Assassin's Creed 1 is better than Assassin's Creed 2
- Thread starter zelda2fanboy
- Start date
It's almost like they're not even sequels at all, like the difference between GTAIV, RDR, and L.A. Noire. They're all very similar games by the same developer, but they're to different to be called sequels. AC1 was about setting up assassinations and trying to use stealth and tactics, and 2 put more emphasis on combat and side things, turning it into more of an action game.
In this drought of stealth games, that makes me appreciate 1 a little bit more. But they're both great.
In this drought of stealth games, that makes me appreciate 1 a little bit more. But they're both great.
AC1 had a brilliant plot. It was intriguing and fun to go through but the gameplay was huge mess. AC2 improved upon everything but the story. Don't get me wrong, the story is great and all but it just loses focus half way through.
One thing that I absolutely loved about AC1 was the cutscene camera changer. Also the fact that you could move around during cutscenes. It game the game whole new sense of control. They had to remove it from AC2 for plot reasons(the explanation of the camera changing was that the Animus was buggy whereas in the second one, the animus was much better and improved).
Also fun thing to do - Pick up bodies of people and drop them near a ledge. Their limbs/heads would stretch to an ungodly amount. I have only tried this on the PC version though.
One thing that I absolutely loved about AC1 was the cutscene camera changer. Also the fact that you could move around during cutscenes. It game the game whole new sense of control. They had to remove it from AC2 for plot reasons(the explanation of the camera changing was that the Animus was buggy whereas in the second one, the animus was much better and improved).
Also fun thing to do - Pick up bodies of people and drop them near a ledge. Their limbs/heads would stretch to an ungodly amount. I have only tried this on the PC version though.
my problem with Assassin's Creed 2 in how it relates to Assassin's Creed 1 is, I just never knew who I was killing or why in Assassin's Creed 2.
In Assassin's Creed 1, "Go here, kill this guy, go there kill that guy" and when you got "here" or "there", you spent some time figuring out where this guy or that guy was, but also WHY it was clear they needed to die. Before you could actually assassinate them, you were shown a cutscene in which they SHOW you exactly why they needed to be dealt with - they were corrupt, or cruel, or steadfastly resolute in their pursuit of war. Then you tracked them down, killed them, and heard their side of the story. Th game also had a level structure we knew from the beginning - 9 people in 3 different cities and then maybe a 10th one somewhere.
In Assassin's Creed 2, in contrast, you sometimes saw scenes of people acting cruel or corrupt, but it was never really just before you assassinated them. The bad guys, while more nuanced then in AC1 were also harder to sympathize with or against. If you didn't know to look in your log whenever you got a new "target", and see the small vignette cutscene that describes who they are and why they need to die (and you might not, it's not clearly evident that you NEED to and I played through the first time fully through without ever using it). It's definitely being told not shown, which is bad enough, but by the time you reach your target, you probably will forget why you're killing them, I know I did. Also, the game feels a lot more skittery because it abandoned that 9 bad guys in 3 cities trope. I never really knew when I'd be moving onto the next place so I never got particularly attached to anywhere.
And in AC1, Altair WAS Desmond. If you took the time to look, he had Desmond's face as well as his voice. Basically it was explained that Desmond's mind was placing himself in the scene because it's the only way his brain could make sense of it - try thinking like you're truly a different person and you might find that it's difficult.
Again, horrible lampshade.
In Assassin's Creed 1, "Go here, kill this guy, go there kill that guy" and when you got "here" or "there", you spent some time figuring out where this guy or that guy was, but also WHY it was clear they needed to die. Before you could actually assassinate them, you were shown a cutscene in which they SHOW you exactly why they needed to be dealt with - they were corrupt, or cruel, or steadfastly resolute in their pursuit of war. Then you tracked them down, killed them, and heard their side of the story. Th game also had a level structure we knew from the beginning - 9 people in 3 different cities and then maybe a 10th one somewhere.
