Poll: Assassin's Creed Advice

[Xdeser2]

So, Fellow Escapists (yes, it feels as pretentious to type that as it is to read it) I've recently started playing the Assassin's Creed games at the request of a few friends, and have extremely enjoyed my time with it. Now, I've just finished up Brotherhood, and i'm kinda faced with a strange question, Is Revelations worth playing?

I've heard its the worst entry in the series, and from what I've seen it looks to be "meh" at best. Im just wondering, based on whose played it, Should I just skip it and go to AC: 3, or will I be missing out on something really good?

 

[NewYork_Comedian]

It's definitely not needed, but if you enjoyed Brotherhood a lot then yeah, I'd say you should buy it. It's really more of the same, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

Just seeing the end of Ezio/Altair's story made it interesting for me anyway.

 

[RJ 17]

Yeah, it's pretty bad. Basically all you get is the closing chapter to Ezio's story (nothing really even climactic happens) and you learn about what happened to Altair after the events of the first game. But the game itself is horrible. There's a very lame tower defense minigame that the game practically forces you to play, literally half the game is just learning how to use the new mechanics. You only kill like, 3 main targets. You learn a lot of Desmond's backstory and the ending scenimatic depicts the great cataclysm that happened in the past, revealing to Desmond where they need to go to prevent it from happening again (which is where ACIII picks up). Also the city feels tiny compared to Rome. There are people who like to argue that Brotherhood should have just been a DLC expansion to ACII. Well Revelations DEFINITELY should have only been a DLC expansion to Brotherhood.

Seriously though, I'd just look online for a plot summary if you want to fill yourself in on the story between Brotherhood and ACIII. Save yourself some money.

 

[Professor Lupin Madblood]

Revelations is never worth playing. For that matter, neither is 3, really.

No, to answer your question. Spend your money on something better.

Like prostitutes, or possibly Iranian nukes.

 

[Xdeser2]

Revelations is never worth playing. For that matter, neither is 3, really.

No, to answer your question. Spend your money on something better.

Like prostitutes, or possibly Iranian nukes.

Mayhaps Radioactive Prostitutes from Iran?

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I think the series peaked at Assassin's Creed 2, and after that really started going downhill, mostly because Ubisoft keeps shoving more stuff into the games that doesn't improve the core mechanics or the story, and is just stuff for the sake of stuff. Revelations is the worst offender of this, and Ubisoft manages to make a story that should have taken maybe 2 hours, and padding it to hell to make a full game. If you REALLY enjoyed Brotherhood then it might be worth playing to you.

I'm someone who struggled to get to the end of Brotherhood because I just couldn't care about anything that was happening, and when I got to Revelations it was even more of that, because I just could not be arsed to play the stupid minigames that had no point to the story or the rest of the game. The only reason I played Brotherhood or Revelations is because Assassin's Creed 2 was just so incredibly good, but neither game recaptured the feel of that game for me.

 

[The_Lost_King]

Well it is better than AC3 so...

I didn't have a huge problem with revelation. I thought it was pretty fun, except for the tower defense. Now AC3 just wasn't fun. I don't get to play as connor until act 4, and when I did, it still wasn't all that fun.

 

[Daget Sparrow]

It's certainly less "meh" than ACIII. I remember having been playing ACIII for a few hours, then walking in on my younger nephew playing Revelations...first thought that went through my head was;

"this looks way better than no. 3 does"

 

[Soxafloppin]

If you've enjoyed the series to date yea it is.

It just has some questionable additions, but if you enjoyed the story so far then definitely get it.

 

[Daystar Clarion]

It's better than AC3 just by virtue of actually having an interesting setting.

I'm not saying that AC3 is bad because of the American Revolution, but as far as cityscapes go, it's only beaten in 'meh' by a caravan park in Skegness.

 

[Legion]

Revelations sucked in my opinion because the level design was so boring. Brotherhood had an idiotic and pointless story, but the cities were enjoyable to explore. Revelations just adds a few new abilities, but with a bland story and an a boring city to run through.

Unless you really want to play through every Assassins Creed story to get the full picture, I cannot say that it is worth getting.

 

[Baron von Blitztank]

It's a lot more satisfying than AssCreed III and it's a nice conclusion to Ezio's story, although if you're looking for anything interesting in the Desmond-front then expect to be thoroughly disappointed. The setting is still kept in the nice Renaissance days so you'll have a pretty city to look at and pretty buildings to climb however since it takes place in a different country than Italy you'll miss alot of the colourful cast from Brotherhood and AssCreed II such as Bartholomeo and La Volpe but some of the new characters like Yusuf do start to grow on you. The new features are entirely pointless and I often forgot they even existed until they came up as mission requirements. There also seems to be a lack of drive to the story since Ezio and Desmonds main goals have been achieved in the previous games since Ezio finally got vengeance for his family and retrieved the Apple and Desmond's crew was able to find the Apple in the not-quite-future. The whole point of Desmond going to view Ezio really is just a case of "Just keep faffing about with Ezio until he's done".

