PDA

View Full Version : So...no AC game beat AC 2 yet. Right?



Defalt221
03-14-2015, 01:00 PM
AC2 still appears to be the strongest point in the series. IMO.

Hans684
03-14-2015, 01:04 PM
It's a fan favorite, if it can loose it's title at a big scale is another matter. Personally it was beaten a long time a go.

Shahkulu101
03-14-2015, 01:09 PM
Not for me. Games better than AC2:

ACB
ACR
ACIV
ACU

Oh look at that.

pirate1802
03-14-2015, 01:17 PM
AC IV beat it.

wvstolzing
03-14-2015, 01:19 PM
AC2 still appears to be the strongest point in the series. IMO.

Why do you want others to confirm what seems to you to be the case?

It's like putting candy in your mouth, then asking, "... it tastes sweet, right?"

ze_topazio
03-14-2015, 01:50 PM
Yes, still the best game overall.

Pandassin
03-14-2015, 03:01 PM
I haven't played all the games, but out of the ones I have played (AC2, AC3, AC4, ACU, ACRo, ACFC), AC2 was one of the weakest (possibly even THE weakest).

AC4 is the best AC yet (in my opinion).

JustPlainQuirky
03-14-2015, 03:13 PM
this thread must rustle M's jimmies to no end.

DumbGamerTag94
03-14-2015, 03:36 PM
No. Games Better than AC2= AC3 AC4 ACU

Matknapers18
03-14-2015, 04:02 PM
AC2 is still my favourite. AC4 in a pretty close second.

But i don't really understand the purpose of the thread if I'm perfectly honest. You just want us to validate your opinion?

SpiritOfNevaeh
03-14-2015, 04:07 PM
TBH AC2 is highly praised, but overrated.

It's not that perfect of a game, so yes I do believe there are games out there that beat it.

Defalt221
03-14-2015, 06:05 PM
No. Games Better than AC2= AC3 AC4 ACU

AC3 better than AC2?? How???

SixKeys
03-14-2015, 06:06 PM
It depends on what you look for in the games. AC2 seemed to have the perfect mix of everything. Enjoyable combat (albeit far too easy), intriguing setting, enough lore for those who care about it and plenty of history for those who don't. It's not my favorite game, so for me it has been beaten by other games (even AC1), but I recognize its importance in appealing to both casuals and series veterans. Even many who started with the newer games and then went back to AC2 seem to think it has something special.

Defalt221
03-14-2015, 06:10 PM
TBH AC2 is highly praised, but overrated.

It's not that perfect of a game, so yes I do believe there are games out there that beat it.

I suppose AC2 got critical acclaim because of the huge step up in almost everything from AC1?

SixKeys
03-14-2015, 06:16 PM
I suppose AC2 got critical acclaim because of the huge step up in almost everything from AC1?

Whether all of it is a step up or a step backwards is debatable.

EmbodyingSeven5
03-14-2015, 06:26 PM
think it has been beaten as a game in general. by this I mean if you were to sit down and play AC 2 and AC4 side by side, AC 4 would have more content and better gameplay.

I do think AC 2 was one of the most original ACs. introduced the first civilization, Shawn and Rebecca, tons of new assassinations, cinematic storyline, fun and varied missions, customizable robes and weapons.
largely improved off the previous game. ACs often don't change so drastically between games nowadays.

EmbodyingSeven5
03-14-2015, 06:28 PM
Whether all of it is a step up or a step backwards is debatable.

for me gameplay and mission Varity took multiply steps forward. story took one step backwards but was still enjoyable for me.

EmbodyingSeven5
03-14-2015, 06:31 PM
this thread must rustle M's jimmies to no end.

ssshhhhhh! he might hear you!!

Kaschra
03-14-2015, 06:42 PM
AC2 is okay, but pretty overrated
AC4 is the best IMO

Defalt221
03-14-2015, 06:43 PM
for me gameplay and mission Varity took multiply steps forward. story took one step backwards but was still enjoyable for me.

Yeah,the story took some steps backwards. While AC1 was about assassinating to keep peace,AC2 had you gathering feathers,mindlessly participating in races against thieves,stealing others treasure (thus destroying the peace assassins are trying to protect) beating up cheating husbands,renovating and building new houses, and all other things that stray away from what defines an Assassin. And also breaking the second principle of the creed :Stealth. Because Ezio is wearing a 1000000$ luxurious outfit that rather stick him out of the crowd as a shiny hooded murderer than a stealthy assassin. Assassins don't play sports,renovate building and do social stuffs. They are meant to be a conservative secret organization protecting humanity from Templars. Rather in Silva assassination mission,Ezio stands atop the crowd and goes on screaming about "Freedom!!! Rise up people!" like a man calling out for some kind of political revolution.

EmbodyingSeven5
03-14-2015, 07:05 PM
Yeah,the story took some steps backwards. While AC1 was about assassinating to keep peace,AC2 had you gathering feathers,mindlessly participating in races against thieves,stealing others treasure (thus destroying the peace assassins are trying to protect) beating up cheating husbands,renovating and building new houses, and all other things that stray away from what defines an Assassin. And also breaking the second principle of the creed :Stealth. Because Ezio is wearing a 1000000$ luxurious outfit that rather stick him out of the crowd as a shiny hooded murderer than a stealthy assassin. Assassins don't play sports,renovate building and do social stuffs. They are meant to be a conservative secret organization protecting humanity from Templars. Rather in Silva assassination mission,Ezio stands atop the crowd and goes on screaming about "Freedom!!! Rise up people!" like a man calling out for some kind of political revolution.
lol always kind of ignored the races and cheating husband quests. found them kind of boring and repetitive

Fatal-Feit
03-14-2015, 07:11 PM
No, I believe it's one of the weakest. Comparing it w/ most of the others, in all criteria (story, aesthetics, combat, stealth, navigation, etc), it doesn't succeed.


Not for me. Games better than AC2:

ACB
ACR
ACIV
ACU

Oh look at that.

This guy gets it.

Assassin_M
03-14-2015, 07:40 PM
AC II was instantly beaten by Brotherhood, lol. Every game that came after is better....

ACB is better than AC II
ACR is better than AC II
AC III is better than AC II
AC IV is DEFINITELY better than AC II.
ACU is slightly better than AC II
heck, AC I's story is better than AC II's

AC II was a step back in a lot of stuff.

Why would my jimmies be rustled? Most people here agree that AC II was topped by a lot of games. The only one whose jimmies I think are rustled is OP. You wanna think AC II is the best? Okay, good for you. Seeking confirmation for your opinion is kind of insecure, to be honest. It's a diplomatic way of flaunting your opinion. Others on YT and FB are not as diplomatic. They **** on you for saying anything remotely negative about AC II.

Fatal-Feit
03-14-2015, 08:07 PM
AC III is better than AC II

Can you elaborate on this?

Also, I believe AC1 beats AC2 in gameplay, aesthetics, and graphics as well.

Namikaze_17
03-14-2015, 08:40 PM
AC2 is okay, but pretty overrated
AC4 is the best IMO

This.

Though overall, I like AC3 the best along with it.

At least story-wise.

Assassin_M
03-14-2015, 08:52 PM
Can you elaborate on this?
Man, story-wise, sure. AC III has a lot of missed potential, but I just can't overlook the amazing way AC II fails as a good story. It's a grand adventure, it's epic but it's boring and bland and uninspired. AC III on the other hand, offered interesting perspectives, an awesome, relatable protagonist, complex antagonists, colorful side characters. Looking back at AC III, it's the story I love to rewatch the most. There's A LOT i would have fixed about it and it has some faults similar to AC II's but there's just too much good that it outweighs any bad to me.

As for gameplay, I had fun in more missions than I did with AC II. AC III has its share of questionable design but by far, I had more fun with the good missions of AC III than I did with the ones from AC II. Boring combat and broken stealth and AI detection. Sure, AC III has the same problems with detection but at least the combat is fun and the stealth mechanics actually revolve around the new additions.

TL;DR, ever game has its faults, AC III is a mess but AC II is by far a bigger mess.

Namikaze_17
03-14-2015, 08:56 PM
And thus the debates begin.... :/

Altair1789
03-14-2015, 08:58 PM
I liked a lot of games better than AC2

playlisting
03-14-2015, 09:00 PM
Not for me. Assassin's Creed 2 is still the top of the series in my opinion. The setting, story and cast were the strongest of the series. Thing I love about AC 2 is the unique missions. Taking part in Carnevale, Leonardo's flying machine, I mean heck when you got to Venice you were given a quick tour before you went exploring! The series hasn't really produced anything like it since. The games started to go downhill after that. They never actually got bad though. I consider AC 3 my least favourite game of the series but I still had plenty of fun with it and enjoyed it's story even if it wasn't as good as Ezio's. AC 4 was somewhat of a 'return to form' for the series but it still never topped 2 at least for me. I haven't played enough of Unity to comment on it properly. If anyone's interested (which you probably aren't - bear in mind I haven't played AC 1):

AC 2
AC Brotherhood
AC 4
AC Unity
AC Revelations
AC 3

Namikaze_17
03-14-2015, 09:05 PM
The games started to go downhill

I respect your opinion, but I hate this line so much...

Just because things are different in some areas doesn't mean it's going downhill.

SixKeys
03-14-2015, 09:08 PM
Man, story-wise, sure. AC III has a lot of missed potential, but I just can't overlook the amazing way AC II fails as a good story. It's a grand adventure, it's epic but it's boring and bland and uninspired.

Man, I just don't understand how you can claim to like all the games to some degree while at the same time using words like "boring", "bland" and "uninspired" to describe them.

I-Like-Pie45
03-14-2015, 09:10 PM
SixKeys how much hair do you have on your legs?

DumbGamerTag94
03-14-2015, 09:45 PM
AC3 better than AC2?? How???

AC3 was an improvement over AC2 in nearly every way possible save 2(more on that later)
Firstly there's weapon variety
-pistols
-muskets
-bow and arrow
-rope dart
-tomahawk
That's only the added ones over what AC2 has.

Second. Greater navigation.
-tree running
-streamlined parkour system
-swinging signs around corners
-running through buildings
-fast travel from menus rather than a kiosk that you have to pay to travel from.
(M actually has some interesting videos proving these points comparing parkour in Venice and NY based on how often you touch the ground and Navigation was actually easier in NY)

3rd. Better stealth.
-stalking zones
-interactive hide spots(lean on a building, shop at a stall, etc)
-hiding around corners pressed against walls(Connor even pulls away from the corner and presses closer to the wall as enemies approach)
-no distracting sparkleing stars and B+W color scheme when blending.
-you could blend with smaller groups. Not just obvious looking groups of 4 people in a diamond formation

4 more realistic environments.
-people are actually doing tasks rather than aimlessly walking.
-conversations can be overheard about actual relevant topics of the time and in that particular city.
-newspaper sellers and papers at the homestead talk about actual events and people some of which are in game and others that aren't.
-cites actually designed and modeled after the actual period maps and architecture.
-animals in both the wilderness and cities.

5. Better side content
-forts
-Naval
-liberating districts
-homestead missions
-hunting quests
-crafting new weapons using hunted materials
-frontiersmen folklore quests
(One of the major gripes of AC3 was half assed side missions but the only ones that were half assed were mainly holdovers from AC2 and nothing really new. Namely assassination contracts and messenger missions) most of the new content was actually done pretty well and was very fun. Naval was so popular they made the whole next game centered on it.

The only other ways to detract from AC3 are:

Boring protagonist: subjective

Boring setting: also subjective. I actually love the setting for example.

Shoehorning History: when it isn't any worse than AC2 in that regard(the only difference is you're not familiar with the history in AC2 so you don't notice it as much which is only your fault not the developers or anyone else). And aside from that I think we can all agree ACUs Paris stories and CO-OP took shoehorning to a whole new level.

And finally the only legitimate gripes:
1: complicated/long/boring story: I feel personally this is a result of the fact that they crammed Haythams story in the beginning which was very long and boring and then made you play as a kid for another 2 sequences. That was bad IMO. they should have just made the kid missions the tutorials and left Haytham for another game or movie. It would have given more game for Connor to have a more detailed or deeper story/character development. AC2 did better in this regard by separating Giovanni's story to a short film and not putting him at the beginning of AC2 and cutting down ezios time.

