PDA

View Full Version : AC1 better than AC2



Grandmaster_Z
04-23-2010, 07:27 AM
am I the only one who thinks this?

Murcuseo
04-23-2010, 07:43 AM
I played through AC2 before AC so I didn't really know the comparison, now that I've started playing through AC I can see some huge differences.

The difficulty level is the biggest thing for me, combat is much more fun in AC if a little more frustrating... in AC2 everything is simple which was always a bit of a disappointment to me.

The storyline in AC2 is better though, if they could combine the combat from AC with the stroy of AC2 I'd be happy.

I can't really say which is better, they both have their good points

El_Sjietah
04-23-2010, 07:56 AM
Atmosphere, combat -> AC1

Story, side missions -> AC2

drfeelgood8849
04-23-2010, 08:08 AM
Story, atmosphere, emersion, attention to detail, and combat. -> AC 1

Added gameplay mechanics and the added dungeons. -> AC 2.

I actually kind of dislike AC 2. I especially don't like ezio.

Climbmaster1
04-23-2010, 08:57 AM
For some reason I just can't forget about AC1. I know it wasn't better than AC2. The scale of AC2 is better, the color palette is better, the graphics are better, the customization is better, blah blah blah. But there is something that AC1 has that AC2 doesn't. I really love the medieval times and I'm not that intrigued about the renaissance era. I like the whole, kings, castles, and grittiness of the time. They could have done it other places but in the same time. I hope they go back to that era with their new game design and mission design.

drfeelgood8849
04-23-2010, 09:03 AM
Graphics are definitely not better in AC 2. I'm playing the first one right now actually and it looks almost twice as good. The textures are a bit more detailed in AC 2, but the models don't look as good and the lightning isn't as good either.

Climbmaster1
04-23-2010, 09:20 AM
I'll have to check that out. I thought the building detail and everything was way better. Maybe my memory is failing me on that though.

drfeelgood8849
04-23-2010, 09:27 AM
memory is failing me on that though.
Like I said. the textures are better, no denying that. The building models are not not too complicated considering they're made up of basic shapes. I guess I should say the character models then.

phil.llllll
04-23-2010, 09:47 AM
Some things I liked better in AC1 despite all AC2s improvements.

For me AC1 wins in combat (fighting mechanics) and story (less conspiracy in your face stuff and much more subtle). And despite the graphics improvements AC1 looked better in a lot of aspects.

AC2 takes the cake though in terms of sheer scale and overall variety of which AC1 was a bit lacking. I still love them both.

Cjail
04-23-2010, 11:48 AM
What story? AC2 has no story!
Batman: Arkham Asylum has a story; Uncharted 2 has a story; infamous has a story...maybe even Little Big Planet has a story!

Murcuseo
04-23-2010, 12:27 PM
Just because you didn't enjoy the story doesn't mean it hasn't got one http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hotbodyboy_2007
04-23-2010, 01:43 PM
Originally posted by Cjail:
What story? AC2 has no story!
Batman: Arkham Asylum has a story; Uncharted 2 has a story; infamous has a story...maybe even Little Big Planet has a story!

That's probably the most ridiculous comment i have ever seen. UC 2 has such a linear and predictable story. Batman has a story with no major twists.

However AC 2 had some of the best story. The sad part is NO ONE READS THE CODEX PAGES... There is actually a lot you realize after reading the codex pages.

Yeah personally i hated AC 1. It had its plus points but it was very repetitive.

AC 2 had the good points of AC 1, removed all the bad points of AC 1 and thus an almost perfect game...

luamanu
04-23-2010, 06:05 PM
can someone please explain how ac1s combat is better than ac2 in my perspective ac2s combat is engaging and has way more variety in it, plus ac2 is the better game so please people your complaining because the creators did a great job, so be happy with what you got.

btw- you should be making a thread about how ac2 kicks ac1s behind.

luamanu
04-23-2010, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Cjail:
What story? AC2 has no story!
Batman: Arkham Asylum has a story; Uncharted 2 has a story; infamous has a story...maybe even Little Big Planet has a story!

umm okay someone seriously has no brain, only a stupid idiot would think ac2 has no story.[please do not call people names..]

