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

[The Heik]

(Rant incoming)
From the reviews I've read, people seem to be of the belief that Assassin's Creed 1 was more of a flawed experiment, whereas Assassin's Creed 2 is the fully thought out game. I was even going to skip the first one, but since both were on sale on PSN, I downloaded both just so I didn't miss out on the story. I could see a lot of the technical complaints in the first title, especially the screen tearing and the framerate problems. I also didn't like the ending, when suddenly you can't hit certain characters and the only way you could beat them was by countering over and over again. The final boss was especially cheap since you had to do something like five counters in a row, and if you messed up, you had to do it all over again. Then the game just ended with him looking through glyphs in the lab. It was very lame. Overall, I liked the game a lot, though. 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.

So I hurried up and decided to check out the second game, since I liked the first one so much. The first problem was that they kept introducing more and more collectibles, sidequests, items, and minigames. Then I didn't like Ezio. Before we had a conflicted complicated character, but in this game we have a typical Disney male protagonist. He's handsome, he's out for revenge, and he'll do anything anyone tells him to do. I also didn't like the way they changed Kristen Bell's character from a stern and mysterious lab assistant to sexy badass killer, and gave her two stereotypes for assistants. Oh, a caustic Englishman. Oh, a butch Joan Jett wannabe who loves technobabble. Never seen one of those on the CSIs and NCISs before. The story missions were incredibly straight forward. There's no room for experimentation or planning. You pretty much have to do exactly what the designers intended you to do. The graphics don't have the screen tearing like the first one, but it has ridiculous amounts of pop in and textures flicker constantly. It's distracting, especially when this is supposed to be the superior title.

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 started playing these games because I wanted to catch up by the time Revelations came out, but it seems like there were too many cooks in the kitchen (to borrow a Yahtzee sentiment), all randomly throwing vegetables and ingredients into the pot, so it doesn't taste like anything resembling what it should be. Does Brotherhood fix this in any capacity? Or is it more sidequests and pointless repetitive bullshit?

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?

In terms of gameplay AC2 bushwhacks AC1, mostly because assassination is something that occurs quite often. I remember one stage early on where you had to kill something like 5 separate guys in just one city, each in their own unique way. You try and do just one assassination in AC1 you have to do one whole hour of pick-pocketing someone, beating someone up, or running around in order to "prove yourself" to someone else to get to it.

Not to mention the combat. In AC1 all you can really do in terms of moves in cqc is the counter, which becomes a necessity later on where it's the only way to kill people. In AC 2 you physically can't just do that because there are enemies who will completely ignore that ability (heavies and spear wielders) so for once you have to use strategy to beat large crowds rather than just a good reaction time for that RT + X (or RT + [] if you're playing the PS3)

As for Ezio, yes he's brash and disneyesque, but then again, he's a kid who has spent his whole life doing nothing but having fun. His reaction to what happened to him is totally normal considering the circumstances, especially in that day and age.

However, as the game progresses further on, he cares less about simply revenge, and more about the greater cause of the Assassins due to the events that unfurl in the game (not mentioning them so as to not ruin it for you). It's actually some very nice character evolution. Seriously he starts out headstrong and idealistic, but ends up a calm and cool professional, very much like Altair. All that time that takes for Ezio to first do an assassination is simply laying down the foundations.

So don't buck the games until you've played thought the whole thing.

 

[Palademon]

I prefered the first. I liked being able to press a button to blend, and actual stealth coming in, meaning I couldn't just run around the place.

I liked being able to convince a crowd of people a guy with several blades glued to his back was a monk simply by slightly bending over and clasping my hands together.

And am I the only person that thinks it's more assassin like to collect information before assassinating someone, and having it being broken up, instead of it happening every three seconds?