2: linear missions. There's just no denying it. Many of AC3s missions are just very linear and a lot of QTEs. But I personally don't see it as such a bad thing because most of them are really awesome and give a more intense cinematic feel to parts of the game. But I can see how it irritates some.

Other than those last two things there is nothing that AC2 does better than AC3. Many of the other negative aspects are entirely subjective and is more of a personal problem than an actual problem with the game itself. And because of the long list of improvements over AC2 vastly outweighs the things AC2 did better. I think AC3 is a superior game to AC2.

Farlander1991
03-14-2015, 10:17 PM
AC3 was an improvement over AC2 in nearly every way possible save 2(more on that later)
Firstly there's weapon variety
-pistols
-muskets
-bow and arrow
-rope dart
-tomahawk
That's only the added ones over what AC2 has.

More doesn't always equal 'better', though. This concerns mostly melee weapons, though. This is a problem that has started a bit with AC2, and got more prominent with ACB, but in AC3 the only real difference between all weapons are essentially the animations, and the only stat that matters out of the three is the combo one. But combat's IMO the weakest part of AC2, so in a sense AC3's improvement I guess :)



-swinging signs around corners


Those were actually introduced in AC2. Only they were lamps.



-running through buildings


These were awesome :)


-fast travel from menus rather than a kiosk that you have to pay to travel from.


Only in AC3 you have to unlock those travel points via the tunnel side quests, and while I personally enjoyed going underground with the lantern, I can see why people would hate it and honestly I don't think I'd like to do that a second time.




-crafting new weapons using hunted materials


The whole hunting thing, really AC3 should've cut the money economy and make it hunting and crafting-based. (that's besides making the whole crafting system more sensible, and easier to use, and less pointless in terms of items to craft... but, basically there's two underdeveloped systems in AC3, and I would prefer if they'd focus more on the hunting/crafting route)


Shoehorning History: when it isn't any worse than AC2 in that regard(the only difference is you're not familiar with the history in AC2 so you don't notice it as much which is only your fault not the developers or anyone else).

Here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/11n-VhIwjkfq-1SoNl6ClHEfoKFbboE96sUk1xlhQQsA/edit?usp=sharing) I have a character appearance sheet, comparing AC4, AC3, AC2. I did it for one of the discussions there was once, about characters and arcs and whatnot... Basically, I think both AC3 and AC2 are a mess in this regards. Too many damn characters, some are pointless, some appear just for one time. I barely knew anything about both the Revolution and the Renaissance when I played the respective games, and I must say, the way characters appear there or introduced for just one shot can be really bad. It's not well-crafted, IMO. And this doesn't have anything to do with knowledge of history. It's just not good form of narrative crafting. Compare to AC4, which has a much tighter cast, and everything there's more sensible, and even very minor characters (like Commodore or Burgess/Cockram) get a set-up and a resolution, unlike lots of characters in AC3/AC2 who just appear and disappear out of and into nowhere.


And aside from that I think we can all agree ACUs Paris stories and CO-OP took shoehorning to a whole new level.

Oh yeah... I really like ACU, but pretty much every side mission is about a different historical character, I don't think that's good.


2: linear missions. There's just no denying it. Many of AC3s missions are just very linear and a lot of QTEs. But I personally don't see it as such a bad thing because most of them are really awesome and give a more intense cinematic feel to parts of the game. But I can see how it irritates some.

AC2 has its fair share of linear and/or awful (like the whole Arsenale sequence) missions. There's just a lot more missions there, so it might be less noticeable in the grand scheme of things, maybe?

DumbGamerTag94
03-14-2015, 10:37 PM
@Farlander.

That character list is very interesting as its set up like a timeline and by characters order of appearance. And it actually gives evidence that AC2 is in fact worse at popping in characters just cuz and abandoning them than AC3. This can be seen by the massive swaths of white gaps in the upper right of the chart for AC2 showing that few if any of the characters from the beginning are at the end. While the chart for AC3 has noticeably more color and less empty white space in the upper right than AC2. AC4 clearly does better than both though. Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting.

And as for the fast travel in AC3. There were several harbor master spots in the cities and frontier that you could fast travel to without using the tunnels. They don't always take you right to the place you need to be but you can chose the closest one and it at lest gives you some options. And they are free and can be accessed in the map menu. Which is a big edge over AC2 IMO.

And I thought the swinging lanterns around corners were introduced in ACB not AC2???

Assassin_M
03-14-2015, 10:43 PM
Man, I just don't understand how you can claim to like all the games to some degree while at the same time using words like "boring", "bland" and "uninspired" to describe them.
Did you miss where I described AC II as an epic adventure? I like AC III but I called it a mess too. Come now.

Farlander1991
03-14-2015, 11:02 PM
@Farlander.

That character list is very interesting as its set up like a timeline and by characters order of appearance. And it actually gives evidence that AC2 is in fact worse at popping in characters just cuz and abandoning them than AC3. This can be seen by the massive swaths of white gaps in the upper right of the chart for AC2 showing that few if any of the characters from the beginning are at the end. While the chart for AC3 has noticeably more color and less empty white space in the upper right than AC2. AC4 clearly does better than both though. Thanks for sharing that. Very interesting.

Thanks. It should be noted that AC2 is much longer than AC4 or AC3. Even considering the fact that a LOT of AC2 memories are just one objective (while AC3/AC4 memories are longer and have several objective, like the first 4 missions of AC2 are essentially the first mission in Havana in AC4), so considering the epic scope it would make sense that the most relevant cast of characters would change or shift over time.

But still, AC2 keeps introducing and introducing new characters, to the point that a major Assassin player (Machiavelli) was introduced right near the end. Without any foreshadowing. Just because he's Machiavelli (who was even born later than Ezio, so that's another question how the hell did he become a leader?). And there are plenty of characters who're suddenly forgotten about, like Ugo or Rosa, and people like La Volpe and Paula disappear until at the very end holy **** they're assassins!


And I thought the swinging lanterns around corners were introduced in ACB not AC2???

Nope, AC2.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yp_AlOMcdjw
Approx. 1:28-1:30

KimSul
03-14-2015, 11:10 PM
For me:

ACB
ACU
AC3

ze_topazio
03-14-2015, 11:27 PM
Man, story-wise, sure. AC III has a lot of missed potential, but I just can't overlook the amazing way AC II fails as a good story. It's a grand adventure, it's epic but it's boring and bland and uninspired. AC III on the other hand, offered interesting perspectives, an awesome, relatable protagonist, complex antagonists, colorful side characters. Looking back at AC III, it's the story I love to rewatch the most. There's A LOT i would have fixed about it and it has some faults similar to AC II's but there's just too much good that it outweighs any bad to me.

As for gameplay, I had fun in more missions than I did with AC II. AC III has its share of questionable design but by far, I had more fun with the good missions of AC III than I did with the ones from AC II. Boring combat and broken stealth and AI detection. Sure, AC III has the same problems with detection but at least the combat is fun and the stealth mechanics actually revolve around the new additions.

TL;DR, ever game has its faults, AC III is a mess but AC II is by far a bigger mess.

http://giant.gfycat.com/DownrightAdorableEsok.gif

I would also argue that the antagonists are not that complex or at least we don't know enough of their objectives and ideals, Haytham's "peace and order" was equivalent to Cesare's "guards", i would also say the side characters are rather forgettable.



5. Better side content
-forts
-Naval
-liberating districts
-homestead missions
-hunting quests
-crafting new weapons using hunted materials
-frontiersmen folklore quests
(One of the major gripes of AC3 was half assed side missions but the only ones that were half assed were mainly holdovers from AC2 and nothing really new. Namely assassination contracts and messenger missions) most of the new content was actually done pretty well and was very fun. Naval was so popular they made the whole next game centered on it.

liberating districts as far as I remember are very simplistic missions that consist mostly of killing guards, beating up thugs and burn blankets, could have been cool but Brotherhood already did that and did much better.

homestead missions are rather mundane tasks

hunting quests are only fun if you really like hunting

the crafting system is so complicated I dare say is more of a torture than fun.

frontier folklore missions consist of going to an appointed place, hear a story, go to a different appointed place, press a button to investigate, conclusion video plays, not my idea of fun

then there's the monotonous, some times infuriating, underground passages

the overcomplicated trading

but the worst is the lack of context for most things and the inefficient quest log menus

AC2 had the great tomb missions, glyphs and the rest was nothing to write home about, i have no problem admitting that, but hearing people saying that AC3 had some "ZOMG AMAZING BEST THING EVER" side missions, please...

There's also the automatic climbing, and stealth, stealth mechanics have always been rudimentary but at least levels used to be designed taking that in to consideration, in AC3 levels are not designed in favor of stealth at all.

In AC2 some of the most nothing special content and missions are still amusing to an extent or simply harmless (except collecting feathers, if you're a completionist, collecting the 10 million feathers is frustrating), AC3 has lots of stuff that frustrates me, when a game frustrates me more than amuses me, there must be something wrong with it.

DumbGamerTag94
03-14-2015, 11:28 PM
@Farlander

Actually AC3 is much longer and more epic in scope. AC2 covers 1476-1499(23 years) and all this takes place only within Northern Italy.

AC3 was actually from 1754-1783 (29 years) only slightly longer in length. But the plot/setting takes part in or also includes the entire northeastern US from Yorktown Virginia in the South(Battle of the Chesapeake) as far west as Pittsburgh Pennsylvania(Battle of the Monongahela/fort Duquesne) and as far north as Rockport Massachusetts north of Boston (Davenport Homestead). That's huge and that's just the main map. There's also the elements of the story that take the player as Far East as London, South as the Yukitan peninsula in Mexico or the Carribean on naval missions, and as far to the north as the frozen Northwest passage or Oak Island. In fact givin the massive amount of time and space covered in AC3 it's amazing that any characters from the beginning sequences of the game are in the end or relevant at all. Which is why I was so impressed that AC3 actually did a better job retaining characters than AC2.

Assassin_M
03-14-2015, 11:32 PM
http://giant.gfycat.com/DownrightAdorableEsok.gif

I would also argue that the antagonists are not that complex or at least we don't know enough of their objectives and ideals, Haytham's "peace and order" was equivalent to Cesare's "guards", i would also say the side characters are rather forgettable.

I would say, you would say bla bla bla, and? I would say that AC III is better than AC II, that Connor is better than Ezio, that that that a lot of things. I expect nothing less from you. Doesn't really matter. AC III is better than AC II. You say otherwise, good for you. Makes no difference to anything. Just reinforces opinions.

Connor > Ezio

DumbGamerTag94
03-14-2015, 11:41 PM
Oh and I almost forgot until I watched that trailer. AC2 has the single worst character models of the entire series. It's awful. The cities look nice but all the people and especially cutscenes look like they're on the GameCube. Just another way the rest of the series is better than AC2

ze_topazio
03-14-2015, 11:47 PM
I would say, you would say bla bla bla, and? I would say that AC III is better than AC II, that Connor is better than Ezio, that that that a lot of things. I expect nothing less from you. Doesn't really matter. AC III is better than AC II. You say otherwise, good for you. Makes no difference to anything. Just reinforces opinions.

Connor > Ezio


I would say, you would say bla bla bla, and? I would say that AC III is better than AC II, that Connor is better than Ezio, that that that a lot of things. I expect nothing less from you. Doesn't really matter. AC III is better than AC II. You say otherwise, good for you. Makes no difference to anything. Just reinforces opinions.

Connor > Ezio


I expect nothing less from you.


I expect nothing less from you.


I expect nothing less from you.


I expect nothing less from you.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/55632534.jpg

http://sociorocketnewsen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/yamcha.jpg?w=580&h=511

Assassin_M
03-14-2015, 11:49 PM
It seems to irk a lot of people that AC II isn't THAT popular here. Calm down, guis. Don't worry. Your AC II is weally weally papulaw mmmmm, just go on youtoob and fakebook. It REALLY irks people that a small community like ours doesn't view AC II as the best thing since sliced bread? I'm sowwy, guis.

Farlander1991
03-14-2015, 11:50 PM
Btw, my last post reminded me, a lot of people use the number of missions in the AC2 main campaign as argument that it's better. I.e., AC2 with 88 memories (including DLC story sequences, 70 if without them) is better than 45 memories of AC4, for example.

AC2 is still the longer game due to the amount of memories, but I still have always considered that a very weird argument, especially when it was purely number based.

