What is so great about Assassins creed games?

[TheGamerElite33]

So my friends, I have played AC2, 3, 4 and found all of them overrated mediocre. first off they are bunch of casual non games with no failing mehcanics requires. i mean they are very very easy and no challenge require. entire game feel like tutorial. story are always mediocre, so is gameplay. combat is very basic and platforming/climbing is just simply one button.

Assassins creed 4 is only decent one. has best of story and protagonist (edward kenway is atleast badass unlike ezio). and has naval battle that bring some challenge

I saw AC unity and still looks same old boring. they release franchise every year like COD, madden etc.

so my friends, what do u see in AC games that make it great?
discuss

 

[IceForce]

i mean they are very very easy and no challenge require. entire game feel like tutorial.

Try getting 100% sync in every mission in each game, and you would not be saying this.

story are always mediocre

Aren't you the same person who's always championing how great Doom/Quake/etc are? This is a bit ironic.

, so is gameplay. combat is very basic and platforming/climbing is just simply one button.

Once again, many of the games you're always going on about how great they are, also have very basic combat. Such as shooting being just one button.

 

[TheGamerElite33]

i mean they are very very easy and no challenge require. entire game feel like tutorial.

Try getting 100% sync in every mission in each game, and you would not be saying this.

story are always mediocre

Aren't you the same person who's always championing how great Doom/Quake/etc are? This is a bit ironic.

, so is gameplay. combat is very basic and platforming/climbing is just simply one button.

Once again, many of the games you're always going on about how great they are, also have very basic combat. Such as shooting being just one button.

its called skills. game is probably easier for me that is hard for most of average gamers today

 

[TheGamerElite33]

combat is very basic

Huh? Did we play the same game?

If this is your idea of "very basic", I'd hate to see your idea of complicated game combat.

please read above. i never died once in AC game so its easy and basic

 

[njrk97]

please read above. i never died once in AC game so its easy and basic

Not dieing =/= basic

Just cause a game is easy doesn't make it basic and vice versa.

Honestly though i haven't played anything but Black Flag but if the others are like it its more of a power fantasy thing. Who doesnt want to be a badass cloaked dude swinging from roof tops to silently eliminate a guard before adsorbing into the crowd and vanishing leaving only your targets corpse and fearful onlookers,whos next,who was that man.

That what I believes makes it entertaining, great even. That power fantasy aspect that it gives you.

 

[IceForce]

i never died once in AC game so its easy and basic

Personal anecdotes aside, I have to echo what the above poster said.
Easy and basic are not the same thing.

Unless you're going to argue that, because Flappy Bird is basic, it's also automatically "easy" as well.

 

[Aesir23]

As others have said, just because it's easy does not mean it's basic just like a game that is basic is not automatically easy. I've known a few flash games that have kicked my butt.

Personally, I like playing a game where I can step into a period of history and explore it. Outside of RTS and World War II FPS games (which I'm actually missing now) we don't really see many games that are historically set. The above-mentioned genres aside, I really struggle to think of many games that aren't Assassin's Creed where you can step into the shoes of a character in the Middle East during the Third Crusade, Renaissance Italy, Colonial Era America, 18th Century West Indies, or Paris during the French Revolution. Actually, the only non-RTS, non-AC games I can think of that take place historically are Kingdom Come: Deliverance and War of the Roses, but the latter is more team deathmatch than anything. If you know any others then feel free to point me in their direction.

Something I will admit is that the 'yearly release' thing is something that is definitely off-putting as it creates a feeling of burnout. I used to play Assassin's Creed games as much as possible from when I bought them to when I completed them. Since Revelations hit, however, I've played them for a bit and let them sit for quite a long time. At this point I still haven't completed Black Flag, partly due to needing to replace my 360.

 

[Here Comes Tomorrow]

please read above. i never died once in AC game so its easy and basic

Not dieing =/= basic

Just cause a game is easy doesn't make it basic and vice versa.

Honestly though i haven't played anything but Black Flag but if the others are like it its more of a power fantasy thing. Who doesnt want to be a badass cloaked dude swinging from roof tops to silently eliminate a guard before adsorbing into the crowd and vanishing leaving only your targets corpse and fearful onlookers,whos next,who was that man.

