I can't help but feel that Assassin's Creed is slowly dying on the inside.

Recommended Videos

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,769
5
43
Why yes, I would like to elaborate on that.

(This post will contain vague spoilers for all the AC games except Revelations.)

Assassin's Creed is a series that has no shortage of potential but is being continually held back by baffling design decisions.

The first game introduced itself with a nice take on sandbox gameplay (basically, "climb everything") and a basic but elegant mission structure ("find guy, stab guy, run like stink"). When it hit its stride, there were some good times to be had pursuing fleeing targets over the rooftops or desperately dodging through crowded marketplaces with crusader patrols closing in from every direction.

Now, that's not to say it was without flaws. Whoo boy, did it ever have flaws. Those tedious preliminary mission obscuring the good bits. Not one but two utterly boring protagonists. A pathetically stilted attempt at character development. A lacklustre, albeit fairly well presented, story which only goes anywhere five minutes before the credits rolled. Yeah, flaws were in plentiful supply. But hey, at least it was something new. It didn't spark a revolution, but it was a little breath of fresh air and that can cover many sins.

Two years pass and Assassin's Creed 2 shows up. At first it seemed like it had managed to deftly throw out the bathwater while leaving the baby intact. No more grinding preliminary missions and a protagonist wish some actual personality. (Can't say I've ever really warmed to Ezio. He just strikes me as yet another basic wish fulfilment persona, but damn he was an improvement on Altair.)

Sadly it also abandoned any notion of challenge. Between Ezio's expanded arsenal of overpowered weapons, healing potions and easier combat, AC2 became a walk in the park. I beat the final boss so fast he didn't even get to finish his dialogue. It also began what would become a trend by introducing an utterly extraneous economy system, equipment upgrading and that renovation thing. Then the story pulled a bait-and-switch by replacing an unremarkable but basically functional tale of revenge with the whole Templar conspiracy bollocks and finally going belly-up at the end with an incredibly silly reveal that still barely advanced the overarching story at all.

Then Brotherhood shows up. Even easier (chain kills). More extraneous fat added (assassin management and city renovation). A story that goes nowhere until the last half hour with a final twist that reveals bugger-all. The only thing of value was the amazingly good multiplayer.

And finally Revelations. Addition of bombs lowers challenge still further and yet more extraneous fat in the form of tower defence. Lastly, I keep getting the disquieting impression that it somehow expects me to give the slightest vestige of a damn about Desmond and his pals. Yeesh.

*sigh*

So... am I going anywhere with all this obnoxious whining? No, not really. I'm just a little miffed that an exciting series that started out with a great deal of potential has slowly devolved into bargain-bin material. Damn shame.

Oh, and just to finish off, now Ubisoft want to bring in a yearly release schedule. Because, as everyone knows, all the best products in this world are stamped off production lines.
 

Cazza

New member
Jul 13, 2010
1,933
0
0
I played AC1, AC2 & AC:B. Then I stopped. I like the story I love the gameplay. They started to destroy both for me. AC2 had a much better story and gameplay. Then they watered down the story with AC:B to the part where I feel they are just trying to get more money.

It's like they are putting the Desmond story to the side because they don't know what to do with it. They thought. Everyone loves Ezio give them more of that. I'm done with Ezio. If they didn't want the Desmond story why did they add the Animus and DNA part to start with?

Then I heard they added the bombs and I thought. The game was easy enough in the second one. I killed the second last boss in AC with 1 hit. I grabbed him (I don't know why he didn't counter) throw him to the ground and stabbed him in the neck. The game is easy enough. Then the minigame to defend your holds. Thats sounds like one hell of a bad step.

What I hate most is if I don't play them I will miss the small parts relating to the overall plot. If I want to skip AC:R and what other ones before AC3. Im going to not know whats going on. It's like in poker and they are trying to buy out my bet. I have already paid for 3 games. If I stop now I lose. Sure I could just google the plot holes I miss but it would be as good if I experienced ingame.

In fact my patients has run out with the series. I'm getting busier. I don't have the amount of hours to finish the length of an AC game. So I don't even want to rent it. I just want them to cut the crap.

I feel the AC series is dieing. If the next one isn't AC3 Im done. I will be washing my hands of it. I know others are with me. A friend of mine said "I'm cutting my loses with the Assassin's creed games if the next game isn't AC3".
 

Ordinaryundone

New member
Oct 23, 2010
1,568
0
0
I guess I am one of the few that are glad they stuck with Ezio. I was never really a fan of Altair, but Ezio's story in 2 struck a chord with me and I was more than happy to continue with him. Not really sure where everyone got this idea that AC was supposed to jump around to different time periods, when they already had the two best setting for the gameplay already picked.