Here's the mission structure of the first mission in Havana in AC4:
- Follow Bonnet and buy a weapon
- Climb a particular viewpoint
- Chase thief
- Go to a certain location
- Fight thugs
- Escape

Here's the mission structure of the beginning of AC2:
Mission 1:
- Fight thugs
- Fight more thugs.
Mission 2:
- Follow brother from to doctor.
Mission 3:
- Climb a viewpoint.
Mission 4:
- Go to a certain location (with guards/thugs looking for you).

In Sequence 4 where we meet La Volpe, there's one memory for catching the thief that leads to him, and another memory for following La Volpe to the secret meeting, stuff like this would be part of a single memory in AC4 and there would be smth more to do.

Sequence 5 has 4 assassinations in San Gimignano, which are enjoyable (I don't have anything against them) but in terms of mission design, they're equal to 4 AC4 side-contracts. AC4 main assassinations are always more sprawling/expansive/have something more.

There are several massive missions in AC2 (the final one in Rome being a good example), but they're far and few between, so mission number is not a good criteria IMO for comparison.


@Farlander

Actually AC3 is much longer and more epic in scope. AC2 covers 1476-1499(23 years) and all this takes place only within Northern Italy.

AC3 was actually from 1754-1783 (29 years) only slightly longer in length. But the plot/setting takes part in or also includes the entire northeastern US from Yorktown Virginia in the South(Battle of the Chesapeake) as far west as Pittsburgh Pennsylvania(Battle of the Monongahela/fort Duquesne) and as far north as Rockport Massachusetts north of Boston (Davenport Homestead). That's huge and that's just the main map. There's also the elements of the story that take the player as Far East as London, South as the Yukitan peninsula in Mexico or the Carribean on naval missions, and as far to the north as the frozen Northwest passage or Oak Island. In fact givin the massive amount of time and space covered in AC3 it's amazing that any characters from the beginning sequences of the game are in the end or relevant at all. Which is why I was so impressed that AC3 actually did a better job retaining characters than AC2.

Yeah, I see what you mean. I don't know, for some reason AC2 just feels more epic in scope than AC3 to me, and that's despite AC3 dealing with a whole Revolution and part of the Seven Years War. Both games have pacing issues, but I think this feeling might be from the fact that AC2 is very well-paced in the beginning (and then gets overburdenly long, thus creating a feeling of it being bigger, there's quite a lot of filler in the second half of the story), while AC3 has a very slow start, and then an express train through the rest of the story.


Oh and I almost forgot until I watched that trailer. AC2 has the single worst character models of the entire series. It's awful. The cities look nice but all the people and especially cutscenes look like they're on the GameCube. Just another way the rest of the series is better than AC2

Character models are fine, it's the textures that are really low-res (there was a PC mod in the works that was making it higher res, but I think it got abandoned).

And if only we'd have bigger LoS in the cities... cause the game has worse LoS than AC1.

Assassin_M
03-14-2015, 11:54 PM
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/55632534.jpg

http://sociorocketnewsen.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/yamcha.jpg?w=580&h=511
I mean that I don't expect you to be any less vocal about why you like AC II or dislike AC III.

ze_topazio
03-14-2015, 11:59 PM
Unlike you I didn't play the games that many times so quite frankly I don't remember several details or only have a blurry memory of them.

I wish I could debate things more deeply but I just don't remember enough details.

I'm also too lazy.

Assassin_M
03-15-2015, 12:05 AM
Unlike you I didn't play the games that many times so quite frankly I don't remember several details or only have a blurry memory of them.

I wish I could debate things more deeply but I just don't remember enough details.

I'm also too lazy.
Come on, homeboy, it's all in good fun. I'm lazy as hell too. Me playing more doesn't give my opinions and thoughts any more objective credibility than anyone else.

If you say AC II is better than AC III, then that's it for you. That's the way it is. This is why I'm kind of scratching my head at this poll. If you think AC II is the best thing ever, okay. Same thing when people say "I like AC III but that's just me". I don't get it. Why does it matter how many people share your opinion? Will it give you more credibility? will it make your opinion fact? (To some, yes I suppose but I usually ignore those) It really shouldnt.

Megas_Doux
03-15-2015, 12:18 AM
I have no "all time, everything" favorite game in this franchise, AC IV is close and the setting is good but for the wrong reasons, whereas AC II has "that something" you cannot ignore. The story is REALLY cliche, but It works. The Italian city states are beautiful, the soundtrack SUPERB and some of the additions in the likes of the Assassin Tombs are favorites of mine. I understand the HUGE majority than considers it the undisputed best.
Comparing directly with AC III, Connor is pretty original as a character and the overall story is better, but I heavily dislike its mission design and the locations bore with the exception of some parts of the Frontier and the main docks of Boston.





PD Unity COULD have taken that spot in my heart since I love Paris and the French Revolution story wise had A LOT to offer. Even though I never truly hyped, its wasted potential saddens me and it always will, but I still like the game nonetheless.....

ze_topazio
03-15-2015, 04:09 AM
Come on, homeboy, it's all in good fun. I'm lazy as hell too. Me playing more doesn't give my opinions and thoughts any more objective credibility than anyone else.

If you say AC II is better than AC III, then that's it for you. That's the way it is. This is why I'm kind of scratching my head at this poll. If you think AC II is the best thing ever, okay. Same thing when people say "I like AC III but that's just me". I don't get it. Why does it matter how many people share your opinion? Will it give you more credibility? will it make your opinion fact? (To some, yes I suppose but I usually ignore those) It really shouldnt.

I don't know, I would trust more the opinion of someone who read and study several different books of a subject than someone who only read the Wikipedia article about it.

cawatrooper9
03-15-2015, 04:46 AM
I just don't understand this poll at all.
Is "NOPE" confirming that no AC game has beat AC 2?
Or is it denying the claim?

Or is this just flame bait anyway? :P

Fatal-Feit
03-15-2015, 05:12 AM
I just don't understand this poll at all.
Is "NOPE" confirming that no AC game has beat AC 2?
Or is it denying the claim?

Or is this just flame bait anyway? :P

''NOPE'' disagrees w/ his claim that no game have beaten AC2

''YES'' agrees that no game have beaten AC2


Man, story-wise, sure. AC III has a lot of missed potential, but I just can't overlook the amazing way AC II fails as a good story. It's a grand adventure, it's epic but it's boring and bland and uninspired. AC III on the other hand, offered interesting perspectives, an awesome, relatable protagonist, complex antagonists, colorful side characters. Looking back at AC III, it's the story I love to rewatch the most. There's A LOT i would have fixed about it and it has some faults similar to AC II's but there's just too much good that it outweighs any bad to me.

As for gameplay, I had fun in more missions than I did with AC II. AC III has its share of questionable design but by far, I had more fun with the good missions of AC III than I did with the ones from AC II. Boring combat and broken stealth and AI detection. Sure, AC III has the same problems with detection but at least the combat is fun and the stealth mechanics actually revolve around the new additions.

TL;DR, ever game has its faults, AC III is a mess but AC II is by far a bigger mess.

I agree w/ the narrative. AC3 obliterates AC2, although both are still very flawed. When it comes to AC, the most important factor in the story are philosophical discussions & a moral grey area and AC3 nails it whereas AC2 almost abandons it.

However, I believe AC2's narrative works better as a game that's targeted towards a wide demographic. It's fun. Amusing. Pretty cliche, but a pleasant entertainment. The narrative isn't controversial, it doesn't challenge you, and I believe that's how it captures a lot of dedicated fans. It's rhetorical. It does everything in the book. A young charismatic womanizing badass Gary Stu w/ a catchphrase. Mustache twirling antagonists. Overly supportive side characters who god forbid are cooler than the protagonist. Pseudo intellectual driven narrative. Etc, etc. I mean, they sound bad, but those are the elements that engage a wider audience.

I don't agree w/ the gameplay. AC3 has one the better combat in the franchise, but its stealth and navigation are unquestionably poor. AC2 has the better overall balance.Okay, AC3 has more tools, but the game does a poor job of implementing them. AC2 makes better use of its overall mechanics and tools. The side content, for example, makes good of fist combat w/ beating up husbands, navigation w/ its parkour challenges, etc. In AC3, for example, you'll only ever feel compelled to use the rope dart during stealth in the one mission it tasked you with.

Namikaze_17
03-15-2015, 05:22 AM
In that case, NOOOPPPPPPPEEEEEEEEEEEE :rolleyes:

SixKeys
03-15-2015, 08:58 AM
Did you miss where I described AC II as an epic adventure? I like AC III but I called it a mess too. Come now.

Yeah, but I don't get that either. How can you love something and at the same time describe it as a mess? I love Unity and I know many others would say it's a mess, but I don't. The only thing messy about it was the launch. If something is a mess, then I don't love it, and if I love it, then it's not a mess.

JustPlainQuirky
03-15-2015, 04:37 PM
How can you love something and at the same time describe it as a mess?

If a game impresses you in one aspect enough, you can still love it despite its flaws.

For example.

Prototype and Remember Me are like in my top 10 games. And in top 3 unique recent games.

Why? Because I LOOOOOOVE Prototypes gameplay and I LOOOOOVE the world/story of Remember Me.

But Prototype has terribad story and Remember Me has terribad gameplay.

Assassin_M
03-15-2015, 04:38 PM
Yeah, but I don't get that either. How can you love something and at the same time describe it as a mess? I love Unity and I know many others would say it's a mess, but I don't. The only thing messy about it was the launch. If something is a mess, then I don't love it, and if I love it, then it's not a mess.
I don't see why not? There're beautiful messes. I can appreciate the good but criticize the bad. When playing, I can focus on the good but then acknowledge the bad.



However, I believe AC2's narrative works better as a game that's targeted towards a wide demographic. It's fun. Amusing. Pretty cliche, but a pleasant entertainment. The narrative isn't controversial, it doesn't challenge you, and I believe that's how it captures a lot of dedicated fans. It's rhetorical. It does everything in the book. A young charismatic womanizing badass Gary Stu w/ a catchphrase. Mustache twirling antagonists. Overly supportive side characters who god forbid are cooler than the protagonist. Pseudo intellectual driven narrative. Etc, etc. I mean, they sound bad, but those are the elements that engage a wider audience.
Oh I definitely agree with all of that, it's why I described AC II's story as epic, it has a grand scale. It feels like a great adventure and I enjoyed it. It's just when the comparison happens. When I compare it with AC I. It feels like a cartoon. I love cartoons but not when they follow a discussion about religion, control, freedom..etc. AC I set a mood that was hard to ignore when it's absent.


I don't agree w/ the gameplay. AC3 has one the better combat in the franchise, but its stealth and navigation are unquestionably poor. AC2 has the better overall balance.Okay, AC3 has more tools, but the game does a poor job of implementing them. AC2 makes better use of its overall mechanics and tools. The side content, for example, makes good of fist combat w/ beating up husbands, navigation w/ its parkour challenges, etc. In AC3, for example, you'll only ever feel compelled to use the rope dart during stealth in the one mission it tasked you with.
AC II and AC III are similar in that their mechanics are compact and contained (overlooking how they're implemented), though i'd say AC III takes a little edge because it excels more than AC II in managing to have systems revolve around the new additions. An example of that would be whistling. This should have been an addition since AC II. The design process could have gone like this "Oh, lets have Ezio kill enemies from hiding spots. How do they get to him, though? Oh, we need an attraction mechanic" but instead it went like this "Oh, we'll just design specific missions with specific routes for guards that pass by the hiding spot".

AC III's stealth IMPLEMENTATION is unquestioningly poor. There's not enough scenarios to justify its existence, but the system itself was good and that's what I meant. I immensely enjoyed forts and whenever a mission opened the possibility for stealth, it was enjoyable. I think people forget that AC IV's plantations, raids..etc are all built on the base of AC III's system. It's why I like the Kenway saga more. Not just from a storyline perspective, but also from a gameplay one. The Ezio saga barely did anything to the stealth system. Before AC III, people felt the need for corner kills, attraction to hiding spots, crouching...etc. People already knew what the games' stealth needed, it's why a lot of people felt that AC III was too little too late. Adding to the fact that AC III barely properly implements the stealth system. It's best incarnation is when doing the forts and EVEN THEN, it's slightly hampered by the erratic AI (which is a problem for AC II as well)

AC II's problem to me is its specificity. It's the same problem I have with GTA, on a smaller scale. It's a great way to give the player a sense of variety but it deprives the player from a sense of freedom. Only in very specific scenarios can you use faction distractions, very specific scenarios where you can use the hidden gun, very specific scenarios where you can use poison blade. It's all when the game makes it obvious. Missions are designed to favor SOMETHING over the other. It'd take a good contrived effort to do a mission differently from what the game intends. Take Uberto's assassination. You wanna go from the roof? Nope, there's upteen guards up there who'll insta detect you.

