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

[Derlwyn]

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.

You gain the defensive break ability late in the game, too late to say that AC 1 is less defensive.

Al Mualim was immune to those counters because he was the boss. The game simply didn't allow you to counter kill the boss. All of the guards and templars, all of them, could be killed instantly with counters. How else did you survive the 10 on 1 battle against the knights near the end?

Maybe you chose to play the game more aggressively, but it certainly could have (and was by me) with my right trigger pulled just waiting to tap x at the right moment. Completely defensively. I couldn't do that all the time with AC 2. Usually you had to drop opponent's health enough for them to look weakened, then you could counter kill, disarm kill, or grab and kill. If anything one can argue that AC 2 has more fighting options allowing for a more varied and exciting combat experience. AC 1, very defensive. AC 2, varied and creative.

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.

This is a pretty insightful statement. AC 1 you learn the story through the people you kill, not the side missions. Who Altair is, is pretty inconsequential, to the story. He is a tool through which we learn of the meaningful events. AC 2 becomes very character-centric. We learn through Ezio, rather than the targets. All of the missions fill out the story and then take us to the targets. The targets give us no insight, except for whom Ezio might seek out next.

Different kinds of storytelling, which I can some people preferring one over the other. What I can't see is how people seem to prefer the actual game play of AC 1 over AC 2. That I cannot understand.

 

[cgentero]

-snip-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYlzGv28O2M&feature=related

The first counter performed doesn't kill just knocks down, you are factually wrong. Also quick kills are available as soon as you get your sword back IIRC, so offense is an easy option early on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi_yAoa3-qM

Here a guy quick kills people one after another.

 

[Derlwyn]

lol, I just figured that I hit x too early so it was a knockdown and not a kill!

Yes, combo-kills are available from the beginning, not defense break like you mentioned before. I said nothing about the combo-kills coming late, just defense break.

Still doesn't do anything to say that AC 2 is more defensive than AC 1.
AC 1 was right trigger and x during combat.
AC 2 at least rewarded players with meaningful alternatives.

You could play either defensively or offensively. It depends on your style and what you wan to do. AC 2 certainly isn't more defensive though. Maybe you just chose to play it more defensively.

 

[Nieroshai]

So basically you've found problems I've never seen, encountered, nor cared about. Whether you like it or not should be the issue you present, not that the 1st was superior in all ways, because about 85% of fans would disagree with you on almost all your points. If you didn't like Ezio or the story differences, fine, but everything else you mentioned is simply false and personal bias. Dislike it if you want, but 2 was not an inferior title.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

I didn't know "tomboyish technophiliac Joan Jett wannabe" was a stereotype.

A couple of people called me out on this idea. Maybe it's a US only thing, but on many network crime investigator show there's one of these characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Sciuto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Sidle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penelope_Garcia

Three different shows! Not even spinoffs of each other, either.

 

[The Heik]

Let me get this straight: You hate sidequests a repetitive bullshit, yet you like Assassin's Creed 1 over Assassin's Creed 2?

Am I missing something or is this opposite day?

Need I remind you that 90% of every mission in AC1 was one of three or more repetitive side-quests in order to actually get to the assassinations?

Yes, but there were like six options of investigations for every assassination. If I got tired of the intimidation missions, I could keep exploring until I found an eavesdrop one. If I got tired of those, I could pickpocket. Or I could choose to meet up with another assassin and do a flag collecting or assassination stealth time trial. To keep the main story moving, I've had to do about five boring and pointless tailing missions so far. Then there's two escort missions. And there's some missions that literally involve walking and talking to NPCs to get to the next mission.

The story just takes itself way less seriously than the first game. Lots of silly jokes and romance subplots.

Yes because that is Ezio's personality at the start. Since the story revolves around him, that's what it'll feel like. As he becomes more mature towards the end of the game, it matures with him.

And though you may find entertainment with those side missions, the general majority of players found them boring and repetitive. Most of them lacked challenge and were pretty much the exact same thing throughout the game. I myself only really enjoyed those side missions where I had to assassinate a target, as the rest were either pointless, ridiculously easy (eavesdropping takes no skill to accomplish), or were simply frustrating (running about on rooftops trying to get flags was NOT fun. It's why it's no longer part of the required plot in AC2). Honestly there was more enjoyment in simply exploring the cities.

 

[dancinginfernal]

Spoiler: That's uh...

While I did enjoy AC1, I vastly preferred AC2 and Brotherhood.

 

[DustyDrB]

I didn't know "tomboyish technophiliac Joan Jett wannabe" was a stereotype.

A couple of people called me out on this idea. Maybe it's a US only thing, but on many network crime investigator show there's one of these characters.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abby_Sciuto
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sara_Sidle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penelope_Garcia

Three different shows! Not even spinoffs of each other, either.

Oh. I've never been into procedural shows like that, so I've never heard of those characters. I don't really care anything for the present-day story anyway, so I won't defend whatsername. The rest of the game is pure gold to me, though.