That what I believes makes it entertaining, great even. That power fantasy aspect that it gives you.

I prefer games stealth games like Tenchu where getting into any sort of direct fight is incredibly difficult to win without severe punishment, and fighting more than one person at a time will likely result in death, rather than "stealth" games where a direct fight results in a minor inconvenience before everything goes back to normal afterwards.

Assassins Creed is the CoD of the stealth genre.

 

[crypticracer]

I feel they do some pretty cool things, that not many other games, if any, do.

The settings. You see so few games that take place during the American Revolution, or in New Orleans and Istanbul.

The Free Running. While not very responsive, the animations and generally mobility around the maps, still impress me to this day. It's just something not seen in many open world games.

I mean that's mostly it. The games cover some pretty cool settings and systems that few others do. Combats been pretty stale since 2 (though it looks like a lot of people already felt it was in 1) The naval battle were a nice change of pace though. The majority of extra stuff around the map is both pointless, and just not that fun, though I do like when you get to go on treasure hunts, or have to figure out your way through some ancient ruins. (and I'm more than glad the stuffs there. I have no interest in collecting feathers, but I appreciate that it's a simple addition that others may like.)

And while I really like the whole Templar/Assassin's war, because both sides are trying to do the rights thing, they just have completely opposite ideals of how to achieve it, but the characters just aren't all that. I love the design of Aveline and Altair. But Altair is the only character with a real arc. They gaze Ezio 3 games and he didn't change as much as Altair did in the first five hours of the first one. And I'm not going to even mention Desmond... (beyond that mention.)

I've had to force my self to finish the last few. But for at least the first two thirds the games always hook me. But after twenty hours they have a hard time keeping my attention.

So while there are definately great things about the games, and the graphics are, kind of insane, really, I don't think I would actually consider any of them great. They do fill a niche I like though, that other games just don't, and it seems they will continue to do so, for a while at least.

 

[Danny Dowling]

I liked the first one because it was a new idea and I liked the tie in to modern times, but everything else I have to agree on.

Sword is piss easy to use I started using hidden blade only to make it more interesting, every game is so similar it hurts, they shoe horned online in which was just... ew...

yeah, agree agree agree I think.

Assassin's Creed was good, but it wasn't so good it needed a new game every effing year.

 

[Blacklight28]

I was originally drawn into AC with the first game. It looked gorgeous at the time, and while it did have it's flaws it was dripping with personality. Although the mission structure was repetitive, the quieter missions preceding the major assassinations provided an excellent quiet time that served to enhance the intense feeling of pulling of the final kill. I found my time outside the animus quite dull, but the mystery surrounding the situation and the small amount of agency I had was enough to pull me though.

The second one had me for a while by expanding on the ideas of the first game and fixing many of its flaws. While it was nice to actually be able to do something outside the animus, I felt only longing to return to Ezio. While the combat was expanded and you're all right in saying it is not basic, it is incredibly easy and lacks any meaningful incentive to explore its depth when most fights can be won by mashing attack and counter-killing every enemy that tries to make a move. Either that or just spam smokebombs. In spite of that I was quite satisfied with the game as a whole, and some time later my fond memories led me to pick up AC: Brotherhood and Revelations in a steam sale.

And that's where it all went fuck up.

Even though it had been several years since my adventures in AC2, the 4 hours I put into Brotherhood were arduously boring as I was met with the same experience as in 2, only this time the story didn't seem to go anywhere and I was sent back to re-earn all the skills and abilities I'd grown used to in the game's predecessor. By this time, the wandering around the world of Assassin's Creed had become more of a chore than anything else. The world lacked incentive for exploration (and no, hunting for flags and feathers is not fun), and nothing memorable came of it. At this point, I was also starting to grow tired of the way AC attempts to shoehorn every notable historical figure from the time into the Assassin Templar war.

I decided to skip Brotherhood and go straight to revelations. It wasn't much better than brotherhood and the story outside the animus seemed to have gotten even more insane. I decided to call it quits after that first sloppy tower defence minigame (I've played mobile games with more substance).