In Assassin's Creed 2, in contrast, you sometimes saw scenes of people acting cruel or corrupt, but it was never really just before you assassinated them. The bad guys, while more nuanced then in AC1 were also harder to sympathize with or against. If you didn't know to look in your log whenever you got a new "target", and see the small vignette cutscene that describes who they are and why they need to die (and you might not, it's not clearly evident that you NEED to and I played through the first time fully through without ever using it). It's definitely being told not shown, which is bad enough, but by the time you reach your target, you probably will forget why you're killing them, I know I did. Also, the game feels a lot more skittery because it abandoned that 9 bad guys in 3 cities trope. I never really knew when I'd be moving onto the next place so I never got particularly attached to anywhere.
they did actually explain this in cannon. The juryrigged animus they're using isn't as good at on the fly audio translations or some shit, so some people still speak italian relative to Desmond, and the animus adds mental subtitles to compensate. It's really a horrible lampshade, but they tried.Tohuvabohu said:
And in AC1, Altair WAS Desmond. If you took the time to look, he had Desmond's face as well as his voice. Basically it was explained that Desmond's mind was placing himself in the scene because it's the only way his brain could make sense of it - try thinking like you're truly a different person and you might find that it's difficult.
Again, horrible lampshade.
I think that AC2 was better than AC1, but you do make some good points. I also think that AC:B was a terrible disappointment. One thing Brotherhood did well was the characterization of your stereotypical future squad. Otherwise, Brotherhood railroaded you EVEN MORE into how you are supposed to complete missions. Brotherhood also added a truly useless mechanic where you can have your assassin friends come in and play the game for you. I love AC2. I hate Brotherhood.
I don't know if i agree completely but there is one thing i want to say:
Assassin's Creed had better combat. If enemies are capable of all the moves you are and can fight competently, then the stealth is more important since it's often too risky to try and take on all enemies. In Assassin's Creed 2 enemies telegraph your attacks and it's trivial to instant-kill a small army. Assassin's Creed 2 had some gameplay improvements but i honestly want the more difficult combat of Assassin's Creed and a stronger stealth and cunning emphasis.
Assassin's Creed had better combat. If enemies are capable of all the moves you are and can fight competently, then the stealth is more important since it's often too risky to try and take on all enemies. In Assassin's Creed 2 enemies telegraph your attacks and it's trivial to instant-kill a small army. Assassin's Creed 2 had some gameplay improvements but i honestly want the more difficult combat of Assassin's Creed and a stronger stealth and cunning emphasis.
This is blasphemy.....this is MADNESS!!! I joke of course. Each to their own I say, but I am part of the crowd who says Assassin's Creed II is better than the first. It's better designed, and ironed out a lot of flaws. It's an open world game, so all the collectibles and things are there to make the open world worth exploring. You complain about there not being enough assassination, but actually in the first game, there's barely any actual assassination. They make up only an extremely tiny portion of the game. At least with all the platforming and things, they tried to add some variety to the gameplay, and I give them kudos for that.
Agreed. I like Rebecca and Shaun, they are at least interesting, compared to Desmond and Lucy. Shaun kind of reminds me of Yahtzee (Another reason I like him) and Rebecca is somewhat jolly and energetic (compared to everyone who's being serious ... c'mon guys, have some fun once in a while)DustyDrB said:
And while Altair is more a believable assassin, he was just boring to listen to (And why does a Sirian assassin have an american accent?)
OT: If you like Ass Creed 1 better, good for you. I love all of them, despite their flaws.
Neither of the 2 first games can be compared, since they are set in 2 different time periods, so that would imply you either like the the middle ages period or prefer the renaissance. It all resumes into a question of personal taste actually...
Just gonna focus on the character aspect of your rant:zelda2fanboy said:
I honestly don't think Altair was conflicted...but then again, he had a PAINFULLY bad voice actor. That and there were SO many time skips that you never get to see his growth...it's just shoehorned in.
The idea with Ezio is that he starts out as just a kid. He doesn't have much of a choice when it comes to just accepting what has been thrown at him. He just knows that the Templars want him dead and that his uncle and the rest can give him the means to defend himself.
