Assassin's Creed Gameplay - too easy?

[pure.Wasted]

I recently ran into some discussion of AC that basically said that the gameplay, especially (maybe only?) in AC1, was just too easy. Performing all the running and jumping was too effortless. The game didn't make it challenging enough.

Now, I've only played the first game, and I didn't beat it, because it got too boring. (I have the second. Can I jump in, or would the story be confusing?) But I thought that the controls were actually one of the best things about the game. The point of the game is that you are a bad ass. It seems like being a bad ass should then come pretty naturally.

If someone wants to make a game where a guy who's never done anything crazy does all these stunts, by all means, I'd give it a whirl. Sounds like the gameplay would be closer to Mirror's Edge (and then some on top of that). But if the premise of the game is that you are amazing, it stands to reason that being amazing should be the baseline for just about everything you do, doesn't it?

captcha: pyrrhic victory. Uh oh.

 

[endtherapture]

I gave up playing AC2 because there was a story mission in which I had to climb a tower in a certain period of time and I HATE MISSIONS LIKE THAT and the controls for leaping up the tower was annoying so I just stopped.

Plus I hated Ezio, Altair was like 10 times cooler. And the plot didn't seem to be going anywhere at all.

 

[TephlonPrice]

AC1's gameplay being too easy?

Yeah, because I really want to play button-fuck jumping/climbing when I've got Templar knights waiting to sharpen their swords on my collar bone. And especially when the Arrow squads are on my ass, or the armored, fast movers that manage to put Khyber knives in my spinal cord.

Its simple approach to parkour maneuvers actually works in the game's favor, especially because it makes simply getting around fun as all hell - or evading the previously mentioned enemies - or simply reaching high heights.

AC2 & its continuations manage to add some interesting improvements to the parkour system & actually speed it up a bit compared to AC1, making parkour easier if anything.

And BTW: AC2 features Ezio, not Altair. Still, it might help to beat AC1, if only to understand a few elements of the story that pop up in AC2.

 

[SckizoBoy]

snip

Yeah, I'm with this guy. I thought AC's gameplay was quite challenging... if increasingly repetitive towards the end, but even so, a successful counter with the hidden blade brought a definite sense of 'I'm so badass' that ACII just couldn't match (unless it was against the Heavies, and even then...).

So, if you think AC was too easy, I wouldn't even bother with ACII and onwards because they're even easier, gameplay-wise. I was in it for the story... though AC:B was a damp squib and AC:R was too short and tangential.

Whatever, though, I'm waiting for AC3 and blind to all else. *shrug*

 

[Amethyst Wind]

snip

Yeah, I'm with this guy. I thought AC's gameplay was quite challenging... if increasingly repetitive towards the end, but even so, a successful counter with the hidden blade brought a definite sense of 'I'm so badass' that ACII just couldn't match (unless it was against the Heavies, and even then...).

So, if you think AC was too easy, I wouldn't even bother with ACII and onwards because they're even easier, gameplay-wise. I was in it for the story... though AC:B was a damp squib and AC:R was too short and tangential.

Whatever, though, I'm waiting for AC3 and blind to all else. *shrug*

Here's hoping they shake up the gameplay several degrees more than they have in the past, I was still essentially using the same tricks I learned in AC1 in Revelations. I noticed too, which is worse really.

I'll be checking a lot of reviews for AC3 before I buy it, if I hear a lot of comments on how it's more-of-the-same then there won't be a chance in hell of me picking it up new.

 

[nu1mlock]

The game and it's combat is one of the easiest I've played. Countering attacks is one of the (if not THE) easiest things you can do in the game. Sure, they look good and it feels good to do them, even after you've done them a couple of thousand times, but it's still easy.

There are, of course, a few enemies that you can't counter but those a few and still easy to kill.

Nothing about the AC series has been challenging (played up to AC:R but haven't finished it yet) but they can still be fun and enjoyable.

I believe the story is interesting enough, but unfortunately, there isn't that much of it. Most of the time you spend running around rooftops, climbing towers to set them on fire or counter weak enemies. But the few times you actually play Desmond, that's where the story shines (for obvious reasons) and that's what kept me from stop playing.

I gotta say though, I never finished AC1 on my first try, I got so bored of doing the same things over and over and over.

 

[Jynthor]

Yes it is too easy, and whenever they try to make it harder they just make it annoying as hell.(Janissaries and gun users, sigh.) I heard they're revamping the combat for AC3, let's hope it's better in the difficulty department.

 

[SlaveNumber23]

The game is definitely on the easy side of things. I found the gameplay really dull and repetitive, never got very far in the first game before I got extremely bored and returned it to the shop. I gave brotherhood a chance too and suffered from the same problem.

 

[zombieshark6666]

I never made it to the gameplay. The intro was incredibly slow, long and boring and I couldn't bother. 5$ wasted.