I skipped AC3 after I heard that it has even more of everything that I've come to hate about Assassin's Creed.

I'm somewhat interested in Black Flag because of its focus on piracy bringing new mechanics to the table, so I might pick it up on sale at some point, but the fact that its an AC game is offputting in itself. I've come to associate Assassin's Creed with easy combat, repetitive gameplay and a whole lot of blundering about a huge open world completing arbitrary tasks for rewards worth less than the effort required to complete them bundled into an annual package.

Actually, all of Ubisoft's plans for their franchises seem to be fitting that description.

As far as AC5 goes, I've no intention to pick it up.

 

[tippy2k2]

I actually kind of agreed with the OP on the Assassins Creed [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.858346-This-is-an-abusive-relationship-why-cant-I-quit-you#21280508] games. I stopped buying them at full price because they just did not seem to do anything all that great anymore.

However, the thing that makes those games great is that when they work, they work beautifully (especially if, as stated by another member here, you go for the 100% sync in missions).

While the games are losing their charm since they are being released so frequently, I still feel there can be some happiness gained out of the series. Moving away from Desmond was a good start (sorry Desmond, I liked you but your story was just getting freaking old) and the "Entertainment" aspect of IV I thought was kind of brilliant. Sure, they still had to slightly ruin it with their "Metal Gear Solid-syndrome" of making it far more complicated than they had to but I give them a few points for trying at least.

No matter what though OP, it comes down to one tiny little secret. Come here...

Spoiler: Closer

Spoiler: No...closer

Spoiler: a little closer...

People have different opinions and that's OK

I'll give you a second to pick up the pieces of your mind I just blew...

 

[Spanglish Guy]

The first two games I thought were pretty good fun. They had fairly straightforward mechanics and the combat wasn;t much challenge but it was still great fun to explore the world in which it was set. Brotherhood and Revelations were pretty decent but they were basically AC2 with maybe one new mechanic and a new map.

AC4 for me is the best one, it isn't quite like the other games and nothing beats sailing around plundering ships for loot.

 

[Rabbitboy]

Well I can't speak for other people but I like the historical settings, the free running, climbing all over big historical landmarks and exploring the world.

I agree yearly release is not a very good thing and it started to show in Revelations. I couldn't even play AC3 for more than 3 hours before getting bored.

But just because you think something is easy or boring doesn't mean they aren't games

 

[Belaam]

I liked 1, loved 2, got a little burned out on Ezio by Brotherhood/Revelations, only liked the sailing in 3, and got even that burned out of me in 4.

I mainly enjoyed the melee stealth assassination. I'm a big fan of ninja/stealth games and that was easily the primary mechanical/gameplay draw of the games for me.

The philosophical conflict being between order and chaos instead of good and evil is also something I enjoyed, as well a the pretty clear bias against monarchy, institutional religion, and general anarchist leanings.

Aside from all the gender discussions about Unity, I'm rather put off by the team concepts. Getting a team together to rob a bank in GTA makes sense. Getting a team together to assassinate someone seems counter-intuitive. I generally considered an assassination a failure if I had to get into combat. If I'm trying to avoid combat, having three more people with me doesn't seem worth the bother. The trailer for Unity highlights this problem. I liked the early games for the stealth assassination; a team of four bad-asses hacking and slashing their way to the target is pretty much the opposite of what I am looking for in an AC game. Hell, give me the Oblivion option of busting into their house and poisoning dinner and I'd be more into it than taking out an army.

TL;DR This:

Assassins Creed is the CoD of the stealth genre.

 

[laggyteabag]

combat is very basic

Huh? Did we play the same game?

If this is your idea of "very basic", I'd hate to see your idea of complicated game combat.

I wouldn't class that as complicated. Not at all. To get that same effect, all you need to do is counter one person, then attack everybody else once to get an instant execution. The combat in the Assassin's Creed series has never been the game's strong suit, and the reason why Black Flag was praised so much was because of it's switch to Naval combat as a primary focus. The Assassin's Creed game's combat is in need of a huge improvement and overhaul, because right now all you need to do is counter to win, and if Unity is going to scrap the naval combat, the hand-to-hand combat had better be a lot more interesting.

