Assassin's Creed 1 is better than Assassin's Creed 2

[T8B95]

I love both games, but for different reasons.

In Assassin's Creed, I felt like an assassin. I had to go to the city, walk around, blend in, and learn about my targets. I must have been the only person on the planet who enjoyed doing all of the investigation missions, because they felt so in-character. I could actually plan out assassinations in real-time, and the free-running mechanics were nothing short of spectacular. Yes, the game got repetitive, but I have a massive boredom threshold, so I didn't mind terribly. Also, I like you preferred Altair to Ezio. I felt that he was more calm, collected, and professional.

Assassin's Creed 2, on the other hand, nailed the technical aspect. Gone is the repetition from the first game, instead replacing it with little side-quests scattered throughout the game. The free-running mechanics were also better than ever. But, I feel that in changing the formula, they lost some of the atmosphere that made the first one so compelling. All of the assassinations are changed to linear story missions, and Ezio just kind of made it up as he went along, unlike Altair who carefully planned out every little detail. I forgave it, as I found that Ezio wasn't an Assassin so much as a hitman out for revenge, and the game was still very fun.

I'm about halfway through Brotherhood, and I like it, but not as much as 1 or 2. My first problem is that there's just too much to do--there are side missions with no relevance to the plot scattered throughout the city, and there are even story missions with no relevance to the story. My other problem is something I noticed in 2, but now much worse--there's just too many weapons and items. Assassin's Creed had a simple and intuitive inventory. You had four weapons, and their use flowed seamlessly together: Hidden Blade for stealth kills, sword for swordfighting with guards, knife to use in tandem with the ranged throwing knives, and fists for non-lethal takedowns. In AC 2, you have an entire laundry list of weapons, and you can still get through the game quite easily using only the four weapons from the first. This is exacerbated by the fact that, excepting one mission, there's no reason to use any of the new equipment. In Brotherhood, you get new weapons and abilities every other sequence, but you will never ever use any of them because the hidden blade/sword/ranged weapon of your choice combo is more than perfectly suited to see you through from start to finish.

 

[WanderingFool]

-snip

Well, it is quite easy to say that you are wrong, and your opinion does not matter and other insults, but such a response is both rude and fruitless, to say the least.

Im also not quite sure what you are complaining about, as from what I read, you pretty much disliked AC:2's setting and story when compared to AC:1.

To me, and almost everyone who Ive talked to that played both AC1&2, AC:2 is superior in almsot every possible way. Plus I personally think AC:1's story was complete shit. AC:2 had Ezio learn and become an assassin, which made the gear earning and skill learning more understandable. AC:1 had altier suffer a bout of Metroid syndrome, where he starts with everything, and loses it.

To me, AC:2 was superior. But, of course, this is just my opinion...

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Did this guy just call Altair a complicated and conflicted character:


Sure there are interesting things that happen to and around him, but the man himself has absolutely no personality, no characteristics, quirks or idiosyncracies to define him. His character arc is also increadibly tired and basic a roguish, recalcitrant little shit who doesn't care who gets hurt or what he has to do to get the job done. Then after much training and lessons with his father figure/mentor he realises his past ways were wrong and he must defend the brotherhood, abide by the ways of the creed, believe in the heart of the cards, blah, blah, fucking blah. It also doesn't help that his voice actor delivers each line with all the emotion and vivacity of a somnolent Hayden Christensen reading out his shopping list. Yeah AC2 actually giving me a protagonist with some actual personality and history certainly helped, but that isn't what made the game for me by any stretch.

I like AC1 and love it's sequel. Both games suffer from being a bit thinly spread, but I felt the first ran out of ideas a lot more quickly and I had bugger all interest in any of it's sidequests. AC2 gives you much more varied weaponry, envrionments and skills to play around with that kept things fresh and interesting throughout the whole experience and with a protagonist I actually cared about it gave the story much more added weight, keeping me immersed in the whole experience. I will say that I think Ubisoft are taking the piss a bit with Revelations, I enjoyed Brotherhood but I let that one slide because I thought the next game was going to be a new fully fledged sequel, with a new time period, culture and set of characters to enjoy. As I said, I like Ezio but unlike Ubisoft I feel that I know when to let him go.

 

[cgentero]

I liked the first one better too; combat was better and not as defensive focused, assassination missions were more epic, Altair was more badass, etc.

 

[Derlwyn]

I liked the first one better too; combat was better and not as defensive focused, assassination missions were more epic, Altair was more badass, etc.

AC 1 not defensive focused? You could counter kill everyone, 100% of the time. AC 2 you had to wear down your opponents to be successful.

The final assassination of the mission may have required more planning, but seriously, did you people that disliked AC 2 not get off on the increased variety of assassinations? Double stabbing in the ears, pulling guards off of balconies and ships, flying death from above!?