So in the end, while AC II is more focused and implements each and every mechanic and system it has promptly, it's design philosophy is too close to GTA for my tastes. And while AC III does not have enough scenarios to properly implement its systems, they're super fun to me when properly implemented.

JustPlainQuirky
03-15-2015, 04:42 PM
everytime M uses caps I jump a little.

Shahkulu101
03-15-2015, 05:07 PM
I apoligize for the rant and lack of constructive-ness in this post,

But when I play AC2 I just think HOW the **** is this considered the best game in the franchise when the story is so simple, basic and cliched and when the gameplay in subsequent titles is superior with the exception of AC3. The missions are mostly prescriptive and boring and the side quests are awful aside from the assassination contacts and tombs - which do make up the bulk of the missions but there's still a lack of quality side activities. Nothing it does is special or makes it stand out among the crowd IMO, aside from the fact it laid the groundwork for the sequels - but like I said the formula was improved upon and then completely revamped in ACIV which led to a game far, far superior in every aspect when compared to AC2.

This doesn't mean I don't like AC2, I enjoy the story and protagonist for what they are, the cities are lovely and the gameplay shines at times with the fantastic Tomb Missions. I'm just genuinely baffled that it's considered the best thing ever by critics and fans alike when there's so many better AC games. And before I get the inevitable 'hipster' comment, I can't help it if my opinion goes against the grain, if you want to think I'm only saying this to look 'cool' that's fine - but ACB is my favourite game and that certainly isn't an unpopular sentiment.

Fatal-Feit
03-15-2015, 05:40 PM
Oh I definitely agree with all of that, it's why I described AC II's story as epic, it has a grand scale. It feels like a great adventure and I enjoyed it. It's just when the comparison happens. When I compare it with AC I. It feels like a cartoon. I love cartoons but not when they follow a discussion about religion, control, freedom..etc. AC I set a mood that was hard to ignore when it's absent.

Yeah, it's why I consider AC2-R's stories to be a parody of the franchise. It's not to say they're bad or worse than the other titles, it's just not what I expect from the franchise.


AC II and AC III are similar in that their mechanics are compact and contained (overlooking how they're implemented), though i'd say AC III takes a little edge because it excels more than AC II in managing to have systems revolve around the new additions. An example of that would be whistling. This should have been an addition since AC II. The design process could have gone like this "Oh, lets have Ezio kill enemies from hiding spots. How do they get to him, though? Oh, we need an attraction mechanic" but instead it went like this "Oh, we'll just design specific missions with specific routes for guards that pass by the hiding spot".

AC3 has the right idea, but I can't say it has the edge if they were unremarkable throughout the game. There are only a handful of times where whistling and corner kills may come in handy, which are also scripted a lot in AC3 as well, whereas AC2 makes more noticeable usage of killing from the cart.

Let's compare the rope dart w/ the throwing knives. There's only one mission in AC3 where the rope dart is something you're compelled to use outside of combat, and that's literally the tutorial in sequence 6, IIRC. In AC2, the throwing knives, while more limited in its mechanics, has you using it more than the rope dart. Sure, the rope dart is fantastic, it has the potential to be used in far more scenarios, it's one of my favorite tool in the franchise, but it was underrated for a reason.


AC III's stealth IMPLEMENTATION is unquestioningly poor. There's not enough scenarios to justify its existence, but the system itself was good and that's what I meant. I immensely enjoyed forts and whenever a mission opened the possibility for stealth, it was enjoyable. I think people forget that AC IV's plantations, raids..etc are all built on the base of AC III's system. It's why I like the Kenway saga more. Not just from a storyline perspective, but also from a gameplay one. The Ezio saga barely did anything to the stealth system. Before AC III, people felt the need for corner kills, attraction to hiding spots, crouching...etc. People already knew what the games' stealth needed, it's why a lot of people felt that AC III was too little too late. Adding to the fact that AC III barely properly implements the stealth system. It's best incarnation is when doing the forts and EVEN THEN, it's slightly hampered by the erratic AI (which is a problem for AC II as well)

That's the thing. AC3's mechanics aren't utilized as properly (or even as much) as AC2. While AC2 has a lack of innovative mechanics, it makes more drastic usage of them. A lot of it comes from being less linear. AC2's main sequences occasionally lets you go loose and the mission designs allows for some degree of creativity whereas AC3, no matter how many times you replay it, keeps you restricted. And the optional objectives don't help w/ the limitation.

AC3 excels in the combat department, though. Firearms, ropedart, etc, they all have a purpose and a decent balancing.


AC II's problem to me is its specificity. It's the same problem I have with GTA, on a smaller scale. It's a great way to give the player a sense of variety but it deprives the player from a sense of freedom. Only in very specific scenarios can you use faction distractions, very specific scenarios where you can use the hidden gun, very specific scenarios where you can use poison blade. It's all when the game makes it obvious. Missions are designed to favor SOMETHING over the other. It'd take a good contrived effort to do a mission differently from what the game intends. Take Uberto's assassination. You wanna go from the roof? Nope, there's upteen guards up there who'll insta detect you.

I'd say this is a major problem w/ BOTH AC2 and AC3. ESPECIALLY AC3. AC2, at least, occasionally offers more freedom and variety in its mission designs. We all can agree that AC2 thrashes AC3 in this department when it comes to side content, but even in the main sequences, AC2 wins by a milestone.

I don't mind making a comparison chart if you want. Or we can go by Farlander's statistics, which has AC2 as the victor between the two.

Templar_Az
03-15-2015, 06:02 PM
AC 2 was a great game but I started playing AC only like two years ago so AC 2 was already overhyped which made me have high expectations for it right in the beginning; I felt that the hype was a little too much and that the game didn't exactly live up to it but its still a great game.

In my opinion AC 4 black flag was the best one. Haven't played Unity.

Assassin_M
03-15-2015, 06:14 PM
AC3 has the right idea, but I can't say it has the edge if they were unremarkable throughout the game. There are only a handful of times where whistling and corner kills may come in handy, which are also scripted a lot in AC3 as well, whereas AC2 makes more noticeable usage of killing from the cart.

Let's compare the rope dart w/ the throwing knives. There's only one mission in AC3 where the rope dart is something you're compelled to use outside of combat, and that's literally the tutorial in sequence 6, IIRC. In AC2, the throwing knives, while more limited in its mechanics, has you using it more than the rope dart. Sure, the rope dart is fantastic, it has the potential to be used in far more scenarios, it's one of my favorite tool in the franchise, but it was underrated for a reason.
But that's my whole point, I explained why I prefer AC III over II in that regard. I said that while indeed, AC II makes much better use of its mechanics, it's just not fun because of the quirks I mentioned. That said, although I think it's unfair to compare throwing knives to rope darts (a better comparison would be the bow), there're A LOT more scenarios where you can use the rope dart, I can list a few:
1- Whilst killing Johnson's men who distributing the tea
2- Whilst you're on your way to killing Johnson
3- Whilst you're on your way to kill Pitcairn
4- Whilst you're investigating the mercenary camp with Haytham

There's only one mission where it's a highlight but so what? That's what I dislike about AC II, I don't need a dozen missions to tell me what to use. One mission to introduce and have it as a highlight is enough for me. And again, AC II does this better, since it promptly introduces every tool and highlights it but again, I prefer AC III because it's more fun when you actually get to use it.




That's the thing. AC3's mechanics aren't utilized as properly (or even as much) as AC2. While AC2 has a lack of innovative mechanics, it makes more drastic usage of them. A lot of it comes from being less linear. AC2's main sequences occasionally lets you go loose and the mission designs allows for some degree of creativity whereas AC3, no matter how many times you replay it, keeps you restricted. And the optional objectives don't help w/ the limitation.
I wont get into the optional objectives debate because they don't restrict me at all. Regarding freedom, both games have their creative missions and restricted ones. Of course, AC III is worse in that regard since it has a lot more linear main missions. I'm also encompassing side quests. The forts are great playgrounds.


I'd say this is a major problem w/ BOTH AC2 and AC3. ESPECIALLY AC3. AC2, at least, occasionally offers more freedom and variety in its mission designs. We all can agree that AC2 thrashes AC3 in this department when it comes to side content, but even in the main sequences, AC2 wins by a milestone.

I don't mind making a comparison chart if you want. Or we can go by Farlander's statistics, which has AC2 as the victor between the two.
I wouldn't say AC II trashes AC III with side content. The forts alone are better than any side mission in AC II, imo. Even the assassination contracts (The bulk of them was very restricting and uninnovative. Seriously, who wants to follow a boat?).
If we'll go by Farlander's stats, AC II's main campaign wins by only a 4% difference. Keep in mind that this is not taking into account the length and number of missions. AC II's main campaign has 168 rate-able missions, while AC III has only 88. I would say AC II is actually a worse offender than AC III, in this department. (I would also argue that 168 is counting the bonfire of the vanities and Battle for Forli, which if removed, would make a worse case for AC II's stealth viability)

Finally, you little sly fox you (Took me completely out of what I was saying and made the discussion about freedom), I'm not arguing AC III's level design, which I said numerous times that it took a bad direction, I'm talking more about what each game did and how fun it was for me. Sure, the main campaign of AC III was restrictive, but when it opened (and it certainly does in a lot of places), it was fantastic. Meanwhile in AC II, while yes, stealth is viable in more missions than in AC III, it just wasn't fun. Even the most open of missions in AC II, felt like I was STILL on rails.

Namikaze_17
03-15-2015, 06:18 PM
the side quests are awful aside from the assassination contacts and tombs

This reminds me to finish those pointless races and beat up scumbag husbands. :rolleyes:



And before I get the inevitable 'hipster' comment, I can't help it if my opinion goes against the grain, if you want to think I'm only saying this to look 'cool' that's fine

Right, because such talk on a subjective forum is forbidden. :rolleyes:

Condemn anyone who thinks differently everyone! Crucify them!

Megas_Doux
03-15-2015, 06:28 PM
I apoligize for the rant and lack of constructive-ness in this post,

But when I play AC2 I just think HOW the **** is this considered the best game in the franchise when the story is so simple, basic and cliched and when the gameplay in subsequent titles is superior with the exception of AC3. The missions are mostly prescriptive and boring and the side quests are awful aside from the assassination contacts and tombs - which do make up the bulk of the missions but there's still a lack of quality side activities. Nothing it does is special or makes it stand out among the crowd IMO, aside from the fact it laid the groundwork for the sequels - but like I said the formula was improved upon and then completely revamped in ACIV which led to a game far, far superior in every aspect when compared to AC2.

This doesn't mean I don't like AC2, I enjoy the story and protagonist for what they are, the cities are lovely and the gameplay shines at times with the fantastic Tomb Missions. I'm just genuinely baffled that it's considered the best thing ever by critics and fans alike when there's so many better AC games. And before I get the inevitable 'hipster' comment, I can't help it if my opinion goes against the grain, if you want to think I'm only saying this to look 'cool' that's fine - but ACB is my favourite game and that certainly isn't an unpopular sentiment.

I have some possible answers:

1 The setting was original and appealing

2 Great details in the likes of a SUPERB soundtrack.

3 They took into consideration the feedback!!!! Way back when AC I was praised for its realism and originality but criticized because its ""boring" character, empty world and repetitiveness. AC II worked on that - and NOT in the core mechanics- thus we got what MANY wanted and still want: GTA during historical times. More open world activites and most importantly,. we got the kind of character that NEVER fails: The womanizer, witty, charming protagonist that is full jokes and never fails. There are have been plenty of those in the likes of El Zorro, Robin Hood, James Bond, Nathan Drake, Dante from Devil May cry, Tony Stark from the new marvel movies, etc etc etc etc. The problem is that if a new character is NOT Ezio, he will be treated as such, but if he is similar, then it will be like " boo, thereīs only one Ezio". You know, a no win situation.