Engioc
04-23-2010, 06:44 PM
It's hard to say which one I actually enjoyed most. I enjoyed both equally for different reasons, and I am glad for that....I can never understand why people want games to remain exactly the same in each and every version. Surely the point to any new version of a game is to do something new, not simply redo.

The combat in AC1 was good, but not sure it was better, just different, AC1 and 2 are both too easy, AC1 was great in counter moves and too easy because of it, AC2 removed some of that but added more in stripping weapons from opponents and more types of guards, still too easy.

Graphics both games look the same, no better or worse.

AC1 side missions became very repetitive very quickly, AC2 expanded on the number of side missions but still could use more.

AC1 story was full of doom and gloom, world torn apart with war, poverty, corruption etc. AC2 story had a much lighter mood and I liked the festival games, was a nice distraction from the standard go kill this mission. Glad they both provide a different mood and feel. Why would you have the doom and gloom of AC1 in a game set during the Renaissance? It would feel totally wrong since it was a great time for people.

Murcuseo
04-23-2010, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by luamanu:
can someone please explain how ac1s combat is better than ac2 in my perspective ac2s combat is engaging and has way more variety in it, plus ac2 is the better game so please people your complaining because the creators did a great job, so be happy with what you got.

btw- you should be making a thread about how ac2 kicks ac1s behind.

For me the combat in ACII is boring due to it being so easy, AC on the other hand its extremely difficult at times due to NPC's being able to feint,defensive break and counter.

You have to stratigise more in AC which to me makes it more engaging, you can't just casually take on 2 dozen guards like you can in ACII.

Also, escaping from guards is to easy in ACII but to difficult in AC so if they could find a happy medium there I'd be happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

shimpaku
04-23-2010, 10:05 PM
I'll certainly have to agree as to the fighting being much more easier in AC2 than it was in AC1. If you had decent armor and enough health in AC2 you could easily and blindly hack your way out of just about anything.

Other than that, I found AC2 much more satisfying and the dialogue handled much better. In AC1 the voice actor for Altair was almost laughable as to the total lack of emotion. Hell, I wouldn't even give that guy a job to do a car commercial!

Quite a few things that could be discussed but I'll just a few more minor thoughts. For some reason I found the sense of height when climbing various buildings portrayed as more intense/dizzying, as it were, in AC2 than it was in AC1. Oh, and of course, much too much repetitiveness to the point of boredom in AC1. I thought the musicians in AC2 were irritating but the women beggars in AC1 were almost unbearable! You could even hear them while free running, and at one time, when I tried to ignore one by climbing a building she actually threw a rock at me and knocked me down! lol

Bottom line, in my opinion, AC2 wins hands down as compared to AC1 albeit I liked the challenge of fighting in AC1 much more. Both had there respective negatives and positives.

Engioc
04-24-2010, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luamanu:
can someone please explain how ac1s combat is better than ac2 in my perspective ac2s combat is engaging and has way more variety in it, plus ac2 is the better game so please people your complaining because the creators did a great job, so be happy with what you got.

btw- you should be making a thread about how ac2 kicks ac1s behind.

For me the combat in ACII is boring due to it being so easy, AC on the other hand its extremely difficult at times due to NPC's being able to feint,defensive break and counter.

You have to stratigise more in AC which to me makes it more engaging, you can't just casually take on 2 dozen guards like you can in ACII.

Also, escaping from guards is to easy in ACII but to difficult in AC so if they could find a happy medium there I'd be happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I do agree, AC1 combat was harder because guards had more of a defense themselves with defensive break and counter, but it was still too easy. AC2 definitely dumbed down the combat in some ways by removing those features from AC1 but it did add guards with better weapons. Would be nice to see both these systems/ideas combined. I still dont think it made AC2 better or worse than AC1, both games had good points and bad, as do all games.

I think some of this could be improved by making the world around you and NPCs more intelligent in the way they react, how fast word spreads etc. Often during a fight normal people start running and screaming, other guards seem to ignore this and only attack once they've actually seen you. Surely when they see citizens running scared like that they should move quicker, investigate in the direction where the people are running from, call on other guards around the area, making the fight harder. I'd also like to see citizens who've seen you fighting actively seeking out guards and informing people of whats happening rather than everyone simply running scared. Even once you sit on a bench or try to hide among the people it would be better to have NPCs who are happy to point you out to guards. It's ok for most to run scared, but some should be brave enough to take some kind of action either by telling guards or getting involved in the fight.

