Puzzlenaut said:
I totally agree. Almost everyone seems to prefer AC2 to the first when the first was clearly superior; here on the Escapist I recall an article which (paraphrasing here) said "rarely is a sequel so utterly superior in every way than AC2 is to AC".
The first one was repetitive as hell, with clunky dialogue and a ridiculous-bullshit ending, but the plot itself -- both in and out the animus -- was a lot more interesting, as was the world in which it was set: outside of the animus, Abstergo were faceless and threatening, and inside of it the world of the crusade and assassins was very well realised; in the second Ubi replaced world building with awkward, forced cameos from historical figures "just because" (seriously, Leonardo Da Vinci is a fucking terrible character). Oh, and AC1 actually had a focus on, you know, ASSASSINATING PEOPLE which is something successive games lacked more and more with each installment.
One of my least favourite things in AC2 was Lucy, who I quite liked before she became Action-Barbie in the second one, mainly because to start with she was really rather unsexualised, which is rare in a medium so juvenile as the videogame, and wore genuine office clothes that didn't flatter her; she acted like a real person, with doubts and kindness and her own problems. When she came back in the second game, however, they dressed her in tight clothing and gave her scarlet lipstick and changed the shape of her character model to make her sexy and a badass, and it just absolutely ruined her.
Also, I'll never forgive Ubisoft for replacing AC1's morally quandaries with mother-fucking city renovation minigames. GAAAAAH.
The character points on Leonardo and Lucy aside (I agree with those by the way. Leonardo was portrayed as a goddamn idiot half the time, when he wasn't inventing flying machines so Ezio could scale a SIX FOOT GODDAMN FENCE.), I think the real focus here is padding.
AC2 is longer than AC1, but the actual core of the plot is a similar length. They padded AC1 with those repetitious, dull tasks that were certainly bad, but they just replaced those with what can only be described as "stupid in a bottle."
Hours-long sections of the game are pointless, moronic plot-filler. Even when you stopped doing random crap (I learned to loathe the Thieves' Guild), the missions you were doing made no sense.
Example: you're stealing guard uniforms to sneak Thieves Guild guys into a big ole place. Of course, Ezio doesn't do anything as clever as don a disguise himself, but whatever, this should be fun! Back to plot-driven crime! Maybe you're going to be a part of some slick, complex heist that-woops the uniforms are kept in chests spread around the city and individually guarded by packs of guards.
The plot simply cannot move forwards (or, more accurately, sideways) without immediately collapsing in on itself.
The point of all this is; for all its faults, Assassin's Creed 1 was an interesting, atmospheric game. The cities and missions were tight and pretty well realised, and if you let yourself get into it, it was really fun playing the part of Altair, stalking your prey, planning a nice, clean hit and escape over the rooftops etc.
Ezio just isn't *that* character. He's a moron who wastes your time, with his actual assassinations being either nonsensical and railroad-y, or fairly bland and uninteresting (or, for bonus points, both!). Which is a shame because gameplay really is the one area where AC2 does outshine the original. Playing as a free-roaming parkourmurder Assassin was possible within the confines of the game, but the writers didn't want you to do that.
"Ezio! drive this wagon, it's time for a vehicle section!"
"Ezio! play Capture-the-Flag, even though it's a complete waste of time!"
"Ezio!etc etc"
