Assassins Creed
- Thread starter Mr Companion
- Start date
God people don't give assassins creed the credit it deserves, and thats such a shame. Oh well It can't be helped
I had more fun with this game than most games out there. Every game has it's flaws, just go grab a cup of coffee, or go cook a meal through the boring bits.
Well you've got to realize that this game is by Ubisoft, patron saints of dicking around on rooftops and shitty combat in the first game. Although on reflection you seemed to be more upset that Altir was, and more specifically the counter move, was too powerful, whereas many complaints that I have heard was that Altir wasn't powerful enough. Really given that it is Ubisoft, and historical what you really should have expected was more the bastard offspring of Splinter Cell and Prince of Persia, which actually is what it seems to be much more like. Splinter Cell for the realism and conspiracy b.s. and Prince of Persia for the setting. Now while the redundancy is noticable and the jabbering on from the assasination victims gets to you, which it doesn't me but I didn't let it, then Assassins Creed 2 looks like it may be resolving your complaints.Mr Companion said:
Well, I agree and disagree with your review here.
I played Creed twice, once on 360, once on Computer. Truth be told, there's little difference in the two, other than the controls on the later are more frustrating, but the "investigation" missions in the former are more tedious. Well, no, that's a lie. The "extra missions" in the PC version aren't much better. Yes, they add more stealth-based challenges (Kill x archers without being seen or alerting guards), but it remains repetitive and bland.
In short, I agree, the gameplay was horrid and so damned blase that I'd rather be playing RuneScape than it at some times, just out of sheer boredom (RuneScape level grinding is what I'm referring to, folks).
However, I enjoyed the story. Yes, you have the action-breaking scenes with talking to the deceased, but it was at least interesting to hear the story, especially using the Glitches that made them appear alive again, blemish free. True, it was a little action breaking, but give it to them that the writing of the scenes was interesting.
The combat I'd argue. It truly depends on which enemy you're facing that the counter will either work flawlessly or being as finicky as a high-born princess who liked nothing but a single kind of roast bird that was neigh impossible to find. For me, I found myself cursing the timing because it was off by a mere millisecond. This especially came in during the last altercation with [LAWLspoiler]. Truth be told, I found Altair kicking enemies harmlessly away rather than doing a lethal counter, also, which would only further my frustrations.
I personally think that the game's worth buying for the uniqueness, albeit I do agree that it's horrible in terms of how you attain progress. But I suppose that's something we will have to see if they fix come Creed 2, but I somehow doubt they will, considering Prototype was very much akin to this sort of playstyle.
As for your review, I think others have already pointed out anything I'd say would need work. However, sometimes it's good to ramble a bit, heck, throw in a few anecdotes of your gameplay to emphasize your points! Otherwise, keep up the good work, sir, and I wish you happy gaming.
I played Creed twice, once on 360, once on Computer. Truth be told, there's little difference in the two, other than the controls on the later are more frustrating, but the "investigation" missions in the former are more tedious. Well, no, that's a lie. The "extra missions" in the PC version aren't much better. Yes, they add more stealth-based challenges (Kill x archers without being seen or alerting guards), but it remains repetitive and bland.
In short, I agree, the gameplay was horrid and so damned blase that I'd rather be playing RuneScape than it at some times, just out of sheer boredom (RuneScape level grinding is what I'm referring to, folks).
However, I enjoyed the story. Yes, you have the action-breaking scenes with talking to the deceased, but it was at least interesting to hear the story, especially using the Glitches that made them appear alive again, blemish free. True, it was a little action breaking, but give it to them that the writing of the scenes was interesting.
The combat I'd argue. It truly depends on which enemy you're facing that the counter will either work flawlessly or being as finicky as a high-born princess who liked nothing but a single kind of roast bird that was neigh impossible to find. For me, I found myself cursing the timing because it was off by a mere millisecond. This especially came in during the last altercation with [LAWLspoiler]. Truth be told, I found Altair kicking enemies harmlessly away rather than doing a lethal counter, also, which would only further my frustrations.