Also ripping a few posters off walls, paying off NPC's should not always be enough, sometimes in order to clear your name you should be required to eliminate peoples memories by killing people who saw you fighting/breaking the law.

Cjail
04-24-2010, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by luamanu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Cjail:
What story? AC2 has no story!
Batman: Arkham Asylum has a story; Uncharted 2 has a story; infamous has a story...maybe even Little Big Planet has a story!

umm okay someone seriously has no brain, only a stupid idiot would think ac2 has no story, so please correct yourself idiot. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why are you insulting me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

adarwinter
04-24-2010, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by luamanu:
can someone please explain how ac1s combat is better than ac2 in my perspective ac2s combat is engaging and has way more variety in it, plus ac2 is the better game so please people your complaining because the creators did a great job, so be happy with what you got.

btw- you should be making a thread about how ac2 kicks ac1s behind.

For me the combat in ACII is boring due to it being so easy, AC on the other hand its extremely difficult at times due to NPC's being able to feint,defensive break and counter.

You have to stratigise more in AC which to me makes it more engaging, you can't just casually take on 2 dozen guards like you can in ACII.

Also, escaping from guards is to easy in ACII but to difficult in AC so if they could find a happy medium there I'd be happy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


eeeeeeeeeeeeeexactly.

while in AC2 u can counter and defend with your fists and have more weapons, combat in AC2 is waaaaaay more shallow. less deep.

also in AC1 u and the guards could perform a powerstrike which would through your counter off guard if u were too eager to counter and the damage it would have causer altair was twice the normal damage.
this feature should have stayed and should have made it that power attack goes THROUGH defense.

also guards in AC1 could all dodge , counter and power attack. in AC2 only agiles dodge. only normal guards counter and only brutes do power attacks.
spear guards? they only do leg sweeps and this is the most redundant move since no one attacks u on the floor.

and with a lack of defense break u can just glow the "high profile" button down and u will never die.

also guards in AC1 could grab and through u. usually it mattered very lil but still - they could do it. made u more aware of what's going on.

also in AC2 u can do combo-kills. kill anyone in 4 hits while the other guards stand and eat pop corn and do nothing. did we really need that option?!?! did we?!

counter against ezio in AC2 dont do any damage. i understand that decision (UBI didnt want u to lose health against something u cant do anything against) but since counters rarely happen and enemies dont turn their own counters into an attack or anything than counters against ezio have NO MEANING WHAT SO EVER.

also u can grab a guard and kill him automatically. just like the combo kills - did we really need that? it makes sense that if u can grab an enemy with a sword than u can kill him but if enemies could counter our grabs than at least there was a risk to it.



bottom line - AC2's combat system is for 5 year olds. it's belittling our gaming abilities. treating us like lil kids that cant handle the concept of challenge.


also why do we need 15 diamonds of health and 15 or 20 medicine?!?! why?

yeah, the story and presentation is MUCH better in AC2 but , oh god, it's so easy to run away from guards and fight them that it takes ALL the excitment out of the engagements in AC2. they have no purpsose, meaning or effect on the game since they do nothing but slow us down.

and the fact that dying, which never happens, has no real affect. no consequences. u just respawn 5 feet away from where u stood. cuz of that u dont even mind losing. if this is a bad thing or not - its more a matter of opinion.

also since there is no need to get back to incognito after an assassination or a mission than u can follow a target, kill him, get the mission accomplished and let yourself get killed cuz it doesnt matter any more. what happened to disappearing after a fight?!

geese. AC2 is a great game but im tired of being treated like a small kid who can't hold a controller with the right side up.
AC1 was a bloody cake walk. AC2 is freaking werters-original crawl.

ickbar1
04-24-2010, 08:19 AM
AC2 is an improvment, BUT I like Altair better than Ezio.

Murcuseo
04-24-2010, 09:44 AM
You can't really compare Altair and Ezio...

(Possible Spoilers)

Altair was a cold,calculated, arrogant son of a gun when you're first introduced to him although he does start to gain some sense of respect for the Creed once he understands why they're doing what they're doing. The voice actor plays the character well I think, emotionless and stern. Altair is a killer, a fully trained Assassin who has been engulfed in that lifestyle for a long time.