Cazza said:
It's like they are putting the Desmond story to the side because they don't know what to do with it. They thought. Everyone loves Ezio give them more of that. I'm done with Ezio. If they didn't want the Desmond story why did they add the Animus and DNA part to start with?
Because, at the moment, Ezio's story was more relevant than Desmond's. Desmond's couldn't continue until Ezio's had been resolved, as the various bookends of his life were important clues for Desmond's real-life mission. 2 through Revelations were Ezio's story, make no mistake. Just like how 1 was Altair's. 3 will be Desmond's.

IMO, the story has been fine. I'm glad they decided to finish up Ezio's story with a proper ending, rather than just dropping him like Altair (until Revelations, at least). I do have some issue with the games have an unnecessary amount of features. Bomb making was worst of it, just give us the bombs! Also, the Assassin recruitment games always bugged me, as it felt like a lot of busywork for no real gain. AC2 had just the right amount of story to stuff ratio; if they followed it's example for 3 (possibly keeping faction challenges) then I'll be a happy man.
 

Cazza

New member
Jul 13, 2010
1,933
0
0
Ordinaryundone said:
IMO, the story has been fine. I'm glad they decided to finish up Ezio's story with a proper ending, rather than just dropping him like Altair (until Revelations, at least).
Why do you need a trilogy to finish Ezio story? If they wanted to finish his story why didn't they have an epilogue? Or make AC:B fit in the late part of his life? They jump years all the time.
 

Ordinaryundone

New member
Oct 23, 2010
1,568
0
0
Cazza said:
Ordinaryundone said:
IMO, the story has been fine. I'm glad they decided to finish up Ezio's story with a proper ending, rather than just dropping him like Altair (until Revelations, at least).
Why do you need a trilogy to finish Ezio story? If they wanted to finish his story why didn't they have an epilogue? Or make AC:B fit in the late part of his life? They jump years all the time.
Maybe because they WANTED to do 3 games? Like I said, it's just as much Ezio's story at this point as it is Desmond's. He's one of the main characters. Desmond is just a framing device for the Assassins (in particular, Ezio) until he eventually comes into his own.

Could they have moved past Ezio after 2? I guess? But why bother? They already have this great character set up for a lifetime of opposing the Templars, plus we get a chance to see the life of an Assassin from day 1. And it's not like there was a lack of political intrigue to draw on in that era.
 

Soxafloppin

Coxa no longer floppin'
Jun 22, 2009
7,918
0
0
I still regard AC2 as the highlight of the series, its shocking that the've added so much more but failed to improve on that game.

Don't get me wrong, I just finished AC:R yesterday and I did enjoy it, as I enjoyed Brotherhood, but AC needs to go a diet and the developers need to focus on improving the core gameplay not just add stuff on with a staple gun.

I'm not a fan of Multiplayer but I know a lot of people enjoy it, its not going anywhere no matter what though...They get to slap an online pass on because of it.
 

FunctionZ

New member
Jul 4, 2011
46
0
0
I think its because we had 3 separate games with Eizo in it when we were meant to have the 3rd Assassin from the past. Brotherhood and AC2 should have been mixed into one game (make BH shorter for the 2 games in 1 by removing the side quest/city taking over stuff). This leaves the city taking over experience new for AC:R.

They said that we are moving to the 3rd and final Assassin from the past then hopefully the completion of Desmond story.

I still love the games (story and gameplay). I just hope that they keep improving on the gameplay and keep the story being great and that they do not drag it out.
 

omega 616

Elite Member
May 1, 2009
5,883
1
43
Personally, I love the games still.

The things I don't like are Desmond, "I'm like an assassin but can't do anything!" (not to mention his dull as dishwater [/s]kidnappers[/s] friends).

The combat has always been easy as fuck, I know you are a master at sword fighting but jesus! Hold block and tap counter became hold block and tap counter then aim at the next guy and press attack until all the enemy's are dead or you get hit!

Not to mention giving you a gun, throwing knives (which are basically guns as well, they can also kill 3 guards at once!) and a cross bow (which is just another gun), made you really OP ... the guards are a joke.

The last game had way too much emphasis on bombs! You had lethal bombs, tactical bombs and distraction bombs, which all had 3 or 4 types with in them and all could be made with different things for different effects. Good idea but way too much emphasis on it!

I don't like how they turned Altair in to Ezio, it was just weird. He went from almost no personality to Ezio, keep in mind Altair came before Ezio!

I like the assassin management thing, I am the head of the assassins, if I can't tell them what to do why have the title. I bet you would all complain if there were no upsides to being in charge!

I kind of like the tower defense thing, it reminded me of GTA san andreas!

