PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed II: Chess or Dominoes?



Abeonis
12-20-2009, 09:08 AM
Right, first things first, I want to apologise for what could possibly be a fairly long and outstretched post. Secondly, like most people who complain about this game, I just want to say that I adore this game, and consider it one of the best out there; well, not so much a complaint as an constructivly critical observation. So here goes.

Basically, I class games with a story progression into two blocks - games of chess, and games of dominoes - which I believe shows quite accurately who the games work. Now, in an actual game of chess it's a case of sixteen of your pieces versus sixteen of your enemies; at all times you're having to deal with all sixteen pieces, and more often then not players make moves which the reason for may not become obvious until later in the game. In Dominoes however, it's a simple case of knock down one block, move onto the next... and knock that one down again; which I hate. I'd much rather play a 'chess game' any day of the week over a 'dominoes game'. Right, now I've explained that, i'll get on with my analogy.

Basically, for all there good points - amazing stories, amazing graphics, amazing playability - the Assassin's Creed games (both of them), seem to me too much like a game of dominoes. I don't know if anybody has noticed this, but it just seems to me that the game is simply a case of: complex and engaging mission build-up towards assination, assisination, rinse and repeat. It's like, using AC2 for an example, the plot to kill the Doge of Venezia didn't even enter existence until Emilio Barbagio's death.

Now, I might end up putting the following on the AC3 wishlist thread, but I, personally, would find the game much more compelling if the story seemed, sorry to say, connected. I mean, surely Ezio could have been made aware of the plot to kill the Doge whilst he was moving to eliminate Emilio; maybe even do a few of the mission (like the evesdropping/follow mission) before he strikes at Emilio. Granted, for the sake of game progression he wouldn't actually be able to strike at Carlo until Emilio is killed, but for the sake of stroy emmersion I believe that would feel much, much better. I mean, AC1 did a better job of it in this aspect than AC2 did, making the game feel interconnected and the likes, but it still feel way short of what I had hoped for....

Well, there you go, my little rant about chess and dominoes. I'd love to hear other peoples' opinions on the matter, perhaps it can make this a reality in future, who knows.

Abeonis
12-20-2009, 09:08 AM
Right, first things first, I want to apologise for what could possibly be a fairly long and outstretched post. Secondly, like most people who complain about this game, I just want to say that I adore this game, and consider it one of the best out there; well, not so much a complaint as an constructivly critical observation. So here goes.

Basically, I class games with a story progression into two blocks - games of chess, and games of dominoes - which I believe shows quite accurately who the games work. Now, in an actual game of chess it's a case of sixteen of your pieces versus sixteen of your enemies; at all times you're having to deal with all sixteen pieces, and more often then not players make moves which the reason for may not become obvious until later in the game. In Dominoes however, it's a simple case of knock down one block, move onto the next... and knock that one down again; which I hate. I'd much rather play a 'chess game' any day of the week over a 'dominoes game'. Right, now I've explained that, i'll get on with my analogy.

Basically, for all there good points - amazing stories, amazing graphics, amazing playability - the Assassin's Creed games (both of them), seem to me too much like a game of dominoes. I don't know if anybody has noticed this, but it just seems to me that the game is simply a case of: complex and engaging mission build-up towards assination, assisination, rinse and repeat. It's like, using AC2 for an example, the plot to kill the Doge of Venezia didn't even enter existence until Emilio Barbagio's death.

Now, I might end up putting the following on the AC3 wishlist thread, but I, personally, would find the game much more compelling if the story seemed, sorry to say, connected. I mean, surely Ezio could have been made aware of the plot to kill the Doge whilst he was moving to eliminate Emilio; maybe even do a few of the mission (like the evesdropping/follow mission) before he strikes at Emilio. Granted, for the sake of game progression he wouldn't actually be able to strike at Carlo until Emilio is killed, but for the sake of stroy emmersion I believe that would feel much, much better. I mean, AC1 did a better job of it in this aspect than AC2 did, making the game feel interconnected and the likes, but it still feel way short of what I had hoped for....

Well, there you go, my little rant about chess and dominoes. I'd love to hear other peoples' opinions on the matter, perhaps it can make this a reality in future, who knows.