I will trade a run down a mountain every new mission and the same exact missions over and over again for variety of weapons and some sweet assassin moves any day.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

Sure there are interesting things that happen to and around him, but the man himself has absolutely no personality, no characteristics, quirks or idiosyncracies to define him. His character arc is also increadibly tired and basic a roguish, recalcitrant little shit who doesn't care who gets hurt or what he has to do to get the job done. Then after much training and lessons with his father figure/mentor he realises his past ways were wrong and he must defend the brotherhood, abide by the ways of the creed, believe in the heart of the cards, blah, blah, fucking blah. It also doesn't help that his voice actor delivers each line with all the emotion and vivacity of a somnolent Hayden Christensen reading out his shopping list. Yeah AC2 actually giving me a protagonist with some actual personality and history certainly helped, but that isn't what made the game for me by any stretch.

That's not what happened in the first game at all. Altair screws up an assassination, which results in him getting demoted and being reeducated in what the Assassins believe in. The other assassins, especially the one in Constantinople give him shit for it. The thing is, he starts sympathizing with the people he's murdering and suspects that something is up. Turns out something is up, and it ends with him discovering that everything he believed in was a lie, which ironically also resulted in discovering the evidence Abstergo was looking for. For some reason, almost none of this is mentioned in the second game.

 

[MeatsOfEvil]

I found AC1 somewhat repetitive, but overall more enjoyable than AC2 or Brotherhood. The first game is all about ASSASSINATIONS, something I expect to see in a game bearing that title. The later games are about a guild calling themselves Assassins, who fight crime and jump into haystacks or something. I'm looking for something to hold me over till the next Hitman game dammit, not Grand Theft Renaissance.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I found AC1 somewhat repetitive, but overall more enjoyable than AC2 or Brotherhood. The first game is all about ASSASSINATIONS, something I expect to see in a game bearing that title. The later games are about a guild calling themselves Assassins, who fight crime and jump into haystacks or something. I'm looking for something to hold me over till the next Hitman game dammit, not Grand Theft Renaissance.

More or less what I'm saying. It wasn't perfect, but it did what it did relatively well. The second game has nothing to do with assassinations, but is just a free roam game where you move from waypoint to waypoint. And it's not even that good of a free roam game. If you've ever played Infamous 1 or 2 or The Saboteur, Assassin's Creed 2 just pales in comparison.

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

Sure there are interesting things that happen to and around him, but the man himself has absolutely no personality, no characteristics, quirks or idiosyncracies to define him. His character arc is also increadibly tired and basic a roguish, recalcitrant little shit who doesn't care who gets hurt or what he has to do to get the job done. Then after much training and lessons with his father figure/mentor he realises his past ways were wrong and he must defend the brotherhood, abide by the ways of the creed, believe in the heart of the cards, blah, blah, fucking blah. It also doesn't help that his voice actor delivers each line with all the emotion and vivacity of a somnolent Hayden Christensen reading out his shopping list. Yeah AC2 actually giving me a protagonist with some actual personality and history certainly helped, but that isn't what made the game for me by any stretch.

That's not what happened in the first game at all. Altair screws up an assassination, which results in him getting demoted and being reeducated in what the Assassins believe in. The other assassins, especially the one in Constantinople give him shit for it. The thing is, he starts sympathizing with the people he's murdering and suspects that something is up. Turns out something is up, and it ends with him discovering that everything he believed in was a lie, which ironically also resulted in discovering the evidence Abstergo was looking for. For some reason, almost none of this is mentioned in the second game.

Still, as I said he has no personality, no past, he's a faceless blank slate and there was no reason I saw to care about him. Now that I think about it, there were very few characters in AC1's entirety that I cared about either. At any rate, even if I didn't like AC2's story and characters I'd still call it the better game on the basis of it's vastly superior gameplay.

 

[fates_puppet13]

ac is good but buggy with an obvious sequal tease ending

ac2 is good but not better than ac because theres too much faffing about and ezio has a ott accent

ac:b is ac2 with 1 city, yet more faffing about, an autokill feture and little assassins to bring out fantasy football style

about buying brotherhood
if you liked ac2 buy it you'll enjoy it about just as much as you did that

if not don't wait for revelations see if they fix the bugs

 

[SinorKirby]

I downloaded both just so I didn't miss out on the story.

Good man.

I could see a lot of the technical complaints in the first title, especially the screen tearing and the framerate problems.

What are these issues you speak of? I didn't notice anything like this at all. It could be that those problems are restricted to the PS3, so no wonder I never had them.

The first problem was that they kept introducing more and more collectibles, sidequests, items, and minigames.

Yes, but how is that a problem? It expanded the game and made it more sandboxy. Oh, and they allowed Ezio to swim.

The graphics don't have the screen tearing like the first one, but it has ridiculous amounts of pop in and textures flicker constantly.

Again, probably limited to the PS3, since I never noticed this when I played it.

Does Brotherhood fix this in any capacity? Or is it more sidequests and pointless repetitive bullshit?

Depends on what you mean by "fix". There's plenty of sidequests(which is a good thing), they give you the ability to go back and replay any mission you want to like you could in the first game(only no killing civilians once you beat it which is lame), and they added incredibly useful assassin recruits. Plus, it has some of the best and most unique multiplayer I have ever seen in a game.