Ezio on the other hand is a naive,charismatic teenager who gets drawn into the role of an Assassin because of the murder of his family. To me it seems, even though he tries to becomes an Assassin he never really wants to be part of that life. He's always talking about escaping and in the end, as a man doesn't kill the person responsible for his families suffering.

I've got no idea what 2.5 is going to include but, maybe Ezio will accept his heritage and become an Assassin but for me at the moment it seems like he doesn't want to be.

I think both characters were played how they should have been and I'm looking forward to seeing what happens next!

El_Sjietah
04-24-2010, 09:48 AM
Ezio has already been made into an official assassin in AC2. Remember the initiation scene where they branded his finger? Which was one of the most ridiculous moments in the game btw.

Murcuseo
04-24-2010, 10:10 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Ezio has already been made into an official assassin in AC2. Remember the initiation scene where they branded his finger? Which was one of the most ridiculous moments in the game btw.

I never said he wasn't officailly made one, he may be a member of the Creed but to me it feels like he doesn't want to be therefor he hasn't become an Assassin... he's just playing the part.

Thats just the impression I got from playing the game.

El_Sjietah
04-24-2010, 11:18 AM
Ah, misread your post then. My bad.

KZarr
04-25-2010, 03:02 AM
Originally posted by drfeelgood8849:
Story, atmosphere, emersion, attention to detail, and combat. -> AC 1
I agree. AC1 was a lot more memorable for me.

It's not one think that makes AC1 better but a few things:
*Crusader setting was a lot more interesting;
*Altair, despite being the most emotionless guy ever, was a lot more likeable than Ezio;
*Story was better in AC1(Yes I'm serious!)
*The entire concept of climb and go where you want was very new back then. Now it's like "Oh wait, been there done that"

I remember finishing AC1 3 times and I kept playing till the release of AC2. I haven't touched AC2 in a long while. Last time I played was a week ago to collect the last feathers but other than that I haven't played it since I finished it.

Stormpen
04-25-2010, 07:03 AM
But ACII is a bit less repititive than ACI.

Wildest_Dream66
04-25-2010, 09:30 AM
No Assassins creed 2 is better...but I miss some things from the first part, Like the creed and the mysterious way's of the character..Yeah there is a creed in it but not feels like a real brotherhood but feather it is a great game but too easy and quick to play out.. sorry

SWJS
04-25-2010, 09:32 AM
I enjoyed AC2 far better. I liked how it expanded upon everything, including the modern day portion of the game. I also liked the characters far better.

Altair had no backstory, no family, nothing anybody could relate to, and he had about as much emotion as a dead tree.

We see Ezio through his entire life. We meet his family, we see his backstory, we meet his friends, his allies, etc. Not to mention Ezio befriends Leonardo da Vinci, and we learn that Machiavelli is the leader of the Assassin Order. Win. I love how if a plot throws a twist at someone who can't comprehend it, they immediaely hate it. I loved how more and more how AC2's plot went from tiny conspiracy to full-blown epic WHAM the world's gonna end stuff. Corey May is a genius, and the plot of the AC series is a complex, twisted monster mash of heated conspiracy that, when you think about it, makes a lot of sense, which makes it more immersing.

AC2's gameplay is far better to. Instead of just counter attacking, you have other forms of combat, and instead of counter attacking always working, you have enemies and weapons immune to counter attacking until you weaken them. In AC1, it was wait, counter, move on. Combat has much more depth and percision in AC2, easy or not. AC2 is also far less repetative than AC1.

True AC1 has that "feel" to it, but AC2 is, was, and always will be better.

KZarr
04-25-2010, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
Altair had no backstory, no family, nothing anybody could relate to, and he had about as much emotion as a dead tree.

And still, I could relate more to him than to Ezio

adarwinter
04-25-2010, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by KZarr:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
Altair had no backstory, no family, nothing anybody could relate to, and he had about as much emotion as a dead tree.

