[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;35134607]Isn't that what the theme of America was before the 1900's? :v:[/QUOTE]The Revolutionary War was like late 18th century, no cowboys.
[QUOTE=areyoublack;35136844]What? RDR is in early 1900s, what the fuck.[/QUOTE]
Well yeah that's his point, RDR and AC III aren't on the same time period at all.
I hate the whole renovating buildings, upgrading your assassins and that shit. It takes away the feeling of actually being an assassin.
[QUOTE=areyoublack;35137242]I hate the whole renovating buildings, upgrading your assassins and that shit. It takes away the feeling of actually being an assassin.[/QUOTE]
The assassin's in the AC universe are more like a gang. Templars/Abstergo also being a gang or a group and they fight for control (except the Assassin's give the people control, they just want to take the control away from the Templars)
it actually does make sense if you are the master assassin. i mean you're in charge of an ancient order who's enemies with another order that is also ancient.
you can still take solace in the fact that the assassins are normally greatly outnumbered by the templars and their goons.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;35145110]it actually does make sense if you are the master assassin. i mean you're in charge of an ancient order who's enemies with another order that is also ancient.
you can still take solace in the fact that the assassins are normally greatly outnumbered by the templars and their goons.[/QUOTE]
Assassin Magics.
[QUOTE=Aerkhan;34971669]And Brotherhood after 2.
Then Revelations after Brotherhood.
And if you are confused by everything, then you're playing it right.[/QUOTE]
except there was hardly anything revolutionary about revelations
[QUOTE=war_man333;35146488]except there was hardly anything revolutionary about revelations[/QUOTE]
Honestly Assassin's creed : Brotherhood and Revelations just felt like $60 updates to me.
[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;35122235]There's toooo many OST's I liked of AC2, this is one of them:[/QUOTE]
AC2 had the best soundtrack
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35147113]Honestly Assassin's creed : Brotherhood and Revelations just felt like $60 updates to me.[/QUOTE]
But they supplied decent story and content so that they weren't, in my opinion.
And the combat in Brotherhood was just balls to the walls awesome.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35147113]Honestly Assassin's creed : Brotherhood and Revelations just felt like $60 updates to me.[/QUOTE]
Revelations was the closure for Ezio
[QUOTE=areyoublack;35149191]Revelations was the closure for Ezio[/QUOTE]
You can take AC2, Brotherhood and Revelations independently and they'd all work as a closure for Ezio. He was originally supposed to just set the Assassins back on tracks, then he was supposed to retire after hiding that artifact in the coliseum, and then they decided to make him retire after Revelations.
As for the combat, it became way too simple after 2. The fact you had instant-kill counter attacks that would remain unblockable for the most part in AC2 was already making the game quite easier, the addition in Brotherhood of instant-kill streaks whenever you kill more than one person and as long as you stay untouched just made it insanely easier. Revelations did make the game a tad harder towards the end with harder enemies, but the easier "gadget" using since you'd only have to press a separate button to fire your gun or launch knives pretty much allowed the player to override any difficulties he was given to face way too easily.
[editline]15th March 2012[/editline]
I hope they'll understand combat way too easy in Revelations and that they'll make it harder in Assassin's Creed 3, so you actually have a reason to avoid frontal assault and big groups of soldiers.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35149730]You can take AC2, Brotherhood and Revelations independently and they'd all work as a closure for Ezio. He was originally supposed to just set the Assassins back on tracks, then he was supposed to retire after hiding that artifact in the coliseum, and then they decided to make him retire after Revelations.
As for the combat, it became way too simple after 2. The fact you had instant-kill counter attacks that would remain unblockable for the most part in AC2 was already making the game quite easier, the addition in Brotherhood of instant-kill streaks whenever you kill more than one person and as long as you stay untouched just made it insanely easier. Revelations did make the game a tad harder towards the end with harder enemies, but the easier "gadget" using since you'd only have to press a separate button to fire your gun or launch knives pretty much allowed the player to override any difficulties he was given to face way too easily.
[editline]15th March 2012[/editline]
I hope they'll understand combat way too easy in Revelations and that they'll make it harder in Assassin's Creed 3, so you actually have a reason to avoid frontal assault and big groups of soldiers.[/QUOTE]
What? Assassin's Creed 1 already had the insta-kill counter attacks. Brotherhood added the chain kills because face it, it becomes way too tedious to counter attack every single guard you fight.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;35151785]What? Assassin's Creed 1 already had the insta-kill counter attacks. Brotherhood added the chain kills because face it, it becomes way too tedious to counter attack every single guard you fight.[/QUOTE]
You unlocked the counter attacks very lately in the first game. They were also harder to place and it was the only way to use your secret blade instead of being able to use it as a sword like every other AC game did afterward.