 

[Derlwyn]

AC 1:
- Guards that were slow to react, but would chase you to the ends of the earth. I could run right up to a guard, assassinate them in the face, and the nearby guard wouldn't do anything. But when they were on to me and I decided to run, it was very difficult to get to those hiding spots sometimes. Major props for developing the feeling that I needed to run instead of staying and fighting.
- Boss assassinations that greatly rewarded planning and staging.
- Boss talk sessions, argh! Yes, everyone is justified from their own perspective, I get it.
- Info gathering was terribly repetitive (seriously, that's why it's a skill check in D&D). I only did the pick-pocketing, eavesdropping, and beat up missions. I feel like I missed a bit of the game, but I couldn't be bothered to try anything else. The info gathering missions made me feel like I was doing RPG grinding in a stealth focused action game.
- The friggin' run down the mountain and horse across the Kingdom got old real fast. At least they did away with the full horse travel after the 3rd or 4th victim.
- Climbing: No real thought, just push up and problem solved, unless you run into a large overhang, then Altair doesn't know WTF to do.
- Zero replay value. I'm not going back to get all of the flags or kill all of the templars.
- Story, meh. Big WTF ending, but Altair was just running errands to regain his rank - I mean please, I figured out he was being used the moment he was told he had "9 targets to kill".

AC 2:
- Guards reacted to your presence much quicker. But luckily combat greatly favoured Ezio so I could deal with botched assassination attempts pretty handily.
- More assassination options are better. Killing from above, double kills, poison kills, pulling targets over balconies or into haystacks...beautiful! I probably killed 10x the people that I did in AC 1. Much more enjoyable.
- Never felt like I needed to run and hide. I could, but I could stand and counter kill, disarm kill, grab and kill the guard at will.
- Boss assassinations seemed too quick and once you get the smoke bomb, escape is laughably easy. At least those seeker guards force you to run farther than the closest hiding spot.
- Easy fast travel and the run from your Mansion to the front gate is far less than the mountain in AC 1.
- Hello stealth! Using thieves, courtesans, or fighters to distract the guards or blend in. The moving or stationary groups that allow you to blend. Much improved system.
- The notoriety system is fantastic.
- Climbing took thought. If you chose the wrong side of the parapet, then you need to go down and find the right side...until you get the leap skill. Frustrating, yes, but more involved.
- I cared about my villa. I upgraded whenever I could. Bought the paintings and completed my sword collection. Great addition to make a world feel more real.
- After beating the game, a day later I went back in to get the seals to get the armor. The next day, I decided to try and collect feathers. 2 days later I decided to just assassinate some guards for fun. This game has oodles of replay!
- Final fight, meh. But the fight from the first was meh as well. At least this time you felt Ezio was making decisions, even if they were influenced by his friends. Ezio was calling the shots.
- Ending, still a WTF, but felt like a forced WTF. I am actually disappointed with the apparent direction of the storyline. At the end of the first they had a lot of interesting directions, and now they seem on course for something pretty stagnant.

AC 2 is far superior to AC 1, to the point where they feel like different games. Maybe Renaissance Italy bothered people, meh, pretty weak reason to dislike a game. I prefer the crusade setting, but they did the Renaissance well. Amazing free running across cities, fantastic climbs, great assassinations, improved stealth options, tasks between boss kills seem logical and are enjoyable (except for the walk slowly with me tasks).

What I am feeling perplexed by is whether I should get AC Brotherhood or just wait until Revelations. The reviews I've read suggest that it's something like AC 2, with a few new additions that aren't really enough to carry the new game. I don't know if I want to play AC 2.5.

 

[madmsk]

So I hurried up and decided to check out the second game, since I liked the first one so much. The first problem was that they kept introducing more and more collectibles, sidequests, items, and minigames. Then I didn't like Ezio. Before we had a conflicted complicated character, but in this game we have a typical Disney male protagonist. He's handsome, he's out for revenge, and he'll do anything anyone tells him to do. I also didn't like the way they changed Kristen Bell's character from a stern and mysterious lab assistant to sexy badass killer, and gave her two stereotypes for assistants. Oh, a caustic Englishman. Oh, a butch Joan Jett wannabe who loves technobabble. Never seen one of those on the CSIs and NCISs before. The story missions were incredibly straight forward. There's no room for experimentation or planning. You pretty much have to do exactly what the designers intended you to do. The graphics don't have the screen tearing like the first one, but it has ridiculous amounts of pop in and textures flicker constantly. It's distracting, especially when this is supposed to be the superior title.

Man you hit the nail right on the head here. AC 1 was so much better for me. The other problem I had is that in AC 1 you never lose sight of your goal. You know exactly what you're fighting for from day one and even though it changes towards the end, I don't mind as much since its still well defined.

In AC 2 its much less obvious why you're doing these things. To avenge your family I guess but I feel like I've lost sight of that goal a few hours in.