I personally think that the game's worth buying for the uniqueness, albeit I do agree that it's horrible in terms of how you attain progress. But I suppose that's something we will have to see if they fix come Creed 2, but I somehow doubt they will, considering Prototype was very much akin to this sort of playstyle.
As for your review, I think others have already pointed out anything I'd say would need work. However, sometimes it's good to ramble a bit, heck, throw in a few anecdotes of your gameplay to emphasize your points! Otherwise, keep up the good work, sir, and I wish you happy gaming.
While it's true that you can get away with only doing 3 missions, you're somewhat encouraged to complete all of them in order to get the information required to pull off a somewhat model assassination. Proceeding without having all the maps and info kind of defeats the point. Sure you can just run in cowboy style, put the game is called "Assassin's Creed," and hence a degree of finesse is implied.lostclause said:
I only recall ever doing one flag-running informer quest, but I only started hitting every mission after the third assassination in order to fill out all the little progress DNA bar things. I'm a bit obsessive like that, so I may have missed a few.
With regards to the citizen saving and scale points, I refer back to my argument in the first paragraph. Not mandatory, but having a full map and vigilantes to hold the guards down while I cut them down is rather useful. In general, Assassin's Creed wants you to do all these things, and they are indeed useful, but it's just unfortunate how bland, boring, and unexciting the whole affair is.
Its all about perspective, Assassins Creed undoubtedly had a great number of flaws (most of which focus on either its ending or its combat) but despite this I really liked the game. You say the story was presented in a poor way but that's just your opinion of it, personally I really enjoyed the style and use of the Animus. I agree the combat is repetitive and does getting frustrating but its not the worst out there by any means. The missions variety is an issue although since I played the PC directors cut edition I had extra side missions so it wasn't as large a issue to me.
You also fail to mention that Assassins Creed boosts some amazing technology, it has a smooth frame rate even when upwards of 30 or 40 people are on the screen (guards, civilians, etc), a mildly destructible environment, an amazing dynamic crowd system and it has some amazing visuals.
I am by no means saying its the best game out there because its not (I admit I focused on its strong points more than its weaknesses but then I'm heavily biased having thoroughly enjoyed the game) but it certainly does not deserve all the hatred it gets.
You also fail to mention that Assassins Creed boosts some amazing technology, it has a smooth frame rate even when upwards of 30 or 40 people are on the screen (guards, civilians, etc), a mildly destructible environment, an amazing dynamic crowd system and it has some amazing visuals.
I am by no means saying its the best game out there because its not (I admit I focused on its strong points more than its weaknesses but then I'm heavily biased having thoroughly enjoyed the game) but it certainly does not deserve all the hatred it gets.
I'm also going to go with the people who liked the game. Hell, I even enjoyed the combat, it was simple enough but very well choreographed and satisfying when you ran through some poor bastard. One case sticks in my mind when I was wandering around and saw a templar facing away from me, I quickly siezed the chance and attacked him rather brutally with my short blade, leaving him writhing on the ground before I put an end to his misery with my hidden blade. It was fun. I enjoy climbing up the highest buildings to look around the city. I agree with it's flaws, the pickpocketing is a pain in the arse no matter how much I try to look like I'm just casually passing by and the repetition is bothersome, but overall I enjoyed the game, finding methods to get to your target is fun too, or at least would be if I didn't keep buggering it up and end up hacking through ten guards to get to him.
I am afraid that assassins creed 2 looks like it will only build on my complaints, however I wont be buying the next one anyway so there is no problem. Also once again I must apologise for this review ant thanks for the input ect because I am making another review that seems less aggressive and more explanatory based on feedback.KingPiccolOwned said:
Well, while AC is overrated by the community, it's still a good game in my eyes, despite its many shortcomings. The unskippable cutscenes were indeed boring, specially if you just want to mess around Jerusalem or whatever, you have to listen to the 5-minute-long briefing.
The counter IS overpowered, but I "fixed" that by not using it as much. I much preferred the Assassin Combo.
The setting was excellently well done and it was, to a point, quite historically accurate (and mythologically accurate, so to speak)
The counter IS overpowered, but I "fixed" that by not using it as much. I much preferred the Assassin Combo.