It was a bit of a stretch but his brother might have taught him to climb like that or maybe he learned it growing up in Venice. Giving that both brothers can perform feats of agility like that it's not entirely impossible.Tohuvabohu said:
But does he actually behave like an Assassin during the first part of the game? All I saw was a confused teenager trying to save his family. He had absolutely no combat skills as evidenced by the fact that even though he wore an Assassin's robe, wielded a sword and had a hidden blade on him he was incapable of saving his family, being beaten back by one of the brutes there and losing his sword in the process. When he killed the man he thought was responsible for the murder of his family he did not do so with the grace of an assassin but instead stabbed him mercilessly and repeatedly, wielding the hidden blade as if it was a common knife. It is only after reaching his uncle Mario's villa that he starts training in the ways of the Assassin. I don't remember the exact details but I believe two years passed after Ezio reached Mario's villa so it makes sense that Ezio would then have skills similar to those of a full fledged Assassin.Tohuvabohu said:
Also, how can you find Ezio's road to becoming an Assassins jarring when the way they introduced Altair was even worse. I mean one moment you're a full fledged Assassin and the other you can't even perform a counter kill? How did Altair suddenly forget his entire training as an Assassin in the span of a few minutes?
OT: I disagree completely with your statement, OP. Assassins Creed 1 was, at least for me, extremely boring. Firstly, there's no variety at all. The buildup to each Assassination was essentially the exact same thing with little bits of story sprinkled about. The mission structure was extremely rigid, following the exact same path everytime. The plot itself was fairly incoherent and to be honest quite shit. The combat was a joke once you learned to counter attacks. It felt more like a chore than anything else.
(Reality check incoming): Opinions are subjective. Saying AC1 is better than AC2 is only your opinion.
You may have enjoyed AC1 more than AC2. I, on the hand, preferred AC2 and Brotherhood. I preferred the setting and more story driven mission objectives. I also connected more with Ezio than Altair. I do believe we need to move away from Ezio now, though.
When it comes to the technical things, I'd just have to straight up disagree. AC2 improved on AC1 graphically and mechanically in every way. AC:B more than AC2. In this quantifiable sense, AC2 is better than AC1.
You may have enjoyed AC1 more than AC2. I, on the hand, preferred AC2 and Brotherhood. I preferred the setting and more story driven mission objectives. I also connected more with Ezio than Altair. I do believe we need to move away from Ezio now, though.
When it comes to the technical things, I'd just have to straight up disagree. AC2 improved on AC1 graphically and mechanically in every way. AC:B more than AC2. In this quantifiable sense, AC2 is better than AC1.
Assassin's Creed I: great atmosphere, dedication, too much repetition, awesome visuals, bland character, quite repetitive environments.
Assassin's Creed II: quite good atmosphere, spread quite well, dedicated, very little repetition, visuals EVEN MORE Awesome(the screen flickers, so what? no game is completely free from graphical errors), complex character with an ACTUAL PERSONALITY, varying environments.
Saying that the first one is better means that you haven't finshed the 2nd one yet methinks.
Assassin's Creed II: quite good atmosphere, spread quite well, dedicated, very little repetition, visuals EVEN MORE Awesome(the screen flickers, so what? no game is completely free from graphical errors), complex character with an ACTUAL PERSONALITY, varying environments.
Saying that the first one is better means that you haven't finshed the 2nd one yet methinks.
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.FPSMadPaul said:
I never played 2, and 1 disappointed me. At the time I'd recently discovered Hitman: Blood Money, and had assumed that Assassin's Creed would be a parkour version of the same thing, but it's really not anywhere near as focused on the assassinations as Hitman is.
Well I only have brotherhood and I was wondering the same thing, because real life assasin's don't go around fighting sword fights, shooting people, killing targets in broad daylight, wearing really heavy clothes in a crowd of peasants etc. Real life assasin's don't do that because they're not stupid, most of their time they're watching and studying their target, seeing if he/she has a routine or something, then they try to make the death look as natural as possible i.e. like a car crash or a heart attack. Of course not all assasin's get away clean like the one who killed the former spy who leaked info from Russia.zelda2fanboy said:
So from the start it's established it's a warrior game not as much assasin. I mean other stealthy games, movies and shows are more assassiny then this and those would even bring fights to the streets.
That's why I play the mutliplayer alot more because it's the closest to actual assasination rather then a renaissance warrior. Sure it's still too obvious who you are when you kill someone but it's a big step forward. That and in the singleplayer the open world is just a commute, there isn't much to do and it's hard to get around.