 

[WoW Killer]

I've enjoyed the games for the most part, though I freely admit that they pose very little challenge. If they're still fun without a challenge, is that really a problem? Not every game has to be difficult. I mean Minecraft isn't difficult; that doesn't make it a bad game. Obviously you need some appeal to replace that challenge. In the case of AC I'd say it's the cinematic nature of the game. Through simple inputs the on screen character performs much more complex choreographed actions, and this is in a sense a visual reward for the players interaction. Whether you're running across the rooftops or pulling off a counterattack, one of the important factors is that you don't know exactly what you're about to see as a response to your input. Also, I guess the reward factor works mostly because the animations are extremely well done.

This is not to say, of course, that any game could get away with being easier, or that games should strive to be easier. Overcoming difficulty is a worthy basis for a game. But I don't think it's the only basis.

 

[dimensional]

yes the first one at least was exceptionally easy (and dull) until the end when they just made it annoying as hell with all the archers. My friend who enjoys the series likes that it is easy however so maybe thats what they are going for personally I found it pretty boring when in order to assassinate someone all I had to do was stand there and kill everybody with a simple parry.

Im not sure what the sequels were like apparently the story is better but the gameplay remains the same dosent matter for me the first one has made me steer well clear of this series.

 

[Zhukov]

AC1 was the hardest of the series. The sequels are significantly easier.

But yes, I agree that the games are too easy, mostly in relation to the combat. They try and make you feel like a "badass" while requiring almost zero effort. But being "badass" is not gratifying when the game is doing it for you.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The reason the games are too easy isn't that parkour/climbing is too easy, it's that the AI isn't smart enough to effectively counter what you do. (Also that combat is a glorified QTE...)

 

[Serving UpSmiles]

The reason the games are too easy isn't that parkour/climbing is too easy, it's that the AI isn't smart enough to effectively counter what you do. (Also that combat is a glorified QTE...)

The enemies need more variation in their combat moves, it would be a lot more interesting if the guards actually countered your counter attack, throw more guards into the mix and you can have some intense fighting, also reduce the health ubisoft, Nintendo got it right in Mario Galaxy.

 

[Thoric485]

AC1 had easy combat, and over time they made it even easier, though less repetitive.

I liked what they did with the sync challenges, but it's not enough. The recent games just lack a good pay off for a well-planned assassination.

 

[Smooth Operator]

But if the premise of the game is that you are amazing, it stands to reason that being amazing should be the baseline for just about everything you do, doesn't it?

But that is not the issue here, it is about the player, how does it feel for him.
And apart from fruit ninja there aren't many easier games out there.

The really tragic part is the game was first design to be really intricate, properly complex climbing and challenging fights so you could not just take on an army, but then Ubisoft turned around and realized granny won't buy it like that so they just chopped it all out.

 

[NightHawk21]

I found the combat in AC1 and the next 2 AC games very easy (haven't played the newest one yet), because you always get the hidden blade and once you figure out the counters with that (literally a 5 min process), its game over for essentially every enemy. That being said I think the parkour controls are very good. More often than not in AC1 after I beat it I would initiate fights just to start a chase scene.

 

[shrekfan246]

I love the people in this thread saying "Oh man, don't bother with the rest of the games then, it only gets easier" without realizing that the OP is saying that other people were saying it was too easy.

I recently ran into some discussion of AC that basically said that the gameplay, especially (maybe only?) in AC1, was just too easy. Performing all the running and jumping was too effortless. The game didn't make it challenging enough.

Now, I've only played the first game, and I didn't beat it, because it got too boring. (I have the second. Can I jump in, or would the story be confusing?) But I thought that the controls were actually one of the best things about the game. The point of the game is that you are a bad ass. It seems like being a bad ass should then come pretty naturally.

I almost didn't finish the first one either when I was playing it, because it does just get far too repetitive by about half-way through. Honestly, I think you could just jump in to the second one, which does do a fair better job of keeping it from feeling stale (unless you decide to get Altair's armor as early in the game as you can. It trivializes all of the combat and you can get it with fifteen hours of story still left to run through). Most everything that is explained in the first game does get brought up again in the early moments of the second, and apart from the Desmond plot points you're really not missing much.

On that note, though, I really have to wonder what Ubisoft is thinking with this franchise. Unless they create much more compelling "past" characters, they really can't milk it any further once Desmond's story is done and because of the way they've framed the entire franchise up to this point, how could they even go about continuing it? The entire series is about "Templars Vs. Assassins"

Spoiler: Edit and spoilered for people who might not want this section of the plot spoiled?

and the 2012 apocalypse/prophecy thing

, what could they do when that's resolved? If they hadn't bothered using Future Desmond as a framing device in the first place, I'd say they could keep this series going on forever, but now I just don't know.