[editline]15th March 2012[/editline]
In AC2 Ezio seriously starts out with counter attacks and perfect fighting skills like he already spent twenty years fighting before the beginning of the game, while the title really opens with him just starting his Assassin career. The logical thing would have been to add two types of counter attacks - one that you trigger by attacking at the moment your enemy swings his blade toward you, hitting his sword with allowing for a regular attack to be placed right after and deal slightly more damage, and a second type of counter attack that would follow the usual system given in AC1, but you would only unlock this one later on in the game because it's a technique that obviously requires more skill from the assassin performing it.
There's also the fact that in the first game, if you wanted to instantly kill your enemy you had to have perfect timing in your attacks, up until the last moments of the game where you would finally unlock counter attacks. The idea was kept though made easier to access in AC2 along with the addition of life bars for enemies which kinda sound out of place to me.
[QUOTE=Killer900;35136949]The Revolutionary War was like late 18th century, no cowboys.[/QUOTE]
We only ever studied in history how us Brits won WW2 single handedly.
[QUOTE=Mr. Agree;35152078]We only ever studied in history how us Brits won WW2 single handedly.[/QUOTE]
Single handedly? Say what?
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35152049]You unlocked the counter attacks very lately in the first game. They were also harder to place and it was the only way to use your secret blade instead of being able to use it as a sword like every other AC game did afterward.
[/QUOTE]
You actually unlocked counter attacks RIGHT after you kill Tamir the Merchant, he's the first in the Altair/Al-Mualim's list.
They were as easy to place as they were in AC2.
[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;35152162]You actually unlocked counter attacks RIGHT after you kill Tamir the Merchant, he's the first in the Altair/Al-Mualim's list.
They were as easy to place as they were in AC2.[/QUOTE]
My mistake. The combat was otherwise still made way too easy in Brotherhood and Revelations, dumbing it down to an extreme point. There's already a massive gap between AC1 and 2, as in the first one you had to determine the strength of your attack by holding or just pressing once the attack button which gave sense to the short blade that actually allowed for quick attacks rather than long powerful ones, while after that it didn't make much sense, as you'd end up only using your secret blade or your sword in any following games. The addition of instant kills in Brotherhood made it even simpler.
[QUOTE=Ganerumo;35152250]My mistake. The combat was otherwise still made way too easy in Brotherhood and Revelations, dumbing it down to an extreme point. There's already a massive gap between AC1 and 2, as in the first one you had to determine the strength of your attack by holding or just pressing once the attack button which gave sense to the short blade that actually allowed for quick attacks rather than long powerful ones, while after that it didn't make much sense, as you'd end up only using your secret blade or your sword in any following games. The addition of instant kills in Brotherhood made it even simpler.[/QUOTE]
In AC2+ they made it so that the weapon you use is based on preference.
Seriously they drastically improved Assassin's Creed after the first game. The first game was just a repetitive mess.
there actually is a good reason to use your short blade.
it's absolutely badass.
one thing that REALLY bothered me about revelations was that i got an axe and dagger with all 5 ratings on all the stats like an hour into the game.
[QUOTE=gbtygfvyg;35152317]In AC2+ they made it so that the weapon you use is based on preference.
Seriously they drastically improved Assassin's Creed after the first game. The first game was just a repetitive mess.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. The only reason I would recommend the first game is for the story, so you know what's happening in AC2. Even then, they recap it in the intro.
And I really hope they make combat harder in AC3... I haven't played Revelations, but judging from the first three AC games, combat is WAY too easy.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;35154145]there actually is a good reason to use your short blade.
it's absolutely badass.
one thing that REALLY bothered me about revelations was that i got an axe and dagger with all 5 ratings on all the stats like an hour into the game.[/QUOTE]
Yeah the economy was really screwed up in Revelations. It was way too easy to earn money compared to Brotherhood. Plus, if you didn't use bombs a whole lot, you could sell the ingredients for ridiculous amounts of cash.
that and there were only like 5 or 6 useful bombs you could make
oh god is ben really going to be the leonardo in this game?
[QUOTE=BearsOnFire;35154411]Yeah the economy was really screwed up in Revelations. It was way too easy to earn money compared to Brotherhood. Plus, if you didn't use bombs a whole lot, you could sell the ingredients for ridiculous amounts of cash.[/QUOTE]
Too easy? I had tons of trouble trying to earn money in Revelations but the opposite in Brotherhood.
Don't know if I am late or not, but did anyone notice that on the Ubisoft website that they removed the little disclaimer saying that PC dates may vary from Xbox and PlayStation? Or am I looking in the wrong spot? Because on the Pre-Order page it looks as though all three are coming out on the 31st of October.
I am not getting my hopes up though...they said the same thing with Revelations too...and we still got that delayed. I would hope that after two years of working on it, they would at least have a PC version ready on time.
[QUOTE=FoodStuffs;35156481]oh god is ben really going to be the leonardo in this game?[/QUOTE]
Seems like the most sensible option to pick the most recognized inventor of the time period, which would be ol' Benny boy.
[QUOTE=UntouchedShadow;35162452]Seems like the most sensible option to pick the most recognized inventor of the time period, which would be ol' Benny boy.[/QUOTE]
Hope they make him cool and friendly like Leonardo.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