And still, I could relate more to him than to Ezio </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i just think that since he had no background it made him mysterious. mystery men will seem more appealing. less soft. less human.
that's why he seemed cooler - he was less human.
u dont "relate" to him. u just want to have this appeal of being a mystery man.
however no one is a mystery to himself since everyone knows who he is underneath.
i think it's shallow to create a game character that has no background or depth so ppl want to be him because they dont know anything about him. it's cheap.
gordon freeman kind of characters are different. they are SO black, so empty of personality that u can place yourself inside them. altair was not the case.

however, ezio had a very distinctive personality. he was not a cold harded killer. he was not sam fisher. he was something more emotional. deeper. even more humerous. some may like it. some wont. i found it interesting. even refreshing.

El_Sjietah
04-26-2010, 11:17 AM
Renaissance assassins came off as a bunch of amateurs compared to the ones during the crusades. When you have to perform initiation rituals in a public bell tower, you've really hit rock bottom.

Not to mention letting yourself get stabbed while trying to be a dramatic assassin.

Twice.

JohnConnor2012
04-26-2010, 07:13 PM
After playing AC2, I decided to check out AC1. So far, I've only just arrived in Damascus but like that the investigations are more diverse - not just tail someone after a flash of eagle vision but pickpocketing, intimidation, eavesdropping, etc. I bet this gets really old after eight more main missions of the same thing, but currently looks more complex and interesting.

Altair presents really badly to start with - gets those unsder his command killed and violates the Creed in other ways - and doesn't achieve his objectives. Oh, and lacks good manners. 'Puppy' Ezio is preferrable in comparison, at least to me.

Can't speak to plotting yet, but missed the background notes on everything when exploring cities and meeting people. It'd be nice if they said "this is Damascus's famous medina" or "the other is the oldest mosque in the city, famous for whatever".

Also, AC1 has a lot more flags than there are feathers in AC2 - with that, I really don't think I'll bother.

Rodriquezzzz
04-27-2010, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by adarwinter:


bottom line - AC2's combat system is for 5 year olds. it's belittling our gaming abilities. treating us like lil kids that cant handle the concept of challenge.


also why do we need 15 diamonds of health and 15 or 20 medicine?!?! why?

yeah, the story and presentation is MUCH better in AC2 but , oh god, it's so easy to run away from guards and fight them that it takes ALL the excitment out of the engagements in AC2. they have no purpsose, meaning or effect on the game since they do nothing but slow us down.

and the fact that dying, which never happens, has no real affect. no consequences. u just respawn 5 feet away from where u stood. cuz of that u dont even mind losing. if this is a bad thing or not - its more a matter of opinion.

also since there is no need to get back to incognito after an assassination or a mission than u can follow a target, kill him, get the mission accomplished and let yourself get killed cuz it doesnt matter any more. what happened to disappearing after a fight?!

geese. AC2 is a great game but im tired of being treated like a small kid who can't hold a controller with the right side up.
AC1 was a bloody cake walk. AC2 is freaking werters-original crawl.

That's called pleasing the masses, some non-hardcore gamers might have considered the more dfficult fighting mechanic from the first one as frustrating, so they watered it down to make it easier. Nowadays most games are aimed for the average casual gamer and not the hardcore gamers and thus hardcore gamers feel treated like a "5 yo kid"

I also found that it's very easy compared to AC1. In combat you almost never die, i mean you can make yourself a difficult mode and only use medicine after combat and not while you're still in the middle of the fight.

The whole animus concept is the reason why failure has no real effect to the gameflow, the way points are set way too easy. I also thought that the game lacks the challenge sometimes, i love difficult missions, where you actually have to try really hard to end them successfully and i hope they include them in AC3. But as i said nowadays they rather water down the gameplay than including damn hard mission which would scare off casuals, who are not that good at gaming, or give up very fast.

Imo the game had a perfect flow, but this flow was sometimes like a chilly cruise on a straight highway, sometimes i want to ride wild waves in games, something which i miss often nowadays, everything gets dumbed down, due timepressure from publisher. Devs should really take the time to finish all the good ideas, which makes their game better and, most importantly, more challenging. AC2 is a really good start, but there is much potential left in this setting and the deep background story supports this game aswell.

CC1138
04-27-2010, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Atmosphere, combat -> AC1

Story, side missions -> AC2

100% agree. You took the words right out of my keyboard.

EijiTakayama
04-29-2010, 07:44 AM
Graphics - AC1 > AC2

Story - AC2 > AC1 (Did AC1 even have a story? I just wanted to finish the game quickly....)