I like to upgrade my armor and shops, it seems they got the pacing of that right this time. I remember the first game being given the best armor in the game before being able to buy all of the second best armor! Building all the buildings meant having a vast fortune to spend on nothing.

Now I am struggling to buy all the weapons, buildings, locations, medicine etc etc etc

I have never thought the story was that great to begin with, in revelations I didn't even bother with Desmond's story on the island (why play an assassin game but play as a guy who just has assassins ancestors? Play as the guy with the awesome killing skills!). All I know of the story is you are an assassin who is killing Templar's, who are the Illuminati and want to control everything.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
I felt this way playing Revelations.

The yearly release cycle is damaging this series I think. The tacked-on new additions in Revelations did nothing but bore and frustrate me and it didn't seem to have the same heart and atmosphere that the previous two had. It felt lazy, rushed and uninspired.
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
3
43
I haven't been able to get interested in Revelations. The first hour or two of it was just dull. You're right in two important areas:
-Ezio is way too overpowered.
-There's too much fluff. Not just ordinary fluff either. But tower defense? Seriously? I understand that some people like that kind of gameplay, but how the hell does it fit in this series? We want stealth!

And no, I don't care about Desmond either.

I feel like the devs are grasping at straws to find ways to make each game feel different despite the short development cycle. So they end up turning to things that make the game too easy or just don't fit in at all. I would love for the next game to be stripped down back to the basics.
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
The problem I have with the AC series is that they have no core gameplay whatsoever. The games aren't platformers, they aren't stealth games, they aren't combat games, etc. The platforming is probably the thing the series does best but platforming is just your transportation method and really nothing else; GTA isn't a driving game, driving is just how you get around. The 1st game at least tried to have core gameplay, it tried to be an assassination game like Hitman but instead of giving you the intel right away and doing the assassination, you had to do lame and repetitive missions to get the intel. The main story assassinations were actually pretty decent in the 1st game (basically Hitman-lite), you had to figure out how to sneak to your target to kill them. Then, the all the sequels completely abandoned that and became much more sandbox-y with boring missions all over the place. The main assassinations of the 2nd game were super easy and not memorable at all. I still remember the several assassinations from the 1st game whereas I don't remember any assassinations from the 2nd game. And, then I stopped playing the series because there was nothing compelling about the gameplay.

Zhukov said:
Sadly it also abandoned any notion of challenge. Between Ezio's expanded arsenal of overpowered weapons, healing potions and easier combat, AC2 became a walk in the park. I beat the final boss so fast he didn't even get to finish his dialogue.
This is a huge problem, the 1st game had some challenge to it. The 2nd game just completely threw that out the window by giving you dual hidden blades, which allowed you to block with a 1-hit kill weapon. It actually took some skill to counter with the hidden blade in the 1st game, you had to time the counter right, and if you didn't time it right, you got hit because you couldn't block with the hidden blade.
 

SckizoBoy

Ineptly Chaotic
Legacy
Jan 6, 2011
8,681
200
68
A Hermit's Cave
Zhukov said:
*sigh* So with you there. I genuinely want to love the AC series, and I think I do, AC (harrowing, though it was) and ACII (a tad easy, though it was) were brilliant gaming experiences, and while I'm an achievement whore, I played through the story of ACB once, repeated it for 100% and then stopped because... well, there was no real compulsion to return to the game.

And while I like ACR better than ACB... that same lack of desire to play is nagging at me. Hell, I'm playing NTW for the umpteenth time in lieu of completing ACR.

I think they should've just left out ACB altogether, done up ACR to make it a worthy superior successor to ACII without all the necessary management crap (how many times do I have to experience that damned shaky screen?!) and crowbarring in of flowbreaking minigames.

Hell, part of the appeal of the series was the name dropping. AC - fucking history nerdgasm (if a bit messed up by William of Montferrat), ACII - needed to study it a bit, but damned if it could be plausible, and what about ACB? You spend twenty (or however many) hours just trying to get into a position to kill Cesare Borgia and that bossfight was just ridiculously dumb, like two coy lovers running around with one trying to strip the other... eesh. It's vaguely better in ACR, with Palaialogos, Niccolo Polo, Piri Reis, and Suleiman and his royal rivals. Question, though, so where's Pargali?!
 

The_Lost_King

New member
Oct 7, 2011
1,506
0
0
totally heterosexual said:
I did not like 1 - 2 other then the setting and core gameplay. If you ask me the whole series needs a massive overhaul.
If you didn't like them don't buy them and definitely don't expect them to change everything just for you.
on topic: I don't really care about Desmond either or his story I just want him to find a different ancestor to relive. Read Yahtzee's extra punctuation on the ac series for a couple of reasons. They should remove the bombs and tower defense and have a bigger cycle. I don't care if I have to wait till 2015 if i get a really great game. although why do we care we are all gunna die before it comes out what with the world ending in December, j/k.
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
Phoenixmgs said:
It actually took some skill to counter with the hidden blade in the 1st game, you had to time the counter right, and if you didn't time it right, you got hit because you couldn't block with the hidden blade.
Those were the days. I can still remember how badass I would feel after dispatching a camp full of guards using only the hidden blade. And how long it took to finally get the timing down perfectly.