The game is also slightly broken as you're allowed to free roam and do all the sidequests pretty much from the get-go, which admittedly I like as it means I can do all the sidequests first and then put focus on the story but it also means you can do all the Brotherhood missions and get the best weapon and armour in the game for free within the first few hours. Making any future combat a complete curb-stomp.

Still, despite my complaints I do look back on it fondly. It may be because AssCreed III bored me to tears but I can definitely say that this one is still pretty good and is worth a playthrough, if only to tie up lose ends than anything else. Also, not to spoil much of the game, but this mission more than makes up for anything bad I can say about the game.

 

[The White Hunter]

Revelations is never worth playing. For that matter, neither is 3, really.

No, to answer your question. Spend your money on something better.

Like prostitutes, or possibly Iranian nukes.

Mayhaps Radioactive Prostitutes from Iran?

Mood lighting eh?

OT: I'd say revelations is a bit better than brotherhood because the city is less shit than Rome, it's esier to never touch the ground. Neither are as good as 2. 3 is a buggy mess, it's boring and tedious, you get too assassinate very few people, there's a whole tonne of faffing about forced in. The naval battles are cool mostly but I'd rather be sneaking and stabbing.

 

[The White Hunter]

It's better than AC3 just by virtue of actually having an interesting setting.

I'm not saying that AC3 is bad because of the American Revolution, but as far as cityscapes go, it's only beaten in 'meh' by a caravan park in Skegness.

When the highest building in the game is what, 3 stories high?, they done goofed. There's too much open land too, it was a chore getting around.

Know what OP? Save your money, screw Revs and 3, if you have a PS3 play InFamous instead. Or Sainst row.

 

[SckizoBoy]

So, Fellow Escapists (yes, it feels as pretentious to type that as it is to read it) I've recently started playing the Assassin's Creed games at the request of a few friends, and have extremely enjoyed my time with it. Now, I've just finished up Brotherhood, and i'm kinda faced with a strange question, Is Revelations worth playing?

I've heard its the worst entry in the series, and from what I've seen it looks to be "meh" at best. Im just wondering, based on whose played it, Should I just skip it and go to AC: 3, or will I be missing out on something really good?

I haven't played ACIII (... yet), so won't comment about it (though having done 'research' it has been thoroughly spoiled for me, not that I really care, I'm setting myself up for it to be shit, so hopefully I won't rage that much the near future).

Anyway, AC:R has a pretty good setting and it's a marginally more fun environment to get around than Rome. The soundtrack, if you care, is pretty awesome, and there is some better variation to the hidden levels. The bombs can be fun at times, and they finally get rid of that blasted notoriety metre.

However, once you've gone whizzing along the cable a few times it can get boring quickly, depending on how you feel. The story is painfully short and the final boss fight is ridiculous (it's a mid-air slap-fest purely QTE-based). The bombs can be ridiculous at times because there are shitloads of varieties, and it is a trophy whore's worst nightmare because you only need one set of three and fuck everything else. But at least it's a bit of an aesthetic difference.

And the tower defence... good lord, why?! Though to be fair, you only need to do the tutorial and never go back to it so long as you've got some bribe money handy. Still, Sophia Sartor's an OK character...

All in all, play until the Tower of Galatea and see how you go. It's not as engaging as ACII, not by a long shot, it's not as massive as AC:B, again not by a long shot, and it genuinely does feel as though all the setpieces were a Frankenstein of all the ideas discarded from previous titles, but I suppose it could've been a whole lot worse.

 

[Astoria]

If you're a fan of the series I would say play it but don't bother about any side missions or anything, just play through the story. I didn't even get any upgrades and I didn't have any trouble finishing it. Despite it's flaws it does finish Ezio and Altair's stories well and a couple of the missions are fun. Plus it's better than III.

 

[BleedingPride]

Well, as average as the game was, the story is still pretty important in wrapping up Altair's and Ezio's stories, and sheds light on what's in store for you in AC3 with some info on Desmond's past, and Subject 16's life (in the Lost Archive DLC) which also sheds light on <spoiler=Spoilers> Why Juno forced Desmond to stab Lucy

 

[Subscriptism]

If I were you I'd skip 3 and play revelations. Revelations follows the formula to make a good but done before game. 3 tries as hard as it can to make you hate it.

 

[havass]

Well I would recommend Revelations solely because of the hookblade..that thing was fun to run around with. Also the story wasn't that bad, there's a reason why it's called Revelations..it reveals some of the plot points in the other series. I'd say get it if you enjoyed the others.

 

[Pink Gregory]

Yeah, I loved 'Ezio's Greatest Hits' too!

I enjoyed Revelations, even if it fell apart at the end; I enjoyed it more than Brotherhood at any stretch, I certainly found the setting more compelling.

However it's not within a mile of AC2; Brotherhood and Revelations feel like AC2 with unnecessary busywork dropped on top, and with less compelling missions (seriously, that killstreaks thing completely killed B, R and 3 for me).

Again, I enjoyed it for what it's worth, but ultimately it's just a not-very-good game with the budget of an average AAA title.

Sadly AC3 didn't go back to it's roots (y'know, being assassin-y) and just piled more stuff on top of Revelations, which put me off the series for good.