[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;40111283]If you want to take the mobile games in to account, it has had a title release at least once every year. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassin%27s_Creed_Series#Games[/url][/QUOTE]
exactly. this is not news
Assassins Creed? More like Annual Greed!
[QUOTE=PvtCupcakes;40115098]The premise as a murder simulator is still pretty cool, but they're dropping the ball on execution.
Tbh I think AC1 had the most memorable assassinations of any of the games. Too bad about the rest of that game though.
They need to go back to doing the investigation stuff, then killing a target like in AC1 rather than the gta style go to exclamation mark on map to watch cutscene and get mission because half of the time I didn't know what was going on with the story.
But they have to not do it like AC1 where you collect flags on buildings to get intel from a quest giver. Maybe like some real detective work so you learn about your target and where to find him.
Basically what I'm saying is that it should be like an open world Hitman where you kill people for money and there is no overarching story.
and get rid of fucking Desmond[/QUOTE]
I think despite all its flaws, AC1 was the best Assassin's Creed. You felt like an [i]assassin[/i]. You were given a target and a target city. From there, Altair had to investigate, learn about his target, and then find a good time to strike. Then comes the memorable assassinations, which executing proper was hard but felt rewarding. After that, the whole city goes on high alert and you're on the run (with awesome music in the background).
None of the AC games after that ever had that same experience.
When I first played through AC2, I honestly didn't know what was going on and forgot almost all of it. Everything was pretty much laid out for you: go here and do this; go there and do that. And as the games went on, your targets started becoming more and more boring. Kill him because he's bad. Why is he bad? What did he do wrong? In the first AC, you saw them yourselves. There were no cutscenes either, so it never disrupted the flow.
The biggest problem I've had with Assassins Creed is the fact that they barely ever introduce anything significant that's new, so it feels stale as fuck very quickly. I don't think this will help that case.
[QUOTE=PieClock;40115950]The biggest problem I've had with Assassins Creed is the fact that they barely ever introduce anything significant that's new, so it feels stale as fuck very quickly. I don't think this will help that case.[/QUOTE]
AC3 went in the brave new direction of making the tutorial half of the game.
[QUOTE=Nebukadnezzar;40111057]Assassin's creed: Modern Warfare[/QUOTE]Assassin's creed set today with guns n shit could be kinda fun though, sort of a mirror's edge/hitman/AC mix.
I really enjoyed AC3, the animations were amazingly fluid. Haytham was easily the best character though, if they continue with dialogue like Connor it's going to be very dull.
[QUOTE=Paul McCartney;40110884]They're kind of the only studios that can do this with quality, seeing how they have 12 fucking studios working on it.
Oh my gosh the credit sequence for AC3 was like 45 minutes long![/QUOTE]
Alternatively, this might be a case of too many cooks in the kitchen where their are too many people having too much influence meaning that the project moves away from being realised by a single auteur/vision and instead becomes something produced by committee.
I got AC3 in the recent sale and I can't really tell why, but it got boring very fast. I'm sure part of that was the boring as hell combat system though.
Back when AC 1 was annouced it seemed like a game Jesus Christ would make to bring world peace. Prince of Persia and Hitman meets GTA? With parkour?! Count me the fuck in!
And it would've lived up to the hype if it wasn't so broken, with things like rescuing people from guards to have them thank you for killing the guys, do a 360, look at the corpses of the people you just saved them from and go all "OH MY GOD DEAD PEOPLE HOW HORRIBLE WHO COULD HAVE DONE THIS". Really shatters the fourth wall in places you'd rather have it stay.
The second game was the best, because it did the same but fixed most of that glitchy nonsense. Also, I think Ezio is a pretty cool guy.
Then the two addons came by, and did exactly the same shit which got old pretty fast, with Ezio still being a pretty cool guy being the only redeeming factor.
Then the third one came by and by fuck it was all over the place, giving you so much things to do, that assassinating people really became secondary. I kinda like how they address the theme that founding of the US was not so much of a good thing, at least not for the non-white people. But, then again, most of the devs are French, so what do they know.