4 Exhaustion and nostalgia factor!!!!!! Again, AC II appeared in 2009, it was just the second game in the franchise. Even Rockstar would meet the same problems and critics if they started to release GTA games annually, because GTA has had the SAME mechanics since 2001. If you have the same dish for a month, no matter how much you love it, at that rate not only your exciment for it will decrease, but youīll also begin to notice flaws on both the dish itself and the chef... Then we have the nostalgia factor, I remember a certain someone here who claimed to be this HUGE AC II "fan" that mistook ACBīs side activities and some s story elements with AC II......You know, AC II has 100 feathers to collect, AC II has over 300 chests, etc,etc, etc....


Just in case I do like the game, but I find it far from perfect.

Shahkulu101
03-15-2015, 06:51 PM
I have some possible answers:

1 The setting was original and appealing

2 Great details in the likes of a SUPERB soundtrack.

3 They took into consideration the feedback!!!! Way back when AC I was praised for its realism and originality but criticized because its ""boring" character, empty world and repetitiveness. AC II worked on that - and NOT in the core mechanics- thus we got what MANY wanted and still want: GTA during historical times. More open world activites and most importantly,. we got the kind of character that NEVER fails: The womanizer, witty, charming protagonist that is full jokes and never fails. There are have been plenty of those in the likes of El Zorro, Robin Hood, James Bond, Nathan Drake, Dante from Devil May cry, Tony Stark from the new marvel movies, etc etc etc etc. The problem is that if a new character is NOT Ezio, he will be treated as such, but if he is similar, then it will be like " boo, thereīs only one Ezio". You know, a no win situation.

4 Exhaustion and nostalgia factor!!!!!! Again, AC II appeared in 2009, it was just the second game in the franchise. Even Rockstar would meet the same problems and critics if they started to release GTA games annually, because GTA has had the SAME mechanics since 2001. If you have the same dish for a month, no matter how much you love it, at that rate not only your exciment for it will decrease, but youīll also begin to notice flaws on both the dish itself and the chef... Then we have the nostalgia factor, I remember a certain someone here who claimed to be this HUGE AC II "fan" that mistook ACBīs side activities and some s story elements with AC II......You know, AC II has 100 feathers to collect, AC II has over 300 chests, etc,etc, etc....


Just in case I do like the game, but I find it far from perfect.

Agreed, setting and soundtrack were great. Can't knock that.

It should be commended for taking feedback into consideration and the fact it was streamlined it's content very well to appeal to a wider audience, the likes of who disliked AC1's assassin simulator approach. Thing is, the new formula that AC2 brought to the table was improved in Brotherhood ten fold, and then ACIV came and blew anything that came before it out of the water. It should receive praise for setting that direction in motion, but other games do it much better IMO. So while it should be praised for innovating, it's not the best game. Personally though I wish they never turned it into historical GTA, but that's another subject.

Nostalgia is not a valid source of criticism.

Farlander1991
03-15-2015, 07:11 PM
AC II's main campaign has 168 rate-able missions, while AC III has only 88.

Just fyi, ACII and ACIII have 168 and 88 points (as I divide them based on stealth viability), each mission has 2 points, so ACII has got 84 missions and AC3 - 44.

Assassin_M
03-15-2015, 07:16 PM
Just fyi, ACII and ACIII have 168 and 88 points (as I divide them based on stealth viability), each mission has 2 points, so ACII has got 84 missions and AC3 - 44.
Right, my bad. I couldn't find the original thread.

Fatal-Feit
03-15-2015, 07:33 PM
But that's my whole point, I explained why I prefer AC III over II in that regard. I said that while indeed, AC II makes much better use of its mechanics, it's just not fun because of the quirks I mentioned. That said, although I think it's unfair to compare throwing knives to rope darts (a better comparison would be the bow), there're A LOT more scenarios where you can use the rope dart, I can list a few:
1- Whilst killing Johnson's men who distributing the tea
2- Whilst you're on your way to killing Johnson
3- Whilst you're on your way to kill Pitcairn
4- Whilst you're investigating the mercenary camp with Haytham

There's only one mission where it's a highlight but so what? That's what I dislike about AC II, I don't need a dozen missions to tell me what to use. One mission to introduce and have it as a highlight is enough for me. And again, AC II does this better, since it promptly introduces every tool and highlights it but again, I prefer AC III because it's more fun when you actually get to use it.

I agree with AC3's tools being more fun to use, especially during those rare moments.


I wont get into the optional objectives debate because they don't restrict me at all. Regarding freedom, both games have their creative missions and restricted ones. Of course, AC III is worse in that regard since it has a lot more linear main missions. I'm also encompassing side quests. The forts are great playgrounds.

Forts are fantastic (when the stealth mechanics works), especially this one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2tZ8UITvcQ

If only they could be replayed. Speaking of which, that's a problem I've discussed before. As of recent titles, there's been a lack of side missions that can be replayed. The developers should allow these side missions to be replayed, GDI.

AC3 doesn't have a lot of open-ended side content that can be tackled after 100%ing the game. Every now and then, when I'm bored, I hop onto AC2-R and perform some assassination contracts. W/ AC3, it's mostly either Johnson's Assassination or slaughtering troops.


I wouldn't say AC II trashes AC III with side content. The forts alone are better than any side mission in AC II, imo. Even the assassination contracts (The bulk of them was very restricting and uninnovative. Seriously, who wants to follow a boat?).
If we'll go by Farlander's stats, AC II's main campaign wins by only a 4% difference. Keep in mind that this is not taking into account the length and number of missions. AC II's main campaign has 168 rate-able missions, while AC III has only 88. I would say AC II is actually a worse offender than AC III, in this department. (I would also argue that 168 is counting the bonfire of the vanities and Battle for Forli, which if removed, would make a worse case for AC II's stealth viability)

The problem w/ the forts are 1. They can't be replayed w/o starting a new save 2. Stealth mechanics in AC3 are, for the most part, broken and/or inconsistent 3. There aren't enough of them. In theory, the forts are brilliant. I'm always excited to do them when replaying AC3, but they just don't work out as I keep imagining. If I get spotted by a single soldier, even for a second, it usually ends w/ me slaughtering the lot. On an unrelated note, taking down Assassin Hideouts in NY in Rogue makes me weep of what could have been. =P Anyway, I disagree w/ the assassination contracts. AC2's at least has context, are more varied (more, in general), and can be replayed.

Regarding the statistics, that's only for the main campaign. 61% for side content w/ AC2, 21% for AC3. And w/ everything added, AC2 triumphs by 18%. AND, AC3 had 338 missions total, whereas AC2 had 278, so AC3's the worse offender, IMO.


Finally, you little sly fox you (Took me completely out of what I was saying and made the discussion about freedom), I'm not arguing AC III's level design, which I said numerous times that it took a bad direction, I'm talking more about what each game did and how fun it was for me. Sure, the main campaign of AC III was restrictive, but when it opened (and it certainly does in a lot of places), it was fantastic. Meanwhile in AC II, while yes, stealth is viable in more missions than in AC III, it just wasn't fun. Even the most open of missions in AC II, felt like I was STILL on rails.

Come on, man, fun is very subjective. We can't have a valid debate if we were comparing how fun we think they are. AC3's missions were too linear and restrictive, I couldn't have fun. The game felt like it was playing itself. And the glitches, bugs, flawed stealth mechanics didn't help during those rare moments of open opportunities. At its most entertaining, I'm just snickering at the dialog during cut-scenes.

Farlander1991
03-15-2015, 07:37 PM
Regarding the statistics, that's only for the main campaign. 61% for side content w/ AC2, 21% for AC3. And w/ everything added, AC2 triumphs by 18%. AND, AC3 had 338 missions total, whereas AC2 had 278, so AC3's the worse offender, IMO.

Once again, that's not missions, that's points. Each mission has 2 points. So there are twice as less missions than you post there.

Megas_Doux
03-15-2015, 07:38 PM
Tools in AC III???? They are cool, but those ended up being padding just because,

Iīm sorry, but when the vast majority of missions are UBER linear and even assassinations consist of QTEīs.........

Fatal-Feit
03-15-2015, 07:42 PM
Once again, that's not missions, that's points. Each mission has 2 points. So there are twice as less missions than you post there.

Oh, **** me in the keyhole.

Farlander1991
03-15-2015, 08:11 PM
Btw, my sheet is just about stealth viability. I.e. if it's useful, or not. It's not a good way to judge quality, IMO.

Because, most of the AC2 assassination contracts are more interesting than AC3 one simply by the virtue of targets detecting you, and the fact that there's a short description of the reason for killing, and, that's it. Here are some of the contracts:
1. A random guy walking on the street.
2. A random guy walking on the street with a guard beside him.
3. A guy standing behind a guard post (ooooooh, scaaaaaary!)
4. 3 random archers.
5. Not one, but three whole venetian randomly walking officials.
6. 2 random archers.
(btw, by random I don't actually mean random, just that they're arbitrarily selected archers that are just on some rooftop)
etc.
Sure there are more interesting ones as well, but AC2 wins in Stealth viability in side content due to the fact that it's got like 50 side missions and 30 of them are assassiantion contracts, which are, you know, fun little distractions, and they're definitely better than AC3 contracts, however...

If you compare them with AC2 own tombs, or AC3 Kidd treasure locations, or AC3 forts, or AC3 naval contracts, or AC3 hunting missions (Where it's at least tricky to track down the hunting 'target'), or even AC3 homestead missions (most of which are, in terms of gameplay quality, 'okay-ish'), AC3 wins IMO, even though most of that side content is not stealth viable.

Fatal-Feit
03-15-2015, 08:19 PM
It'd be neat if some of us could get together and work on a non-linear/open-ended chart.

Farlander1991
03-15-2015, 08:42 PM
It'd be neat if some of us could get together and work on a non-linear/open-ended chart.

That's going to be really tricky, though, there needs to be some concrete criteria. Because, for example, those AC2 assassination contracts? Technically they're absolutely open ended. You can kill that random guy walking on the street with the hidden blade. With a knife. With pistol. You can smoke bomb him and then kill him. You can poison him. You can send mercenaries on him. Etc. But it wouldn't be better than, let's say, ACU's Notre Dame assassination mission, which might have some restrictions.

EmbodyingSeven5
03-15-2015, 10:01 PM
AC II was instantly beaten by Brotherhood, lol. Every game that came after is better....

ACB is better than AC II
ACR is better than AC II
AC III is better than AC II
AC IV is DEFINITELY better than AC II.
ACU is slightly better than AC II
heck, AC I's story is better than AC II's

AC II was a step back in a lot of stuff.

Why would my jimmies be rustled? Most people here agree that AC II was topped by a lot of games. The only one whose jimmies I think are rustled is OP. You wanna think AC II is the best? Okay, good for you. Seeking confirmation for your opinion is kind of insecure, to be honest. It's a diplomatic way of flaunting your opinion. Others on YT and FB are not as diplomatic. They **** on you for saying anything remotely negative about AC II.
https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/4096632064/hDA11C9E2/

TO_M
03-15-2015, 10:03 PM
That's going to be really tricky, though, there needs to be some concrete criteria. Because, for example, those AC2 assassination contracts? Technically they're absolutely open ended. You can kill that random guy walking on the street with the hidden blade. With a knife. With pistol. You can smoke bomb him and then kill him. You can poison him. You can send mercenaries on him. Etc. But it wouldn't be better than, let's say, ACU's Notre Dame assassination mission, which might have some restrictions.

Couldn't you compare the relative amount of options available for a kill/mission? So let's say, for that random AC2 assassination contract you can use 80 percent of available actions/tools to kill the target(Although then you'd have to figure out how to define available actions/tools) then you could compare with the percentage of available options in the Sivert assassination.

Although I'm probably oversimplyfing this a lot

Assassin_M
03-15-2015, 10:36 PM
Couldn't you compare the relative amount of options available for a kill/mission? So let's say, for that random AC2 assassination contract you can use 80 percent of available actions/tools to kill the target(Although then you'd have to figure out how to define available actions/tools) then you could compare with the percentage of available options in the Sivert assassination.

Although I'm probably oversimplyfing this a lot
That wouldn't work, since you could say that for the contracts of AC III. You can use any tool you want, kill from anywhere, approach how you like..etc.



Regarding the statistics, that's only for the main campaign. 61% for side content w/ AC2, 21% for AC3. And w/ everything added, AC2 triumphs by 18%. AND, AC3 had 338 missions total, whereas AC2 had 278, so AC3's the worse offender, IMO.
Well, yes, I was talking about the main campaign when I mentioned it. As Farlander said, AC II wins with the side content because there's 30 of the contracts. Quality wise, AC III has MUCH better side missions. Sure, AC III's contracts are nothing to behold but everything else from Kidd missions to Liberation missions to Forts is heaps better than the contracts of AC II.