The setting was excellently well done and it was, to a point, quite historically accurate (and mythologically accurate, so to speak)
I liked the game, although most people have a hatred for it. Sure it was a bit redundant, but even then it deserves more respect.
Personally, I think that some people hate this game mainly because they know what to hate. It didn't occur to me that the game was repetitive until it was brought up on the web. Even then, there's always a difference with each level, like weapons, setting, etc.
I think that some people really, go out of their way to give it a bad review because they get the strong, but pre-known, reason (repetitiveness) to, only to seem as realiser or visionary.
Personally, I think that some people hate this game mainly because they know what to hate. It didn't occur to me that the game was repetitive until it was brought up on the web. Even then, there's always a difference with each level, like weapons, setting, etc.
I think that some people really, go out of their way to give it a bad review because they get the strong, but pre-known, reason (repetitiveness) to, only to seem as realiser or visionary.
I am fairly interested as to how it builds upon your complaints? Still too powerful?Mr Companion said:
Okay, since everyone one has said almost everything (yes, you should write more, even if you do go off on a tangent, it would add personality), I only have one thing to add.
I find when you say things like:
Pretty good review though, nothing that just made me stop reading and say, "no".
I find when you say things like:
a little repetitive. You have a fine introductory sentence which tells me you're speaking of gameplay in this section. I don't need to be told twice. When I read it like you wrote it I think of someone giving a book report, and taking breathes after every sentence. If dividing the sections up like that helps you in writing, excellent! Continue doing it, just take it out before you post it, then I won't have a monotone in my head.Mr Companion said:
Pretty good review though, nothing that just made me stop reading and say, "no".
As for combat, there were crusaders that pretty much were immune to quick kill and as the game went there were more and more of them. Except for few last moments of the game the battle wasn't completly neccessary, because as in the stealth game you could run away and hide - if fighting sucks then maybe it does so the player would eventually want to avoid it, and it's a good thing in stealth game.
The story isn't that bad at the first time, and unskippable sceneses can be fun if only to see how each assassination leads to changes in enviroment. It has it's problem at the end, but most games these days have problem with good endings unless it's "to be continued".
I wouldn't say that blue walls in the city broke immersion for me, because I was playing as someone "reliving" memories, not the actual crusader. If someone wants to believe that such thing is possible then he/she should accept the way this "sience" works. The whole act of desinhronising could be break of flow, but with such sandbox game where death can be caused by missjudging distance, it works fine.
As for the side missions. Small assassinations, stealing and eardropping aren't anticlimatic that much as small races. If the whole game wasn't about a guy that wants to be undetected and yet he jumps on rooftops then I'd say that racing from roof to roof to collect flags isn't such a good idea - but in a game as this, this is actually fun.
I won't be playing Assasin's Creed again, but I do want to see Assassin's Creed 2, and I enjoyed it with its flaws and saying "Don't touch it" might be too much, and especially for the lovers of the genre. I understand that cRPG fans might don't like avrage RTS, but they would probably would like to take a look at weak cRPG if the story is good or it brings something new to the genre.
The story isn't that bad at the first time, and unskippable sceneses can be fun if only to see how each assassination leads to changes in enviroment. It has it's problem at the end, but most games these days have problem with good endings unless it's "to be continued".
I wouldn't say that blue walls in the city broke immersion for me, because I was playing as someone "reliving" memories, not the actual crusader. If someone wants to believe that such thing is possible then he/she should accept the way this "sience" works. The whole act of desinhronising could be break of flow, but with such sandbox game where death can be caused by missjudging distance, it works fine.
As for the side missions. Small assassinations, stealing and eardropping aren't anticlimatic that much as small races. If the whole game wasn't about a guy that wants to be undetected and yet he jumps on rooftops then I'd say that racing from roof to roof to collect flags isn't such a good idea - but in a game as this, this is actually fun.
I won't be playing Assasin's Creed again, but I do want to see Assassin's Creed 2, and I enjoyed it with its flaws and saying "Don't touch it" might be too much, and especially for the lovers of the genre. I understand that cRPG fans might don't like avrage RTS, but they would probably would like to take a look at weak cRPG if the story is good or it brings something new to the genre.