Curiosa94
12-20-2009, 03:08 PM
I agree that the first AC had a better story overall, even if we have seen it many times before. (The one you trust the most turns out to be the bad guy). In the second they seemed to have worked only on the action and ended up with a repetetive story instead. My opinion atleast

caswallawn_2k7
12-20-2009, 04:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In Dominoes however, it's a simple case of knock down one block, move onto the next... and knock that one down again </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
that isn't a game of dominoes that is another use for the tiles for people who cant play the actual game.

it's like saying building a house of cards is a game of cards because it uses the same pieces. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

Abeonis
12-21-2009, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by caswallawn_2k7:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In Dominoes however, it's a simple case of knock down one block, move onto the next... and knock that one down again </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
that isn't a game of dominoes that is another use for the tiles for people who cant play the actual game.

it's like saying building a house of cards is a game of cards because it uses the same pieces. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for that observation... although I don't see what that has to do with the subject at hand.

eZpiri2
12-21-2009, 02:16 PM
Assassin's Creed 2 was, by far an amazing sequel to the first game. But you are right, they both seem repetitive. Sure there's a load of repetitive-ness in AC1, but it felt like a better story.
(SPOILER:to the PC people and/or if you didn't beat it yet) SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER
In AC2, Bros and Father get's executed, you avenge them finding out you are to become an assassin, kill certain targets, become initiated into the Creed, kill the pope, (or leave him there) Ezio opens the vault, a few unusual things happen, your back to Desmond, you're back to Ezio.

Okay, now I know I left out a lot, but that was kinda what i felt like I was playing.

And also, though Assassin's Creed's story was much more simpler, I liked it better.

thekyle0
12-21-2009, 03:30 PM
I think I understand what you're saying. While the transitions between memory sequences are narratively smooth in AC2, they aren't so much factually. Each sequence feels like a concise, contained episode of a television show which ends with something directing the player to the next sequence and an implied, "to be continued". Like when Ezio says, "I've a meeting to attend" (or something close to that). It redirects the player's attention to what's going to happen next. AC1 lacked this, but it also introduced you to facts about the next target as you were investigating another. While reading the letters from pickpocket missions in AC1 you encounter points where the letters refer to, "Our man in the port(Sibrand)", or, "The doctor (Garnier)". It was a bit of an easter egg, I don't see why they couldn't have had a lot more things like this in AC2. I suppose it's still an improvement. Smooth transitions between segments of the story are more important because those are necessary to put right in front of everybody's faces, while minor facts are mostly for the enthusiasts.

Brett_Master5
12-22-2009, 12:21 AM
Both games are set one up and knock it down. Most all games are like that now.

At the end of the game, I had the sense of "best ending to a game ever," however I also felt cheated at the ending of the game.

Halfway through I felt like there was going to be a major betrayal of Ezio. But it never came. Not in the same vain as ****Spoiler*** Altair and Al Maulim ****Spoiler****, just something that would increase the intensity of the story. Maybe it was the fact that there are the side missions to take care of and everything else as well. Also, the length of time in which it takes for Ezio to complete his task. It wasn't until he spoke with Leonardo about the codexes in the 11th sequence I was like "oh I forgot that it takes place over such a long period of time."

For me, Assassins Creed II is a fantastic game, but the story needed something more. I just can't quite put my finger on it.

sudokubank
12-24-2009, 12:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brett_Master5:
Both games are set one up and knock it down. Most all games are like that now.

At the end of the game, I had the sense of "best ending to a game ever," however I also felt cheated at the ending of the game.

Halfway through I felt like there was going to be a major betrayal of Ezio. But it never came. Not in the same vain as ****Spoiler*** Altair and Al Maulim ****Spoiler****, just something that would increase the intensity of the story. Maybe it was the fact that there are the side missions to take care of and everything else as well. Also, the length of time in which it takes for Ezio to complete his task. It wasn't until he spoke with Leonardo about the codexes in the 11th sequence I was like "oh I forgot that it takes place over such a long period of time."

For me, Assassins Creed II is a fantastic game, but the story needed something more. I just can't quite put my finger on it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll tell you what needed more for the game... A longer story. 20 hours isn really satisfying.

*Edit: Oh yeah, almost forgot.. the game doesn't have any replayable value. I was like finish about everything and now just waiting for the dlc.