Come on, man, fun is very subjective. We can't have a valid debate if we were comparing how fun we think they are. AC3's missions were too linear and restrictive, I couldn't have fun. The game felt like it was playing itself. And the glitches, bugs, flawed stealth mechanics didn't help during those rare moments of open opportunities. At its most entertaining, I'm just snickering at the dialog during cut-scenes.
This whole discussion is subjective. We can't objectively say that linearity is bad. A lot of people like linearity and cinematic experiences. It has a lot of pros. I really didn't have any glitches with AC III, either, I had more glitches in AC II. Every experience is subjective. Most of the time in AC II, I felt like I was on rails. Even the open missions felt that way, whereas in AC III, while there are terribly designed missions, when the game opened, I never felt like I was on rails. What I'm trying to say is, AC III was explicit in its linearity while AC II was giving an illusion of openness.

TO_M
03-15-2015, 11:21 PM
That wouldn't work, since you could say that for the contracts of AC III. You can use any tool you want, kill from anywhere, approach how you like..etc.


Well technically speaking you could say the assassination contracts in AC3 are pretty non-linear/open-ended, it's just that they're really boring and no context is provided (if I remember correct).

But I get your point that it would skew the results somewhat.

Deezl-V
03-16-2015, 12:18 AM
I, for one, think AC2 isn't a game that stands on its own. But as a whole with acB and acR, then yes. I consider ac2, acB and acR as one game just cuz of the same character play through and with the same story (his life journey).

DumbGamerTag94
03-16-2015, 02:18 AM
I, for one, think AC2 isn't a game that stands on its own. But as a whole with acB and acR, then yes. I consider ac2, acB and acR as one game just cuz of the same character play through and with the same story (his life journey).

Ehhhhh I don't like to put ACR in there. Because it was just completely unnecessary and irrelevant. AC2 and ACB are just a continuation of the same game since ACB continues the same plot from AC2 exactly where it left of. ACR on the other hand is not connected to the other two at all aside from the presence of Ezio. Not to mention its a region he has very vague and convoluted reasoning to be in. An Italian in the Middle East in his old age. For no other reason than that the Mid East was used before in the series and Ezio was a very popular character.

They had to crank out a yearly release and so the pushed out that steaming pile called ACR by just combining those old assets. Throw in a worthless bomb mechanic and make parkour too easy with a hook blade and bam. New game. It was so ****ty and rushed they didn't even have a good MD explanation to go there. So they pulled a page out of daytime soap operas and made the main character go into a coma(the cheesiest way ever to completely stall a plot line and go on a sidebar story). It was funny. I didn't know if I was playing AC or watching All My Children or Days of Our Lives. The only thing missing was a crazy plot element or forced twists for no real reason but shock value. Things like an evil twin or or finding out a longtime lover betrayed and cheated on you......oh wait ACR had that too!!! Clay was in a sense Desmond's evil twin. He had gone insane and had exactly the same experiences as Desmond. As for betrayal and unfaithful love interest. The big revelation of Revelation was that Lucy was actually a Templar working for viddic the whole time!!!! So that's there too.

The only way it could have been more stupid and soap opera like would be if there were a huge amount of unexplained and quickly ignored plot points. Well actually ACR has that too. Like the Templar satellite mission. Or Desmond's "son" which was waved away by saying clay was crazy. Or maybe there could have been something just out there and stupid to make it more like a soap opera. Something like the main character waking up from a coma at the most convenient/important moment possible......oh......wait.....it has that too.

Damn. ACRevelations is a Soap Opera.

So yes. ACR was a pointless, unnecessary, cheesy, recycled, Soap Opera that had nothing to do with the rest of the series other than for fan service and cash cow milking. It sucked and is by far and away the single worst entry in the series. Hell even Liberation, Freedom Cry, Tyranny of King Washington, Bloodlines, and Altïars Chronicles were all better games.

Cue the barrage of Godzio desiples who will deny all of this and disagree simply because of their purely subjective love of their precious Ezio. Who can do no wrong even when a game clearly crams him in for a quick cash grab.

Kaschra
03-16-2015, 03:02 AM
Ehhhhh I don't like to put ACR in there. Because it was just completely unnecessary and irrelevant. AC2 and ACB are just a continuation of the same game since ACB continues the same plot from AC2 exactly where it left of. ACR on the other hand is not connected to the other two at all aside from the presence of Ezio. Not to mention its a region he has very vague and convoluted reasoning to be in. An Italian in the Middle East in his old age. For no other reason than that the Mid East was used before in the series and Ezio was a very popular character.

They had to crank out a yearly release and so the pushed out that steaming pile called ACR by just combining those old assets. Throw in a worthless bomb mechanic and make parkour too easy with a hook blade and bam. New game. It was so ****ty and rushed they didn't even have a good MD explanation to go there. So they pulled a page out of daytime soap operas and made the main character go into a coma(the cheesiest way ever to completely stall a plot line and go on a sidebar story). It was funny. I didn't know if I was playing AC or watching All My Children or Days of Our Lives. The only thing missing was a crazy plot element or forced twists for no real reason but shock value. Things like an evil twin or or finding out a longtime lover betrayed and cheated on you......oh wait ACR had that too!!! Clay was in a sense Desmond's evil twin. He had gone insane and had exactly the same experiences as Desmond. As for betrayal and unfaithful love interest. The big revelation of Revelation was that Lucy was actually a Templar working for viddic the whole time!!!! So that's there too.

The only way it could have been more stupid and soap opera like would be if there were a huge amount of unexplained and quickly ignored plot points. Well actually ACR has that too. Like the Templar satellite mission. Or Desmond's "son" which was waved away by saying clay was crazy. Or maybe there could have been something just out there and stupid to make it more like a soap opera. Something like the main character waking up from a coma at the most convenient/important moment possible......oh......wait.....it has that too.

Damn. ACRevelations is a Soap Opera.

So yes. ACR was a pointless, unnecessary, cheesy, recycled, Soap Opera that had nothing to do with the rest of the series other than for fan service and cash cow milking. It sucked and is by far and away the single worst entry in the series. Hell even Liberation, Freedom Cry, Tyranny of King Washington, Bloodlines, and Altïars Chronicles were all better games.

Cue the barrage of Godzio desiples who will deny all of this and disagree simply because of their purely subjective love of their precious Ezio. Who can do no wrong even when a game clearly crams him in for a quick cash grab.

Soooo... if I say that I really like Revelations and that it's my fave Ezio game, I'm pretty much a mindless Godzio disciples?

SixKeys
03-16-2015, 08:21 AM
If a game impresses you in one aspect enough, you can still love it despite its flaws.

For example.

Prototype and Remember Me are like in my top 10 games. And in top 3 unique recent games.

Why? Because I LOOOOOOVE Prototypes gameplay and I LOOOOOVE the world/story of Remember Me.

But Prototype has terribad story and Remember Me has terribad gameplay.


But then they're not messes. A mess, to me, is when everything is unforgivably flawed. I recognize the weaknesses in my favorite games, but they must have enough redeeming aspects for me to not consider them messy. Unity had a weak story and a lot of bugs, but excellent gameplay, beautiful graphics, lots of immersive details and entertaining co-op. The good outweigh the bad IMO. Whereas in games like AC3 the bad outweigh the good and almost nothing works the way it should. AC3, to me, is a proper mess, the others aren't.

pirate1802
03-16-2015, 08:22 AM
Oh, **** me in the keyhole.

eww dude

Deezl-V
03-16-2015, 02:30 PM
Ehhhhh I don't like to put ACR in there. Because it was just completely unnecessary and irrelevant. AC2 and ACB are just a continuation of the same game since ACB continues the same plot from AC2 exactly where it left of. ACR on the other hand is not connected to the other two at all aside from the presence of Ezio. Not to mention its a region he has very vague and convoluted reasoning to be in. An Italian in the Middle East in his old age. For no other reason than that the Mid East was used before in the series and Ezio was a very popular character.

They had to crank out a yearly release and so the pushed out that steaming pile called ACR by just combining those old assets. Throw in a worthless bomb mechanic and make parkour too easy with a hook blade and bam. New game. It was so ****ty and rushed they didn't even have a good MD explanation to go there. So they pulled a page out of daytime soap operas and made the main character go into a coma(the cheesiest way ever to completely stall a plot line and go on a sidebar story). It was funny. I didn't know if I was playing AC or watching All My Children or Days of Our Lives. The only thing missing was a crazy plot element or forced twists for no real reason but shock value. Things like an evil twin or or finding out a longtime lover betrayed and cheated on you......oh wait ACR had that too!!! Clay was in a sense Desmond's evil twin. He had gone insane and had exactly the same experiences as Desmond. As for betrayal and unfaithful love interest. The big revelation of Revelation was that Lucy was actually a Templar working for viddic the whole time!!!! So that's there too.

The only way it could have been more stupid and soap opera like would be if there were a huge amount of unexplained and quickly ignored plot points. Well actually ACR has that too. Like the Templar satellite mission. Or Desmond's "son" which was waved away by saying clay was crazy. Or maybe there could have been something just out there and stupid to make it more like a soap opera. Something like the main character waking up from a coma at the most convenient/important moment possible......oh......wait.....it has that too.

Damn. ACRevelations is a Soap Opera.

So yes. ACR was a pointless, unnecessary, cheesy, recycled, Soap Opera that had nothing to do with the rest of the series other than for fan service and cash cow milking. It sucked and is by far and away the single worst entry in the series. Hell even Liberation, Freedom Cry, Tyranny of King Washington, Bloodlines, and Altïars Chronicles were all better games.

Cue the barrage of Godzio desiples who will deny all of this and disagree simply because of their purely subjective love of their precious Ezio. Who can do no wrong even when a game clearly crams him in for a quick cash grab.

Unnecessary and irrelevant? Hmm. Kinda like your post. Lol. But I'll tell you why your assessment is totally off basis. Acr was more about the brotherhood than about revenge he had from ac2 and b. It was about the end result. The apple of Eden. It's where the story goes with more of a story and history than about hits and kills. Acr's story is what I loved most about it. How it finally connected ezio to Altair and the whole quest of his life. It was more than just a game, it went beyond that, and that's what I loved most about acr over ac2 and b. You grew with ezio, not only through his loss of his family, but his gain of knowledge, wisdom and maturity. That's why ezio will always be the most favorite assassin. Every other assassin is a game "you're him start fighting now" kinda game. There is no connection to the assassin as a person. That's the difference, for me at least.

phoenix-force411
03-16-2015, 03:13 PM
ACB would be my most overrated game ever with ACIV being second to my list of overrated games.

SixKeys
03-16-2015, 03:50 PM
Unnecessary and irrelevant? Hmm. Kinda like your post. Lol. But I'll tell you why your assessment is totally off basis. Acr was more about the brotherhood than about revenge he had from ac2 and b. It was about the end result. The apple of Eden. It's where the story goes with more of a story and history than about hits and kills. Acr's story is what I loved most about it. How it finally connected ezio to Altair and the whole quest of his life. It was more than just a game, it went beyond that, and that's what I loved most about acr over ac2 and b. You grew with ezio, not only through his loss of his family, but his gain of knowledge, wisdom and maturity. That's why ezio will always be the most favorite assassin. Every other assassin is a game "you're him start fighting now" kinda game. There is no connection to the assassin as a person. That's the difference, for me at least.

Can you tell me this: what important information did we learn in ACR that we did not already know from the other games?

Jackdaw951
03-18-2015, 02:15 PM
Negative question with a yes-or-no answer. How not to word a poll 101.

No! AC4 is my fave.

ze_topazio
03-18-2015, 02:37 PM
Can you tell me this: what important information did we learn in ACR that we did not already know from the other games?

ACR was a expensive way of putting in perspective what any player paying minimal attention to the plot of the previous three game should know.

Something they could have easily done in the opening sequence of AC3 instead

They could have taken a break that year, giving people time to breath

The ACR team could have helped with AC3 instead

AC3 could have been a better game thanks to that

The wonderful city of Constantinople would not have been wasted in what was basically an expansion pack

Same for the fascinating Ottoman empire

Shahkulu101
03-18-2015, 03:28 PM
I remember some people on the wiki (or was it here?) saying that ACR should have been called Assassin's Creed: Confirmations.