 

[cl20]

Yeah what ruined AC2 for me was Ezio, in the first game you play a ninja monk who has trained his entire life to become a precision weapon of death. A man who knows both efficency and honor. In AC2 you play a playboy who decides that he's going to become an assassin for revenge..

 

[cl20]

Yeah what ruined AC2 for me was Ezio, in the first game you play a ninja monk who has trained his entire life to become a precision weapon of death. A man who knows both efficency and honor. In AC2 you play a playboy who decides that he's going to become an assassin for revenge..

 

[cl20]

Yeah what ruined AC2 for me was Ezio, in the first game you play a ninja monk who has trained his entire life to become a precision weapon of death. A man who knows both efficency and honor. In AC2 you play a playboy who decides that he's going to become an assassin for revenge..

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

To each their own but I found AC1 WAY too repetitive. Go to city X, pickpocket, eavesdrop, or follow target Y, kill person Z and run like hell. Repeat 9 times until completion.

And, yes, ACII and ACB are like that too but its got variety in how you go about the missions. Plus Altair bored me, as did the setting of the middle ages

I gotta agree with you on AC1. It took me a while to me getting to like AC1 since it was really repetitive and Altair had the personality of a brick and acted like a total dick. The setting I liked though, even though it did take forever to get anywhere on that damn horse, and I got more attached to the horse than him-sad really.

I liked Ezio a lot more since he actually emoted and made me actually care what was gonna happen to him.

 

[Laser Priest]

Cool opinion you got there, bro.

I disagree. Whoa. Amazing.

 

[Yojoo]

AC1 was a great game, but AC2 was far superior to me, and Brotherhood just continued the improvement.

Ezio Auditore has a believable and compelling character arc. He starts as a confused teenager, and winds up becoming a badass assassin through years of toil and pain. Altair, on the other hand, didn't have the depth Ezio brought.

It got to the point where, watching the trailer to Revelations, I was legitimately saddened to see Ezio hurt and facing death. The character is real to me, and seeing him at possibly the end of his life was upsetting. AC1 just didn't have that sort of pull.

What I am feeling perplexed by is whether I should get AC Brotherhood or just wait until Revelations. The reviews I've read suggest that it's something like AC 2, with a few new additions that aren't really enough to carry the new game. I don't know if I want to play AC 2.5.

Brotherhood isn't an expansion, it's an entire sequel. It has a respectably long play time and introduces key story elements. It's also arguably the best game in the series so far. Don't skip it.

 

[Frontastic]

The franchise as a whole is possibly my favourite of recent memory and it has a wonderful and rich mythology.
I too prefer AC1 though and for pretty much the same reasons. However I still think AC2 is the better game, I just prefer AC1's story, setting, tone and atmosphere. Plus AC2 pissed me off MASSIVELY with the reveal of the series choice of 2012 disaster to try and stop. Nothing new or original or even interesting. Nope, just your bog standard, done to death variety of doomsday. Thankfully not a single character mentions it in Brotherhood so I still have hope that Ubisoft have realised how shit it was and plan to retcon it with something more interesting for AC3.

 

[Ishadus]

I vastly prefer Altair to Ezio. But I vastly prefer the combat in AC2/ACB.

The dialogue/story/death speech of your targets gave them a personality in AC1, whereas most of the people you assassinate in AC2 are "guy did dickish thing -> stabby stabby -> rest in peace and we'll never think of you again."

I hated the sheer multitude of collectibles (templars+flags) to hunt down pointlessly in AC1 while they curbed this a great deal for the sequels. It's still there, but not quite as annoying.

The fullsync thing in ACB can choke on a dick and die, seriously. I hate that if you screw it up they make you replay the WHOLE. FUCKING. MEMORY. Why...WHY can't you just reload an earlier checkpoint and try again? But noooo....my tank took a hit in the very LAST part of the Da Vinci mission so I need to start the entire thing again. Tag the architect. Beat him up. Burn the plans. Free the mercenaries. Bring them to the underground. Do the platforming sections. And only THEN do I get to retry the tank part.

