WeAreStevo said:
(preparing to be flamed)
I believe that the Assassin's Creed series has been hardcore whored out the minute Ubisoft discovered people liked Ezio. It's like they thought "Hmm...he's liked by a lot of people. Let's make 2 additional "tack on" games, squeezing his popularity across them both, but we'll throw in multiplayer to confuse the masses from realizing that there's just not enough content with him or his story to warrant two complete new games. Oh, and one city this time. We're trying to MAKE money."
I agree with this to a point. I liked Brotherhood, I thought it improved on AC2, it added new mechanics which were actually fun, the city of Rome was amazing fun to explore. It may have been a way to extend the series even further and cash in in Ezio's popularity but it was done well.
Revelations on the other hand... was the point for me where I lost interest. Ezio again? Now he's old? Oh and let's tack Altair again because everyone liked him a little bit, right? Seriously? It had no new story to tell, no new useful mechanics and a boring old city no one cared for. It was poorly executed, souless and added nothing. Bad move Ubisoft, bad move.
Kukakkau said:
Around the time you can play through a game and go "wow this added absolutely nothing necessary to the previously established plot."
You generally see this in sequels with a name instead of number (eg Assassin's Creed: Revelations) but you also see it in numbered ones too (Gear of War 3)
It's a real testament to just how "samey" the Gears of war games have been when someone can say that the final game in the trilogy, literally the conclusion to the story, added nothing to the previously established plot!