The main attraction for Assassin's Creed for me, however, has always been about the locations that you explore, as well as the free-running, and both have always been pretty impressive. The Naval combat in 3 and 4 were great, and I am excited for Rogue for the same reason. As for the story, I have always enjoyed the Assassin vs Templar stuff, but I have always disliked the whole first civilisation and future crap (Shaun was cool though) because it has always derailed the story somewhat, and the protagonists have always been a huge bonus too, especially Ezio and Edward (Altair and Connor are "meh" at best.).

 

[Something Amyss]

To answer the core question of what makes them so great...I don't think they are. They're okay. It's fun to gank someone, run off on horseback, hide and then dive into a haystack for no reason other than it's there.

Buuuuuut....

its called skills. game is probably easier for me that is hard for most of average gamers today

And you describe yourself as a big FPS fan. I find FPS easy as hell. Maybe it's not that you've got "skills" but that you favour a very basic, "easy" form of gameplay.

See how this argument works?

Also, given your own list of top ten FPS of all time, I legitimately cannot understand how you could bash the story in AC games.

 

[MysticSlayer]

first off they are bunch of casual non games

I've no shortage of bad things to say about Assassin's Creed (well, more specifically, AC2), but calling it a "non game" is one criticism that baffles even me. Normally that's something I hear reserved for games like The Walking Dead, Depression Quest, or David Cage games. But to hear that of Assassin's Creed...

Yeah, I think you need to reevaluate what you term as a "non game". Or, better yet, let's just drop the term all together because all it does is limit the potential of the medium.

Anyways, despite not liking Assassin's Creed myself, there are at least a few noticeable areas where it is understandably appealing.

Most notably is how the entire series is pretty much single-handedly filling an otherwise ignored niche: historical games. Yeah, the strategy genre still is heavily influenced by history, but it is all but completely non-existent in action games. Even games with historical influences tend to mix them with heavy sci-fi and fantasy elements, and while AC certainly has its fair share of fantasy elements, it still comes far closer to being a true historical experience than practically all other action games coming out right now, especially since WWII shooters are all but dead. Even as someone who doesn't particularly like the series, the only reason I really keep an eye on it is because the historical settings are interesting in part because I can't get those anywhere else.

As for the first game in particular: There aren't many games that do a better job of letting the player feel like an assassin planning and executing assassination that ultimately tie in to a massive conspiracy. The game was rather rough around the edges, but it did so well with the basics that those problems were rather easy to ignore for most of the game.

But when it comes to AC2...yeah, like I've already said, I'm not a huge fan of the game. I'll leave it at that.

 

[Sane user]

What made me addicted to the AC games was the historical settings and the ability to run around and climb all those giant buildings that you've seen pictures of. The Italian cities, Constantinople, the Holy Land... While the combat gameplay has gotten pretty stale and only got livened up by naval warfare in IV; and the stories rarely being strong and captivating, I'll probably keep on supporting AC as long as they make games in settings that few games have touched.

If I hadn't been so amazed by the historical settings and the world buildings, I probably wouldn't be as hooked on the series as I am.

 

[Boogie Knight]

The first one was a flawed game with some good ideas: Time periods rarely explored in games, being mindful of how you act in an open world game rather than go on murder sprees, and the surgical strike. One of my favorite moments was when completing a side objective helped me complete an assassination that otherwise would have been more difficult. From then on I was pretty much hooked, I kept wanting to see where the series would go from there.

In retrospect, the second one simultaneously breathed new life into the series while setting the stage for its decline. I enjoyed the roller coaster aspect of the sequels, but honestly it was AC III which ruined it for me. The game revolving around this crappy Farmville knockoff was pretty aggravating, but what really did it for me was throwing away any moral ambiguity or nuance. I simply got tired of it all and haven't played another one since.

Maybe some time in the future I'll give some of the new ones a shot when they're cheap and used, but I am pretty much done with the series overall. A shame, too, since I really loved that first game so full of potential.