Also, Connor's only character trait is "WHERE'S CHARLES LEE", so fuck that guy.
Also 2, they had to hastily characterise Desmond by, I imagine, looking at the objects around them (RIGHT WE DONT HAVE MUCH TIME GIMME IDEAS WE ARE AT A BAR NOW OK OK LETS MAKE HIM A BARMAN WHATS THAT ON THAT PICTURE ON THE WALL A FARM GREAT HE LIVED ON A FARM THERE I THINK WE'RE DONE), so fuck that guy too.
Then it hit me: it was all way too reminescent of CoD. As much as I liked CoD 1 thru 4 (and maybe MW 2 a bit) I am really not feeling it for the new ones. It's repeating itself like machine gun fire. And now, with these news, the pattern is more or less complete, and it makes me sad.
Brotherhood was actually a really good example of how to do sequels. It took everything that worked in AC2, polished it, and added a lot of new features without stepping on the toes of what worked. Revelations still seems like a cash grab to me though, selling the conclusion of the story with an almost expansion-level sequel that adds little to nothing of consequential or even fun gameplay (I have yet to hear someone praise the tower defense segments).
AC3 was decent but still lacked the writing and pacing of AC2 and Brotherhood. It felt cobbled together and despite all the new shit they added I kept being pulled out of the experience by flaws I kept coming across, namely how horrible the protagnist(s) were, how slow the story built up after the Haytham parts, the clumsy interface, the rushed ending which concluded with a scripted chase sequence and the bugs, oh dear the bugs. I haven't played such a buggy AAA in quite awhile.
lol you guys I got bored after AC2 it's just the same shit every time with different levels/slightly different story
JUMP OVER BUILDINGS
RUN FROM GUARDS
ASSASSINATE GUY
RUN FROM IRL PEOPLE
EXPECT GOOD ENDING
IS ACTUALLY SHIT ENDING /everygame
This is nothing new although since Revelations the series got worse, they also fucked up the insanely engaging story with Revelations and AC3 with absolute dumb plot twists and bad writing.
I like the games though, I just hope that they turn up the quality a notch.
I liked AC3. But I wasn't eager for it in any way. I just casually started to play it because I just had it around for the time being. It was a good game, in all honesty.
Also the plot twist between Haytham and Connor was pretty damn good.
Generally I look forward to Assassin's Creed games but I'll admit that I'm just becoming rather worn out and disinterested with each instalment coming out in such quick succession. The only reason I even plan to buy AC4 (unless it appears to be a horrible game) is because they have an interesting premise for the game.
Three is the best you'll get out of any game unless you switch to using the universe rather than the current story and just adding on endlessly.
[QUOTE=KillerJaguar;40115393]I think despite all its flaws, AC1 was the best Assassin's Creed. You felt like an [i]assassin[/i]. You were given a target and a target city. From there, Altair had to investigate, learn about his target, and then find a good time to strike. Then comes the memorable assassinations, which executing proper was hard but felt rewarding. After that, the whole city goes on high alert and you're on the run (with awesome music in the background).
None of the AC games after that ever had that same experience.
When I first played through AC2, I honestly didn't know what was going on and forgot almost all of it. Everything was pretty much laid out for you: go here and do this; go there and do that. And as the games went on, your targets started becoming more and more boring. Kill him because he's bad. Why is he bad? What did he do wrong? In the first AC, you saw them yourselves. There were no cutscenes either, so it never disrupted the flow.[/QUOTE]
I think this is one of the reasons I never bothered picking up AC2, I enjoyed AC when it came to assassinations because I understood why the hit was placed on this person, it wasn't for revenge, or any other reason normally used, it was because it was your job to prove yourself again, so you had to actually learn about the goon you were about to stab up. Yeah it was actually pretty boring doing most of that, but the actual assassination usually felt kinda good knowing you'd removed someone horrible from the world, as you knew their crimes.
Though the gameplay itself still kinda sucked ass, clunky at times, boring at others.
