PDA

View Full Version : Do you need to play Assasins Creed 1 before 2 and 3



cesnes
10-22-2010, 02:02 AM
Hello

Do you need to play Assasins Creed 1 before you play with Ezio in 2 and Brotherhood

cesnes
10-22-2010, 02:02 AM
Hello

Do you need to play Assasins Creed 1 before you play with Ezio in 2 and Brotherhood

bearsbball11
10-22-2010, 02:08 AM
No. Just watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mYlPTYkvGw

magesupermaster
10-22-2010, 02:15 AM
And it's not AC3, it's AC: Brotherhood..

DeafAtheist
10-22-2010, 03:39 AM
Not really. Ubisoft makes the games pretty accessible to new players so one could get into AC2 or ACB without having played earlier titles, but I'd recommend people at least play AC2 since it includes both Ezio's and Desmond's backgrounds. I'd really only recommend that new players to the franchise play AC1 if they play AC2 1st and they like it because AC2 is a much more enjoyable game experience because it's not as repetitive as AC1 is.

O6EvolutionIXMR
10-22-2010, 06:58 AM
Ask yourself this.

Would you be satisfied with watching a movie from the middle to the end?

DarkicoN14
10-22-2010, 07:03 AM
i would say yes. that video does explain it but actually playing the game explains alot more. but i mean its not expensive either the game is 15-20 dollars so pick it up then

Nick1021
10-22-2010, 09:41 AM
Don't play 1, it's horrible. But you should play 2 before ac:b

magesupermaster
10-22-2010, 10:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick1021:
Don't play 1, it's horrible. But you should play 2 before <STRIKE>ac:b</STRIKE> AC: Brotherhood </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't say it right away without thinking..

The first AC was like an experiment or a prototype.
It was originally an idea for a PoP game.

And when I first played AC, I loved it.
I ignored the repetitiveness and I didn't even notice it.
No matter what you will say, AC was the one who started this wonderful franchise.

Nick1021
10-22-2010, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by magesupermaster:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick1021:
Don't play 1, it's horrible. But you should play 2 before <STRIKE>ac:b</STRIKE> AC: Brotherhood </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't say it right away without thinking..

The first AC was like an experiment or a prototype.
It was originally an idea for a PoP game.

And when I first played AC, I loved it.
I ignored the repetitiveness and I didn't even notice it.
No matter what you will say, AC was the one who started this wonderful franchise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sure, without ac1 their would be no ac2. But in ac1 the guards were so bad. Like: They would block my hidden blade even though they have no suspicion of me what so ever. And I could just come up to a commander while he is talking to his guards and just stab him and no-one would suspect me, then I go away for 5 minutes and I decide to walk by the dead body(their were other civilians) and they would just start attacking me.

And it was VERY repetitive, I had it for 2 years. And I tried to beat it 5 times but I just couldn't, it was very very very boring.

Mr_Shade
10-22-2010, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick1021:
Don't play 1, it's horrible. But you should play 2 before ac:b </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I enjoyed it on PC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

At the time, it was a fresh style of gameplay - it may have aged slightly - but it's still great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

gazzagb
10-22-2010, 12:40 PM
Deffo play AC2, you can skip AC1 if you really want, but then make sure you read/watch something to fill you in on the details.

Nick1021
10-22-2010, 01:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nick1021:
Don't play 1, it's horrible. But you should play 2 before ac:b </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I enjoyed it on PC http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

At the time, it was a fresh style of gameplay - it may have aged slightly - but it's still great http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The only reason it was good at the time was because it was something new(which I also liked).
But now that their is ac2, their is no point in playing ac1. AC2 beats AC1 by everything(except for the civilian killing sprees).

Sparty2020
10-22-2010, 02:28 PM
It's like you arrive to a movie late. Do you care about the beginning enough to watch it later or do you just read it on wikipedia? Then again, the vid did a good job of giving the general idea, problem is it didn't include the character details or explained the gameplay much

itsamea-mario
10-22-2010, 03:18 PM
AC1 was not horrible, (though that is opinion therefore subjective)
sure playing AC2 for a while then playing AC1 you feel very underwhelmed, but if you've not played another game like it in a while, then theres no comparison therefore its very good.
AC1 had a sort of brutality in the fighting which AC2 never acheived.
theres much more of a stealth element, and alot more of a planning element to the missions, so long as you used your head.
despite having more basic graphics, they were in someways better than AC2, especially when looking at a landscape, there was a much greater sense of scale and grandeur.
the storyline was much more interesting, it provoked atleast a little though rather than just blasting some crazy star wars crap in ya face.
there was alot more charcter developement, with both allies and enemies.
the setting seemed more fitting than the renaisance, its what drew me into the game, the idea of some kind of arab using special skills and weapons to fight crusaders, seemed much more interesting than what AC2 showed in its trailers, and looking back it was more interesting.
sure there are gameplay faults but only when ypour mind is set on AC2 which is bound to have better gameplay considering it is the sequel.