All in all, Altair was a better character and far more badass, so I can't wait to play as him again in Revelations.

Also, if you want to not be confused in Revelations, I'd suggest getting Brotherhood. The ending is awesome.

 

[TheHitcher]

AC1 had an incredible ending. Sadly, I think that's pretty much the only thing it beats AC2 at.

 

[zepphead]

When I played the first Assassins Creed I thought it was great, but there were too many things that bothered me about it. The fact that you got guards after you for just riding your horse, you could never really do air assassinations unless the game was being in a good mood and would let you, doing the same three things for every big assassination(pick pocketing,eavesdropping and...I forget the last one but you get my point). Plus you only really got to assassinate maybe 7 people and I know their were 9 but I believe two of them saw you coming so yeah. But regardless of all of those thing I said to myself if this game had a sequel I bet it would be amazing. About two years alter AC2 comes out and blows my mind. I have yet to see any other game that improved on its predecessor so much. Better controls, more ways to infiltrate and attack, better arsenal it had it all and of course more assassinations. I loved the fact they added in the pigeon coop so you could do even more mission. We are all entitled to think what we want but I find it hard to believe anyone finds AC1 better then 2.

 

[cgentero]

AC 1 not defensive focused? You could counter kill everyone, 100% of the time. AC 2 you had to wear down your opponents to be successful.

AC1 had both quick kill and guard break making taking the offense easier and no you could not counter kill everyone 100% of the time(only hidden blade but all ACs are like that) if that were true Al Mualim would have been much easier, you had to wear them down the same way.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The idea of sneaking into a city, gaining the trust of the citizens, investigating the targets, forming a plan, and utilizing resources. There was more than one way to execute a mission, like Hitman 2, only less cryptic.

Considering the title of the game is Assassin's Creed, it's frustrating that it's been two hours since I've done anything relating to assassination. I just got through a part where I had to play capture the flag and time trials to win a golden mask. Just kill the guy and take it! There was also a problem in the first game of Altair not always cooperating with me when he was climbing. I thought they'd fix this in the second game, but instead they added way more ledges and platforms, making it worse. There are even timed platforming sections of the game that are maddening because he won't do what you tell him to do. Then you have to do the whole thing over again. I home alone right now, so you can imagine the obscenities that are flying at the TV.

I love the Hitman comparison as the Assassin's Creed series should be like a cross between Hitman and Batman:AA, but the sequels are nothing like that. The first game was setup like a Hitman game but in an open world. The assassinations were designed like assassinations from a Hitman game but not as complex. However, in AC2, the assassinations are weak as hell, the level design was piss poor as most of the assassinations occur during a battle and you go and kill your target in the same exact manner. I don't even remember any of the assassinations from AC2 but I still remember a few of them from the 1st game.

Assassin's Creed 2 had no core gameplay, which is why it failed as a game, the 1st game at least tried to have some core gameplay. AC2 is not a platformer, that's just how you get around. It's not a good stealth game as there's not many stealth elements, nor does the game force you to be stealthy. And, it's not a good action game because all you have to do is counter with dual hidden blades all game, the combat system is extremely weak and easy. The best parts of AC2 are the Assassin's Tombs and the Glyphs, which are both sidequests. The platforming is way worse in the AC2, Ezio killing himself are the only times I ever died in AC2. I used to do some of the side races in the 1st game, and I didn't have nearly the troubles as I did in AC2. And, Ezio and a whole band of assassins let the main bad guy escape towards the end of the game for no reason other than setup of the last DNA sequence.

 

[OpticalJunction]

I got AC1 after finishing AC2 and got bored of it after an hour. Compared to the sequel it's very unpolished.

 

[Tourette]

I always prefered AC1's setting and story also. Now if it had AC2's gameplay and no repetitive missions, it would be my favourite game ever.

 

[Aegis A'Sha'Se]

Correct. Assassin's Creed 1 was actually about the assassinations, whilst Assassin's Creed 2 was more about Ezio and the continuation of the story. Personally, I prefered Creed 1.

Also, Altair was more of an assassin then Ezio was in 2, and Ezio was close, but not quite, in Brotherhood.

 

[FPSMadPaul]

Assassins Creed Brotherhood is pretty much Screed 2 and a half. I thought it was brilliant, but from the sounds of it I'm going to say you won't.

Yes, I suppose it was 2.5 in a lot of respects, or 2.33 & Revelations will be 2.66. Brotherhood fixes a lot of issues but it is also a lot like two so you may dislike it. Give it a go I'd say, the online alone is worth the (now) low price!

Actually, Revelations is more like 2.9, as it closes off altair's and ezio's stories, and with a different environment, and a (hopefully different) story, it is slightly further off.

Yes but I was trying to make a mathematical joke, sarcasm is hard to portray through a keyboard, but you're very right. Are you looking forward to it? I am!