[QUOTE=DigitalySane;40117134]Three is the best you'll get out of any game unless you switch to using the universe rather than the current story and just adding on endlessly.[/QUOTE]
AC2 was the best because AC1 was basically a test to see if the concept worked. Then they took everything awesome and made it AC2.
AC3 is pretty alright but, I haven't been able to stick to it, not nearly as much as I did for the whole AC2 series. AC2 and ACBH gave me the drive to beat Revelations... nothing drives me to beat AC3.
[QUOTE=J!NX;40118490]AC2 was the best because AC1 was basically a test to see if the concept worked. Then they took everything awesome and made it AC2.
AC3 is pretty alright but, I haven't been able to stick to it, not nearly as much as I did for the whole AC2 series. AC2 and ACBH gave me the drive to beat Revelations... nothing drives me to beat AC3.[/QUOTE]
AC3 took me the longest to beat.
Not because it has a great story or particularly compelling side content, but just because I would get bored after 30 or 45 minutes.
so now if i want to finish the actual story led out by AC1 with Desmond in the big corporation... which games do i play? I've only played AC1/2, and I really don't give a damn about finishing anything else besides that first story
[editline]1st April 2013[/editline]
AC1 had the most interesting story out what I've played (aka AC1/AC2) but AC2's gameplay was much better
[editline]1st April 2013[/editline]
literally gave 0 shits about ezio
Desmond's story stretches across AC1, AC2, Brotherhood, Revelations, and concludes in AC3.
So all the main games :v:
I actually liked Revelations, lynch me I guess.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;40119055]Desmond's story stretches across AC1, AC2, Brotherhood, Revelations, and concludes in AC3.
So all the main games :v:[/QUOTE]
honestly revalations was probably the best game if you wanted to avoid all the stupid desmond shit. you're in some weird computer land and all you have to do as desmond is walk through a gate to go back to the real game.
desmond was the coolest part of assassins creed
i remember how they kept the sci fi aspect of it all completely under wraps, it was so cool
I bought the complete pack on Steam 2 weeks ago and have played through the entire series since then, Im currently 2 hours into III.
I think it probably peaked with Brotherhood. It's pretty much perfect, the game-play mechanics have been really refined over the course of the 2 previous games, and it works really well. I played Revelations primarily for the story, but I still thoroughly enjoyed it. The flashbacks were a great change of pace and provided some great material. There's not much new in the gameplay department though.
III feels very different, I'm not sure I like some of the new mechanics... and some of the existing ones have been simplified or removed entirely. I dont like the gameplay as much as the previous ones, which I think would indicate the beginning of the end.
As for annuals, Im torn. Overall I think the're great, and the storyline is incredible in the sense that it allows them to set it whenever and wherever the fuck they want, which could in turn open up limitless new gameplay opportunities. But I do think they'll get repetitive.
Honestly the gameplay hasn't changed drastically from the first game, so it's mostly story and setting to worry about. I'm thoroughly enjoying AC2 at the moment, I haven't played 3 but it looks pretty good. If they can pull it off right, AC as an annual thing might not be a tragedy.
3 sucked
They just really dumbed down everything in terms of control in AC3. To the point that, instead of being simple and straight forward, its clunky and confusing.
You know.... Now that i think of it, the reason why i stopped playing revelations was because of a bug. One bug that i could not get fixed no matter what..
Every time i assassinated someone from a sprint, my character would jump on them and instead of seeing the blade go through their body, my character's entire forearm would go through them , and the animations of the falling npc, and my character were not synched up at ALL.
Seems small but it really ruined the gameplay for me.
[QUOTE=DiBBs27;40121275]You know.... Now that i think of it, the reason why i stopped playing revelations was because of a bug. One bug that i could not get fixed no matter what..
Every time i assassinated someone from a sprint, my character would jump on them and instead of seeing the blade go through their body, my character's entire forearm would go through them , and the animations of the falling npc, and my character were not synched up at ALL.
Seems small but it really ruined the gameplay for me.[/QUOTE]That sounds incredible. I'm just imagining Ezio going "Temple of Doom" and shoving his whole arm through a Templar to pull their heart out through their back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.