Nick1021
10-22-2010, 04:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
AC1 was not horrible, (though that is opinion therefore subjective)
sure playing AC2 for a while then playing AC1 you feel very underwhelmed, but if you've not played another game like it in a while, then theres no comparison therefore its very good.
AC1 had a sort of brutality in the fighting which AC2 never acheived.
theres much more of a stealth element, and alot more of a planning element to the missions, so long as you used your head.
despite having more basic graphics, they were in someways better than AC2, especially when looking at a landscape, there was a much greater sense of scale and grandeur.
the storyline was much more interesting, it provoked atleast a little though rather than just blasting some crazy star wars crap in ya face.
there was alot more charcter developement, with both allies and enemies.
the setting seemed more fitting than the renaisance, its what drew me into the game, the idea of some kind of arab using special skills and weapons to fight crusaders, seemed much more interesting than what AC2 showed in its trailers, and looking back it was more interesting.
sure there are gameplay faults but only when ypour mind is set on AC2 which is bound to have better gameplay considering it is the sequel. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Their was a lot more stealth and planning in AC2 when killing an objective.
In AC1 your objective has this hearing, smelling, seeing thing where he can sense an assasin from a mile away, unless he is sitting down on a bench.
In ac2 the chases were even more fun, killing your target unnoticed and then using a smoke bomb to get a headstart and then start throwing money everywere to block guards.
In ac1 guards would chase you even if you were at the other side of the world, unless you hold your hands together or sit down.

itsamea-mario
10-22-2010, 04:30 PM
In AC2 you where told where the enemy was then it'd usually end in a fight or as chase anyway, so there was little point.
in AC1, the investigations actually told you something useful if anybody bothered to listen, it showed good routes to enter the area and good routes to escape by.
No, chases is AC2 where a piece of pi$$, all you need to do was be able to run faster, since the guards seemed to stop bothering after 5 seconds.
AC1 chases where more intense since they didn't give up as easy, theres more of an even match, you dont have gadgets to help you, and theres less stupid places to hide.
In AC2 guards would come after you for bumping into someone.
and all you need to do to escape from them is to magicly blend with a crowd of people.

i'm not at all saying AC1 is better than AC2, (nor worse)
im just saying it was a good game, even to this day its better than most new games.

Nick1021
10-22-2010, 09:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
In AC2 you where told where the enemy was then it'd usually end in a fight or as chase anyway, so there was little point.
in AC1, the investigations actually told you something useful if anybody bothered to listen, it showed good routes to enter the area and good routes to escape by.
No, chases is AC2 where a piece of pi$$, all you need to do was be able to run faster, since the guards seemed to stop bothering after 5 seconds.
AC1 chases where more intense since they didn't give up as easy, theres more of an even match, you dont have gadgets to help you, and theres less stupid places to hide.
In AC2 guards would come after you for bumping into someone.
and all you need to do to escape from them is to magicly blend with a crowd of people.

i'm not at all saying AC1 is better than AC2, (nor worse)
im just saying it was a good game, even to this day its better than most new games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Wow really? In ac1 they told you good routes? I usually did everything very sneaky and as soon as I was going to assassinate him he starts running. Never have I assassinated a person in ac1.
If they did tell you good routes then they sucked at delivering it because many people didn't even listen to him because he talks for 5 minutes straight.
And the chases were easier, but only because you have more gadgets. And when I'm assassinating some target I usually had to decide for myself. I used eagle vision, I memorized the guards patrol and I thought of a well plan.

itsamea-mario
10-23-2010, 08:48 AM
maybe cause AC wasn't aimed at mindless children with an attention span the width of a needle head.
If they ran away, its because you did it wrong, there are only two missions that i can think of where it is impossiblt to do a stealth assassination.
easier because you have more gadgets, and the guards must have the attention span as previously described, since simply running away without hiding at all or using any skill will convince them to give up.

magesupermaster
10-23-2010, 09:25 AM
AC was really hyped back then..
And after all the fuss, you were left to either love it or hate it.

I agree with mario, AC1 was based more on stealth than AC2, I even listened to the information and tried to follow it..

john63
10-23-2010, 10:44 AM
Yeah, AC1 gave a lot more information for planning your mission and executing it stealthily, then let you decide how to execute the mission. They gave positions of guards, architectural details that you could climb on, habits of your targets, maps for successful routes, etc. AC2 pretty-much dictated exactly how you HAD to do several of the missions. A few would desync you if you were seen (Uberto, Marco B, Jacopo P), a few targets would automatically see you and attack (Vieri P, Salviati) a few would automatically run (Francesco P, Carlo, Dante/Silvio). Only a few were up to your discretion. I missed that from AC1.

Nick1021
10-23-2010, 11:47 AM
Wow sounds ac1 was more stealthier. But seriously, it's not my attention span, the dude talks for like 5 minutes. But I have to agree with you guys for ac2. It was easier to assassinate, but I didn't go the easy way. In ac2 they give you two options. Charge towards your target while spamming smoke bombs, or planning and do it stealthy.

magesupermaster
10-23-2010, 12:38 PM
^So your attention span is way less than 5 minutes..
It must be hard being you..

bearsbball11
10-23-2010, 02:04 PM
To actually answer the question being asked here, you don't NEED to play AC1 before AC2/AC:B, but you may want to.

Nick1021
10-23-2010, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by magesupermaster:
^So your attention span is way less than 5 minutes..
It must be hard being you.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
My attention span is far more. Just they sucked at delivering the discussion. The first few minutes seemed unimportant so I thought it was just another useless talk I wouldn't need to listen too so I either went to do something or was just messing around with the camera angle.