I swear...ACB gave me a few frothing at the mouth moments of homocidal rage. NOT pleased. Some things are just such unquestionably bad design choices that I don't understand how anyone could think they're a good idea. Things like unskippable cutscenes before failable sections/challenging boss fights (not in ACB, just saying....although skipping a cutscene DOES require a seperate loading screen which is still pretty annoying). Forcing long, unchallenging monotonous tasks (like my example above). The tank section is the part I screwed up in...WHY must you make me repeat like 7 minutes worth of easy crap just to get another shot?

This is getting more ranty than intended. All in all I wanted to say that I have pros and cons in all games. In the end, however, I think I prefer AC1 over its sequels. I just had more fun/felt more immersed with it.

 

[Moosh50]

Wait, you liked Altair more then Ezio? I mean, Altair had the emotional range of a spoonfull of porridge.

 

[Fledge]

I haven't read any of this thread.

I believe Asc 1 is better than Asc 2 - but I simply cannot be bothered to explain why --- although it's mainly becuase Asc 2 is WAY TOO EASY and IMPOSSILE TO FAIL AT.....even though I felt like that by the end of Asc 1......but Asc 2 makes it so much more obvious.

Bleh.

 

[Wintermute_]

I loved AC1. great game all around, and I loved the stealthy aspects in AC1 and Altair made for a great assassin. The whole aspect of the mountain top assassin fortress and their secret society of underworld contacts made it feel more real and believable. the missions were fun and the plot reasonably believable for the whole templar conspiracy theory undertones. It was really good. Yeah Altair could have been given a few more lines, yeah there were moments of repetitiveness, but this didn't subtract that much from the game. The ending boss was indeed bs but the end was such sequel bait i didn't let it bother me.

Then came AC2. I liked that we shifted time periods. Italy in the renaissance? sweet. contacts with Da Vinci? that was pretty cool. Ezio was annoyingly over-characterized, if that makes sense (he came on as such excessive A-typical suave italian cliche) but he was no more annoying then Altair. In terms of story though, the plot was no longer about assassins, it was about Ezio. I like the villa, the cool collectables, disliked the money system as it was superfluous, and they really railroaded the missions which was disappointing but not a game killer. I nicknamed him tourett-ezio because dear god would he leap about when I didn't want him too. And what happened to stealth? Ezio practically stands in public, wearing amazingly recognizable clothing that might as well have had a sign attached reading "Assassin at Work", then just stabs his guy,big fight scene, repeat. you weren't an assassin anymore. just some ticked of Bourne Supremacy revenge taker.
Overall story though was borderline crap. the ending was such bullshit! really? really? they blew the conspiracy thing so far out of the water. its was ridiculous. At least AC1 was better in terms of story. still a great game though, because it was fun to play at the end of the day.

Then came Brotherhood. Fuck brotherhood. God above was this shit booooooorrrrrrinnngggg! so repetitive, too many side quests and lame characters with 2 dimensional personalities. missions railroaded to the max. it was a chore playing this game, and I haven't finished it. just couldn't finish it. and the story was so ludicrous that it just wasn't worth it anymore. assassins became lame. No more stealth, how Ezio even walks the streets when he is so flagrantly dressed as an assassin i just don't understand.

Won't be buying Revelations...

 

[Nick Angelici]

Im glad someone agrees with me on this. I didnt like AC 2 as much as AC, and I wish Ubisoft would make this a doctor who like experience like it was originally and show us alternate timeline versions of the past in different lands. That sounds awesome. but now its just ezios all the time and its dull. I love italian art and such but that feeling was gone long before I beat AC2

 

[blackdwarf]

i also think that AC is the best one in the serie so far. more because the story, although linear, it was solid. you had some characters and you got to know your targets. in the ACII it was all random and you never really got the see the other characters except at the end. and i thought ezio was terrible. he was just not interresting to me. altair was not that much better, but i did atleast saw some growth in him.

my main thing is, that ACII and brotherhood were pretty forgetable for me, while a do remember ACI.

 

[The-Epicly-Named-Man]

I disagree with you so much may head may have exploded. And no, if you dislike extra content, you won't like Brotherhood either. ACII was a huge improvement on the first one, which was largely because you weren't just completing the same three f*cking missions until the game decides you can advance the plot again.

 

[spartan231490]

I'm with you. Assassin's creed one was a much better game. Screed 2 was kinda fun, but very limited and kinda sckitzo in a bad way.

 

[zelda2fanboy]

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.