I thought that was apt.

Megas_Doux
03-18-2015, 03:30 PM
ACR was a mobile game turned into a full $60 one with a cool story and a beautiful city. If anything I would have released ACB as the DLC orginally planned and may be Revelations as the full game, both are cash crabs though.

Templar_Az
03-18-2015, 09:05 PM
Can you tell me this: what important information did we learn in ACR that we did not already know from the other games?

Use your bloody brain, we learnt about the Ottomans, Byzantines and the history of Constantinople. That's what these games are about; History.

Stupid face.

SixKeys
03-18-2015, 10:03 PM
Use your bloody brain, we learnt about the Ottomans, Byzantines and the history of Constantinople. That's what these games are about; History.

Stupid face.

Lol calm yo tits.

If I wanted to learn about the Ottomans, I'd pick up a history book. These games are not only about history, they have their own fictional lore and an overarching modern day plot. What important information did we learn about Desmond and his quest to save the world that we didn't already know?

Hans684
03-19-2015, 05:43 AM
Lol calm yo tits.

If I wanted to learn about the Ottomans, I'd pick up a history book. These games are not only about history, they have their own fictional lore and an overarching modern day plot. What important information did we learn about Desmond and his quest to save the world that we didn't already know?

Got him out of coma, can't save the world when in coma.

king-hailz
03-19-2015, 02:29 PM
AC2 is kinda the only one I like. The only reason I liked the others is because of what AC2 gave to me! On their own the other games don't really mean anything to me. Other than black flag (I liked sailing!) But I wouldn't mind if ac2 was the last game the made.


AC2 is kinda the only one I like. The only reason I liked the others is because of what AC2 gave to me! On their own the other games don't really mean anything to me. Other than black flag (I liked sailing!) But I wouldn't mind if ac2 was the last game the made.

AC2 hyped me so much for the series and that hype is still there which isn't a good thing because I am still waiting for it to give me what I wanted at the end of AC2!

Namikaze_17
03-19-2015, 02:43 PM
^ Did you just quote yourself?

SixKeys
03-19-2015, 03:09 PM
Got him out of coma, can't save the world when in coma.

That's not new information. :p My point was that Desmond didn't learn anything new while in a coma. They could have skipped straight from the end of ACB to the beginning of AC3, have William say something like "I sure am glad you woke up from that coma in the van, son. Now what's next?" and the story would have been exactly the same.

wvstolzing
03-19-2015, 03:30 PM
Not to mention, that they cut off the *only* portions that had any *direct* relevance to ACB's MD, to release at an additional cost of $10. The writers themselves were pissed off at this, as it was revealed on loomer's podcast.

Farlander1991
03-19-2015, 04:04 PM
That's not new information. :p My point was that Desmond didn't learn anything new while in a coma. They could have skipped straight from the end of ACB to the beginning of AC3, have William say something like "I sure am glad you woke up from that coma in the van, son. Now what's next?" and the story would have been exactly the same.

I believe (pretty much ever since AC3 release) the whole coma thing was created for the flow into the Haytham sequences, as it makes sense that in a coma some random memories would start playing.

Only the purpose of the Haytham sequences (finding the exact location of the Temple) was rendered moot by the DaVinci DLC (which showed its coordinates), and the coma thing was essentially one of the few things that could be lended to ACR from AC3 (the other were Lucy and Subject 16).

But since there was no coma in AC3 anymore, and they had to trigger somehow the Haytham memories (Because why the hell would the team start looking at them on their own?), they pulled the whole 'activating bleeding effect' ********, which was a kind of thing that was supposed to be fixed by the stuff happened in ACR >_< (not that I'd want it to be fixed, I think it'd be much more interesting if Desmond was going crazy due to the bleeding effect, but, well, in the games themselves it was supposedly fixed).

Hans684
03-19-2015, 05:11 PM
That's not new information. :p

Isn't it? I must be living under a rock.


My point was that Desmond didn't learn anything new while in a coma.

He didn't relive memories to learn history(he used it it get skills) and a curtain price at the end(Map, message, Apple & out of coma). His price in revelations is reaching sync nexus and because if that gets out if coma.


They could have skipped straight from the end of ACB to the beginning of AC3, have William say something like "I sure am glad you woke up from that coma in the van, son. Now what's next?" and the story would have been exactly the same.

True.

M3gaToxic
03-19-2015, 06:22 PM
Actually I like AC3 more then AC2. Though clear by the poll not everyone feels the same way.

lothario-da-be
03-19-2015, 09:44 PM
I enjoyed every AC after ac2 more up to black flag. Even though ACR was much shorter I had a blast playing it. ACB was an updated version of ac2 so that one was also more enjoyable for me. AC3 had a much more interesting story, and thats why I play AC. Black Flag was amazing and it's open world still hasn't lost my attention.
So yeah AC2 is by far not my favourite AC game.

M3gaToxic
03-19-2015, 10:48 PM
I enjoyed every AC after ac2 more up to black flag. Even though ACR was much shorter I had a blast playing it. ACB was an updated version of ac2 so that one was also more enjoyable for me. AC3 had a much more interesting story, and thats why I play AC. Black Flag was amazing and it's open world still hasn't lost my attention.
So yeah AC2 is by far not my favourite AC game.
Oh snap man you have a Connor sequel FB page! Nice I would like another with him but first a female protagonist. (that is another thread of mine). Got a twitter for the Connor Sequel?

pirate1802
03-20-2015, 07:22 AM
Dunno how people say ACB felt like an updated version of AC2. To me it felt more like a mutilated version of AC2. A way shorter story, a bland city (personal opinion, yes. But Rome felt surprisingly drab to me, not at all what I had imagined and not just because of the depressing Borgia rule. Call me crazy but I prefer Boston to Rome :| ) and lots and lots of useless fluff to pump it full, to hide that otherwise it's barebones at best. The fact that it was once a DLC shows, and rather painfully.

Not to mention that 2010 was the first time I felt as if AC has changed gears and gone into the low-on content factory production mode that we see it in now.

Shahkulu101
03-20-2015, 02:08 PM
Dunno how people say ACB felt like an updated version of AC2. To me it felt more like a mutilated version of AC2. A way shorter story, a bland city (personal opinion, yes. But Rome felt surprisingly drab to me, not at all what I had imagined and not just because of the depressing Borgia rule. Call me crazy but I prefer Boston to Rome :| ) and lots and lots of useless fluff to pump it full, to hide that otherwise it's barebones at best. The fact that it was once a DLC shows, and rather painfully.

Not to mention that 2010 was the first time I felt as if AC has changed gears and gone into the low-on content factory production mode that we see it in now.

Useless fluff? It had the most meaningful and fun side content in my opinion, and the collectibles were tame compared to later titles.

Oh and Rome's lovely. You're high, Pirate.

x.Angel.x
03-20-2015, 08:33 PM
AC2 was a very good game but IMO not the best for example AC4:BF, AC:Rogue even ACU have way better things, I'd say the Ezio Saga (AC2, ACB and ACR) yes is still the best of Assassins Creed but the 3 games not just one.

=)

Sabutto
03-21-2015, 08:03 AM
Black flag and rogue came really close

but ac2 still on top imo

pirate1802
03-28-2015, 09:31 PM
Useless fluff? It had the most meaningful and fun side content in my opinion, and the collectibles were tame compared to later titles.

Oh and Rome's lovely. You're high, Pirate.

Well maybe not useless, but come on, the story was like three sequences worth, and the game felt as big as it seemed only because of the loads of side content. that's what I meant.

And I tried getting high once, and then looking at Rome. But unfortunately it looked exactly as boring as I last remembered.

Shahkulu101
03-29-2015, 12:15 AM
Well maybe not useless, but come on, the story was like three sequences worth, and the game felt as big as it seemed only because of the loads of side content. that's what I meant.

And I tried getting high once, and then looking at Rome. But unfortunately it looked exactly as boring as I last remembered.

Meh, games are far too big nowadays anyway - BH is focused and tightly packed with side missions that aren't excessive and a main story that doesn't drag on longer than it needs to. But that gripe is understandable since the game was still full price, so fair enough I suppose. I just wish more games were smaller and cheaper.

Can you tell me how it was boring? The buildings were pretty much the same as AC2 and the landmarks and ancient ruins were stunning. Not to mention the ambient music made it stunningly atmospheric. Thinking about it reminds me of how much I love it, feel like replaying it now.

Assassin_M
03-29-2015, 12:25 AM
Can you tell me how it was boring? The buildings were pretty much the same as AC2 and the landmarks and ancient ruins were stunning. Not to mention the ambient music made it stunningly atmospheric. Thinking about it reminds me of how much I love it, feel like replaying it now.
How should I put it......it's just bland. Nothing stands out. Maybe that it's like AC II is what's causing the problem for some. To me, it didn't feel like AC II cities at all. Venice was colorful and it had the canals. You can feel the Renaissance art in the architecture of Florence, not to mention that it's home. it feels like home. Rome? It just doesn't feel special. Nothing stands out to me. The ruins? They felt too samey. There's good samey and bad samey. Rome is bad samey. Florence is good samey. The architecture is the later Baroque, even though Rome's buildings would have been more akin to Florence at that time. Perhaps I would have liked it more if they went with accuracy, I don't know.

The music is amazing but it just didn't help the city stand out to me.

Just my 2 cents.

Shahkulu101
03-29-2015, 12:31 AM
How should I put it......it's just bland. Nothing stands out. Maybe that it's like AC II is what's causing the problem for some. To me, it didn't feel like AC II cities at all. Venice was colorful and it had the canals. You can feel the Renaissance art in the architecture of Florence, not to mention that it's home. it feels like home. Rome? It just doesn't feel special. Nothing stands out to me. The ruins? They felt too samey. There's good samey and bad samey. Rome is bad samey. Florence is good samey. The architecture is the later Baroque, even though Rome's buildings would have been more akin to Florence at that time. Perhaps I would have liked it more if they went with accuracy, I don't know.

The music is amazing but it just didn't help the city stand out to me.

Just my 2 cents.

Wonder why they used non-existing archeticture when the (nicer) Florence-esque archeticture would be more realistic. Anyway, not all the buildings are like that, the richer districts are much more vibrant looking. It was a bit samey in parts though, but then so is Constantinople.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I-Like-Pie45
03-29-2015, 12:35 AM
You think about everything, M, ha ha ha.

RinoTheBouncer
03-29-2015, 12:37 AM
I think it would be more fair to say "Nothing can beat Ezio's trilogy", because to me, the whole package was epic. I loved ACII so much because there was so much going on and it introduced a wonderful new protagonist, bigger cities, longer gameplay and much more new events, but AC:B also had some epic moments, and it really felt like it was a chunk taken out of ACII. AC:R was wonderful due to the huge amount of emotional moments, warm atmosphere, vibrant city and amazing character development and story, so I'd have to say that the whole trilogy offered me the best AC experience to date.

I don't hate any AC game. There isn't an AC game that felt "bad" to me, only most and least favorite, and ACII with its two sequels are my most favorites, closely followed by ACIII and ACI.

Assassin_M
03-29-2015, 12:37 AM
Wonder why they used non-existing archeticture when the (nicer) Florence-esque archeticture would be more realistic.
To remove any feeling of familiarity. It's a smart move.


Anyway, not all the buildings are like that, the richer districts are much more vibrant looking.
Those are EXACTLY the districts I disliked. The richer ones, closer to Il Vaticano. The city there felt more like a studio, then an actual sprawling city. The market stalls were too organized, too well placed. The well organized stone floor didn't help either. It felt like this was a set or a stage.


It was a bit samey in parts though, but then so is Constantinople.
Good samey, bad samey, yaw. I admit, it's a dumb thing to say in argument, but really it is how it is for me.


Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Sure.


You think about everything, M, ha ha ha.
Terrible habit.

SixKeys
03-29-2015, 02:33 AM
How should I put it......it's just bland. Nothing stands out. Maybe that it's like AC II is what's causing the problem for some. To me, it didn't feel like AC II cities at all. Venice was colorful and it had the canals. You can feel the Renaissance art in the architecture of Florence, not to mention that it's home. it feels like home. Rome? It just doesn't feel special. Nothing stands out to me. The ruins? They felt too samey. There's good samey and bad samey. Rome is bad samey. Florence is good samey. The architecture is the later Baroque, even though Rome's buildings would have been more akin to Florence at that time. Perhaps I would have liked it more if they went with accuracy, I don't know.

