annoying thing I hear about AC3. How is it pandering to Americans? Just because the chose the American revolution doesn't mean they were. But I have to agree that AC3 was the weakest of the series.

Yeah, any game that insults our perfect Lord and Savior, Saint George Washington, is in no way pandering.

Also, I liked AC3. I thought that Haytham Kenway brought back a lot of AC1's "empathy for the Templar stuff".
Last, why do people keep calling them "Templars", even the game does it. It's "The Knights Templar", not "The Knights Templars."

[Tilla]

Fair warning, you will get pennies for original xbox stuff these days.

I totally agree with this.
When I sold my 360 two years ago (when they were still going strong), I only got $50(USD).
Some day you'll want to play an old Xbox game again, and the extra $20 won't be worth the loss. 

Quote with obvious anti-american sentiment.

This is the most annoying thing I hear about AC3. How is it pandering to Americans? Just because the chose the American revolution doesn't mean they were. But I have to agree that AC3 was the weakest of the series.

Yeah, any game that insults our perfect Lord and Savior, Saint George Washington, is in no way pandering.

Also, I liked AC3. I thought that Haytham Kenway brought back a lot of AC1's "empathy for the Templar stuff".
Last, why do people keep calling them "Templars", even the game does it. It's "The Knights Templar", not "The Knights Templars."

The same reason we don't say 'The Order of Assassins' or 'The United States of America' when we want to say Assassins or America? Seems like a weird thing to get upset a bout to me.

I don't think AC1 is really worth it at this point, the story stuff isn't really that much more interesting and the gameplay is vastly inferior in literally every way.

[WealthyRadish]

I actually haven't played any of them, but it was still physically painful to hear that they had selected the American Revolution as a setting. Because, you know, an assassination game where you explore beautiful cities should be set in buttfuck-nowhere rather than, I dunno, that other place with buildings taller than two floors and a revolution where assassins running around would actually make any sense. You know, uh, France. It's such an obviously wasted opportunity to make a game in a perfect setting, and they blew it to pander to Americans. Why? Even without ever having played the games, that still gets me gibblies in a bunch.

This is the most annoying thing I hear about AC3. How is it pandering to Americans? Just because the chose the American revolution doesn't mean they were. But I have to agree that AC3 was the weakest of the series.

I just really can't think of any reason why Colonial America is a better setting for an assassination game than Revolutionary France... France would have been better suited in every respect, so why else would they pick that setting? Maybe pandering isn't the right word, but I can only assume they did it for marketing reasons to make it more appealing to an American audience.

[NullForceOmega]

Certainly the decision to place it in colonial America is waht finally killed all interest I ever had for the miserable base concept of the game.  The mechanics were kind of fun, but the concept was just sad and pathetic honestly.  There are hundreds of ways to get a power kick on, being an assasin in bright white clothing seems a really poor choice.

[Virtz]

Yeah, it's a pretty terrible setting. The independence war doesn't leave much room for interesting storylines, and the colonies make for really poor parkour opportunities. "Yeah, this is what I always wanted in my Assassins' Creed! Slowly waddling through snow and running around on trees aligned into linear pathways. That's the ticket!".

It could only possibly be worse if they put it in WW1, where you throw mustard gas bombs at ze evil Germans, and there's nothing to parkour over, so you just spend most of your time wading through the mud.

They really should've gone for Victorian London or the French Revolution instead. And gave us a protagonist that doesn't just thoughtlessly do whatever anyone tells him.

[Knight of Fools]

And gave us a protagonist that doesn't just thoughtlessly do whatever anyone tells him.

You mean every single AC protagonist to date? Just once I'd like to see the main character agree to do something, then turn around and work against whoever's been trying to control him without doing that thing before they turn out to be the bad guy and stab them in the back. Y'know, use subterfuge and intelligence, show a little back bone. Like a real assassin.


I've enjoyed the AC series up until 3, which was disappointing but not terribad. If the protagonist were more relatable and it had some interesting city scapes to explore it would have been great. I wouldn't even have minded if they threw history out of the window and gave colonial America some fun monuments and large buildings to explore. Instead we got churches and lighthouses, neither of which were particularly tall or interesting.

It's pretty easy to enjoy the series if you view the plot as a B-Movie. I enjoy the fighting, the parkour, the stealth (When it works), and all that. The only thing I didn't really like about the entire series was how desperately they tried to make Desmond the center of the universe and how dumb the protagonists are sometimes. Thankfully they've left the Desmond plot line behind. The whole "memory in DNA" wasn't a sticking point for me at any point in the series, and I thought it was a nice change of pace from most games while simultaneously giving them an excuse for an interesting GUI. I wouldn't have minded if they took more liberties with history in order to make things more entertaining, but not a huge deal.

I haven't played the latest game but from what I've heard it's back to the levels of awesomeness that AC2 was, so I'll definitely be getting it.