Good times
 

Phoenixmgs_v1legacy

Muse of Fate
Sep 1, 2010
4,691
0
0
Flailing Escapist said:
Phoenixmgs said:
It actually took some skill to counter with the hidden blade in the 1st game, you had to time the counter right, and if you didn't time it right, you got hit because you couldn't block with the hidden blade.
Those were the days. I can still remember how badass I would feel after dispatching a camp full of guards using only the hidden blade. And how long it took to finally get the timing down perfectly.

Good times
Yeah, I remember doing the whole last part (with all those enemies) of the 1st game with just the hidden blade and I felt so badass. I never got that feeling from the 2nd game and I totally gave up on the series, I will probably play AC3 to finish off the main story though.
 

TheDuckbunny

New member
Jul 9, 2009
489
0
0
I loved the first Assassin's Creed! It was bold, new, interesting and unique in its gameplay, setting and story, a combination you're very unlikely to see in an triple-A game. Then came Assassin's Creed 2 and while I get what they were going for, they lost me there.

What made the first game great to me was its focus. You were an assassin in the middle ages, that was the game. Everything you did, heard or said revolved around that concept. There wasn't a single aspect of the game that strayed from its core, everything was there for a reason. Assassin's Creed 2 and the games that followed lost this focus and instead tried to incorporate mechanics and plot points that made a mess of accompanying gameplay that was (for the most part) unchanged. I simply can't take a game like Brotherhood serious when I'm asked to deal with 20(!) fully armored guards face to face, killing them in a matter of seconds and then reminding myself that you're supposed to be an assassin.

The franchise still has a lot of strong points (the cities look fantastic!), but to me its lost its focus and identity entirely after the first one.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
I played Assassin's Creed 2 - all of it mind, excluding the feathers and chests - in one fucking weekend. Favourite game of 2009, loved it.

I booted Revelations up the other day for the first time, and have managed 3 hours before collapsing out of sheer boredom and annoyance at all the inane crap being thrown at me.

Here's a pro fucking tip Ubisoft: if you have a great idea that's a planned trilogy, stick to the fucking trilogy. Brotherhood was a great game, and (unlike some people say) it added a fair amount to AC2 - but it was the perfect amount. The game's systems fitted snugly. Its major flaw was that neither Ezio's story or Desmond's went anywhere. Even so, it wasn't an overly costly side-track; I'd even call it beneficial in finding the game's perfect balance in terms of game systems.

"Oh well," I thought, "that will obviously be corrected in the next game, Assassin's Creed 3, because its the end to this story, so it'll all come to a head." Then Revelations came along, added more shit (only this time its actual shit), and made the story go nowhere even quicker (well, what I played of it, secret keys for a library because... why? And no strong villain either).

I mean, if they wanted to go yearly on a series that does not suit the model one iota, at least get done with what you've planned first and then move on. Fucking hell, I even remember one of the developers coming out and saying, "people need to be given a break from the series," and a week later some stupid **** from the publisher side of things says, "no, they want it every year in the form of bloated crap." The real problem with the series now is (bar the absolutely shit additions in Revelations) the fact that all of the new gear they give you is useless; its become so bloated there's little focus in how you tackle situations. I don't need 30 ways to kill a man, I need 5 interesting and particularly enjoyable ways to kill him. And in the game.

So now what was a really interesting story for me at the end of AC2 has lost all momentum, mystery, and interest on my part.

Whatever twat made this stupid decision to take it yearly and divert from the original plan has the business and creative sense of a fucking ant.
 

Jazoni89

New member
Dec 24, 2008
3,059
0
0
I hated the first Assassin Creed, it was everything I hate about videogames amplified to 11 (such as, too much backtracking, and repetitive tasks). Assassins Creed 2 did however improve things a whole lot, but it didn't exactly set my world on fire, and it didn't hold my interest for very long. With Assassins Creed brotherhood, I did like the very broken yet fun multiplayer, but I rarely touched the single player, and what I did play of it, felt exactly like Assassins Creed 2.5, which all it achieve was to bore me.

Then I saw that Assassin Creed Revelations was coming, and just couldn't care about the series anymore. Unless Ubisoft takes it's time with the next one, and creates a game in a different timeframe with a more interesting setting (such as Victorian England), I can't really see myself buying another Assassins Creed game at all.