The music is amazing but it just didn't help the city stand out to me.

Just my 2 cents.

We seem to have very differing opinions on the cities. I'm not attempting to change yours, just sharing mine. To me Venice is one of the most boring cities in the whole series. It's not colorful at all due to the blue filter and it's too big for its own good. Some of the missions are spread too far out seemingly just to make you spend more time running from one end of the city to the other. It's especially dumb with some of the timed pigeon coop contracts (kill target X within this time limit) because they don't seem to take your location into account. You get the same 2 minutes to get to your target's location no matter where in the city you are.

Florence is all right, but doesn't feel like home to me the same way Monteriggioni and Tuscany do. Rome feels more like home too. Its architecture is pretty samey, but I also remember each district having its own flavor. A lot of open grassland near La Volpe's hideout, ancient ruins near the Colosseum, poor, rundown area near Juan Borgia's party palace, rich, magnificent architecture near the Sistine Chapel etc. While it's bigger than Venice, Rome oddly feels more cozy and compact to me, maybe because in ACB the timed missions do take your location into consideration, IIRC. (Giving you time to get to a particular starting point before beginning the countdown.)

Assassin_M
03-29-2015, 02:44 AM
We seem to have very differing opinions on the cities. I'm not attempting to change yours, just sharing mine.
Come on, man. We're way past this now. Or at least I think we should be, right? right? This whole "i'm only explaining my opinion" thing. We're bros now. Bros who might tear each other to shreds in a heated debate but bros nonetheless.....or if you want to be really progressive, then sistas. I have been the queen of this forum before, so.


To me Venice is one of the most boring cities in the whole series. It's not colorful at all due to the blue filter and it's too big for its own good. Some of the missions are spread too far out seemingly just to make you spend more time running from one end of the city to the other. It's especially dumb with some of the timed pigeon coop contracts (kill target X within this time limit) because they don't seem to take your location into account. You get the same 2 minutes to get to your target's location no matter where in the city you are.
Well, I played in Venice without the filter and, dang, is the blue filter REALLY sucking the beauty of it. Shahk said it once when I posted the unfiltered images. "Venice goes from 'meh' to perhaps being the most beautiful city in the franchise". And I agree with you both. The filter is terrible but there's also the feeling of it being a sprawling city. I have this weird criteria that an AC city has to fill.

1) It can't EVER be clean.
2) It absolutely needs merchants calling
3) It cannot be organized aesthetically

Venice checks that entire criteria. The bustling fish markets, the terribly uneven streets, the dirtiness of some districts, it all makes me feel like i'm in an actual city.





Florence is all right, but doesn't feel like home to me the same way Monteriggioni and Tuscany do. Rome feels more like home too. Its architecture is pretty samey, but I also remember each district having its own flavor. A lot of open grassland near La Volpe's hideout, ancient ruins near the Colosseum, poor, rundown area near Juan Borgia's party palace, rich, magnificent architecture near the Sistine Chapel etc. While it's bigger than Venice, Rome oddly feels more cozy and compact to me, maybe because in ACB the timed missions do take your location into consideration, IIRC. (Giving you time to get to a particular starting point before beginning the countdown.)
I actually like the countryside of Rome. The tiny villages and towns fill my criteria for being in an AC city. The city of Rome itself just feels too organized.

SixKeys
03-29-2015, 03:12 AM
Come on, man. We're way past this now. Or at least I think we should be, right? right? This whole "i'm only explaining my opinion" thing. We're bros now. Bros who might tear each other to shreds in a heated debate but bros nonetheless.....or if you want to be really progressive, then sistas. I have been the queen of this forum before, so.

Not sure what you mean. Are you criticizing me for explaining my opinion or saying you don't mind?



Well, I played in Venice without the filter and, dang, is the blue filter REALLY sucking the beauty of it. Shahk said it once when I posted the unfiltered images. "Venice goes from 'meh' to perhaps being the most beautiful city in the franchise".

Meh, having no filter makes a difference for the colors, but not the overall feeling I get from the city. Different tastes and all that.


I have this weird criteria that an AC city has to fill.

2) It absolutely needs merchants calling

AC3 and AC4 didn't have merchants calling IIRC. :p Since shops were mostly indoors by then.


Venice checks that entire criteria. The bustling fish markets, the terribly uneven streets, the dirtiness of some districts, it all makes me feel like i'm in an actual city.

I do like the streets, but to me Venice does feel too clean. Maybe it's the filter that creates that impression, I dunno. Everything is shiny and white and silvery, almost too grand, like a glittering, romanticized version of Venice (that water is nasty IRL, but it looks pure and beautiful in the game). I'm much more of a fan of smaller cities like Forlí where buildings look so drab and wet you almost feel like you could reach out and feel damp moss on your hand. In Venice it doesn't feel like there are people living in those beautiful buildings, it feels like the buildings are built for decoration and all actual life happens inexplicably on the streets. Whereas in the smaller cities I can actually imagine poor people arranging their little cottages (with small touches like flower pots beside the door), working hard to make a living etc. Rome doesn't feel like one huge city to me, it feels like a collection of many small villages (districts) which makes all the difference.

ze_topazio
03-29-2015, 03:25 AM
I have been the queen of this forum before, so.

I still remember that Justin Bieber sig. http://i.imgur.com/o7LIoIS.gif

Fatal-Feit
03-29-2015, 03:27 AM
I agree w/ SixKeys about Venice's feeling too clean. To me, it feels almost otherwordly. Like, a fantasy city on clouds. Mr.Clean's wet dream. A lot of that has to do w/ the ambient music and filter.

ze_topazio
03-29-2015, 03:33 AM
I liked that, the first two games had that, each city had a rather dreamy feel about them, I don't know how to explain, I ain't no poet, but it's like we were truly looking at the past through some magic time space window, it helped with the illusion that we were using a time machine to take a peak in to the past but the image ain't perfect, kinda like one of those blurry photos from the mid XIX century, I don't know how to explain much better than this, sorry... lol

Jexx21
03-29-2015, 04:29 AM
I liked that, the first two games had that, each city had a rather dreamy feel about them, I don't know how to explain, I ain't no poet, but it's like we were truly looking at the past through some magic time space window, it helped with the illusion that we were using a time machine to take a peak in to the past but the image ain't perfect, kinda like one of those blurry photos from the mid XIX century, I don't know how to explain much better than this, sorry... lol

It's because of the foggy/smoggy/cloudy filter over all of the cities in both games. I hated it.

Jexx21
03-29-2015, 04:32 AM
all of your opinions suck

AC1 > AC2 > ACB = ACR > AC3 > AC4 > I dunno haven't played Rogue or Unity

Assassin_M
03-29-2015, 05:59 AM
Not sure what you mean. Are you criticizing me for explaining my opinion or saying you don't mind?
What? I'm saying you don't have to say "i'm only explaining my opinion", because I know that. The whole "my opinion" thing should be default now.


AC3 and AC4 didn't have merchants calling IIRC. :p Since shops were mostly indoors by then.
Oh they did, they did. The large, open markets around Boston and Kingston, hang around those. It's why I like Boston so much.


I do like the streets, but to me Venice does feel too clean. Maybe it's the filter that creates that impression, I dunno. Everything is shiny and white and silvery, almost too grand, like a glittering, romanticized version of Venice (that water is nasty IRL, but it looks pure and beautiful in the game). I'm much more of a fan of smaller cities like Forlí where buildings look so drab and wet you almost feel like you could reach out and feel damp moss on your hand. In Venice it doesn't feel like there are people living in those beautiful buildings, it feels like the buildings are built for decoration and all actual life happens inexplicably on the streets. Whereas in the smaller cities I can actually imagine poor people arranging their little cottages (with small touches like flower pots beside the door), working hard to make a living etc. Rome doesn't feel like one huge city to me, it feels like a collection of many small villages (districts) which makes all the difference.
Well, let me tell you that that feeling is TOTALLY gone without the blue filter. At least, in my experience.

What is it with you people? I say AC II sucks, you disagree with me. I say I love Venice and Florence, you disagree with me. Why can I never be agreed with?

Namikaze_17
03-29-2015, 06:10 AM
Why can I never be agreed with?

I agree with you... :rolleyes:


http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af244/FiercelyNormal/SPN%202/Shoulder-pat_zps8b016b9a.gif (http://s1012.photobucket.com/user/FiercelyNormal/media/SPN%202/Shoulder-pat_zps8b016b9a.gif.html)

Assassin_M
03-29-2015, 06:13 AM
I agree with you... :rolleyes:


http://i1012.photobucket.com/albums/af244/FiercelyNormal/SPN 2/Shoulder-pat_zps8b016b9a.gif (http://s1012.photobucket.com/user/FiercelyNormal/media/SPN 2/Shoulder-pat_zps8b016b9a.gif.html)
http://replygif.net/i/1276.gif

SixKeys
03-29-2015, 07:01 AM
What? I'm saying you don't have to say "i'm only explaining my opinion", because I know that. The whole "my opinion" thing should be default now.

Oh, okay. I just didn't want to give the impression I was saying you were wrong or trying to start an argument.


What is it with you people? I say AC II sucks, you disagree with me. I say I love Venice and Florence, you disagree with me. Why can I never be agreed with?

That's because you like and dislike the wrong things. ;)

Fatal-Feit
03-29-2015, 07:13 AM
What is it with you people? I say AC II sucks, you disagree with me. I say I love Venice and Florence, you disagree with me. Why can I never be agreed with?

I agree w/ you that AC2 ''sucks'', but I disagree w/ Venice being dirty. :p

Namikaze_17
03-29-2015, 07:29 AM
I agree w/ you that AC2 ''sucks'', but I disagree w/ Venice being dirty. :p


http://38.media.tumblr.com/0386e458da9d7a8a9e2856ba6011b713/tumblr_n5rri2K8nw1rno0x6o1_400.gif

IsAZebraACat
03-29-2015, 11:56 AM
I haven't played Unity, but I've enjoyed most of the other games more than 2.

My ranking would be:

#1 - Tie between Rogue/Liberation
#2 - Black Flag/Freedom Cry
#3 - AC 3
#4 - Everything else, including 2

nino__bruce
03-29-2015, 03:06 PM
AC2 is best,but I think AC3+ACL+AC4+ACFC+ACU+ACRogue > AC2+ACB+ACR

pacmanate
03-29-2015, 10:30 PM
AC4 beat AC2, I didn;t even think AC2 was as great as people say. AC2 - ACR were all "okay" for me. Nothing special, nothing sucky, just fun.

pirate1802
03-30-2015, 06:44 AM
Yeah AC3 & 4 did have calling merchants. 'The thrifty man's refuge' :p

Megas_Doux
03-30-2015, 06:58 PM
This is my top 5 list of cities:

1 Paris.
2 Constantinople.
3 Damascus.
4 Florence.
5 Acre.

Venice couldīve been in the top 3 with ease, If it wasnīt for that ugly washed blue filter. I have seen it without it and even though you see improvements, you still perceive the "influence" of it, what a shame :(



A way shorter story, a bland city (personal opinion, yes. But Rome felt surprisingly drab to me, not at all what I had imagined and not just because of the depressing Borgia rule. ......



How should I put it......it's just bland. Nothing stands out. Maybe that it's like AC II is what's causing the problem for some. To me, it didn't feel like AC II cities at all. Venice was colorful and it had the canals. You can feel the Renaissance art in the architecture of Florence, not to mention that it's home. it feels like home. Rome? It just doesn't feel special. Nothing stands out to me. The ruins? They felt too samey. There's good samey and bad samey. Rome is bad samey. Florence is good samey. The architecture is the later Baroque, even though Rome's buildings would have been more akin to Florence at that time. Perhaps I would have liked it more if they went with accuracy, I don't know.

The music is amazing but it just didn't help the city stand out to me.

Just my 2 cents.


Kinda late to the party, I know. However I agree with you here. You know, it might be the camera angle, but Romeīs buildings, both "normal ones" and landmarks alike -with the exception of the Colosseum- feel TOO downscaled. Ezio seems like a giant at times, plus as you said, the whole city is kinda samey. Another thing I dont like is that MOST is city -unlike Paris and Constantinople- is countryside, campagna district in particular being pretty bland in my book. I donīt like its color palette also.