Combat - 1 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 (Combat in AC2 sucks!!! It's way too easy and I want the defense break move back!! But I do disagree with whoever said that you CAN'T take on a dozen enemies in AC1, I managed it easily with counter attacks)

General gameplay - AC1. Yes, it was a bit repetitive, but AC2 offers too much freedom for my liking. I want an AC, not a GTA with stealth gameplay.

Character - When I first saw pictures of Ezio with that smirk on his face I considered him to be of the same level as Altair. But when I started the game, my reaction was "He's just a boy!" Even after becoming an assassin, I can't shake off the fact that he's worse than an amateur compared to Altair. He's a child. I do hope he grows into a true warrior though (I've just started the game). So Altair > Ezio

Overall - I can't really say until I finish the game. But I definitely want to replay AC1 after I finish this.

Murcuseo
04-29-2010, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by EijiTakayama:
But I do disagree with whoever said that you CAN'T take on a dozen enemies in AC1, I managed it easily with counter attacks)


I'd like to see that, if you could video capture it and post it I'd be most impressed....

I actually said 2 dozen, but my point was you have to strategise during combat in AC, you can't just stand in the middle of a cicle of 50 NPC's and do counter kills... which you can do in ACII.

Try it for yourself, agro as many guards as you can in AC and see how long you last, then do the same in ACII and note the difference.

Cpt_Yanni
04-29-2010, 12:05 PM
I liked the soundtrack from AC2 way more than AC1... The setting was better (I like Italy way more then Jeruzalem etc... ) Still AC1 was a good game, but I liked AC2 more than AC1. (Smoke bombs etc are really cool! )

El_Sjietah
04-29-2010, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EijiTakayama:
But I do disagree with whoever said that you CAN'T take on a dozen enemies in AC1, I managed it easily with counter attacks)


I'd like to see that, if you could video capture it and post it I'd be most impressed....

I actually said 2 dozen, but my point was you have to strategise during combat in AC, you can't just stand in the middle of a cicle of 50 NPC's and do counter kills... which you can do in ACII.

Try it for yourself, agro as many guards as you can in AC and see how long you last, then do the same in ACII and note the difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just killed 25 in a single fight myself. Only took 4 sync bars of dmg because of counterattacks. It's really not that hard when you get your timing right. For anyone willing to give it a shot, try it just outside of Jerusalem. 3 patrols and a static group of 9 in that area.

Murcuseo
04-29-2010, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EijiTakayama:
But I do disagree with whoever said that you CAN'T take on a dozen enemies in AC1, I managed it easily with counter attacks)


I'd like to see that, if you could video capture it and post it I'd be most impressed....

I actually said 2 dozen, but my point was you have to strategise during combat in AC, you can't just stand in the middle of a cicle of 50 NPC's and do counter kills... which you can do in ACII.

Try it for yourself, agro as many guards as you can in AC and see how long you last, then do the same in ACII and note the difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just killed 25 in a single fight myself. Only took 4 sync bars of dmg because of counterattacks. It's really not that hard when you get your timing right. For anyone willing to give it a shot, try it just outside of Jerusalem. 3 patrols and a static group of 9 in that area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Video evidence?

I'm an eternal cynic... things have to be proven for me to believe in them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

El_Sjietah
04-29-2010, 04:27 PM
And rightfully so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I only have the trial version of fraps myself though and a 30sec vid isn't gonna cut it. Let me know where I can find a good alternative and I'll record it for you.

stealthmaster23
04-29-2010, 07:22 PM
its a matter of opinion i can see how you would like the first game better for its atmosphere and story. AC2 is definitely a more polished game, but like i said its all a matter of opinion i personally like the atmosphere, story, and graphics better in AC2. i will say i miss the combat from AC1 though.

Grandmaster_Z
04-30-2010, 08:36 AM
i wish they would bring back Altair for another sequel...could either be before or after events of AC1...love the atmosphere/time period of ac1..

JohnConnor2012
04-30-2010, 07:50 PM
Re. the Robson / El Sjietah debate: Of course AC1's combat is harder, but due to bad gameplay I'm regularly taking on and defeating 10-11 guards by Sequence 3 with basic parry / counter-attack moves and minimal fancy stuff, even when the odd Templar decides to join the party.

I don't doubt 20+ is possible if (1) you fight highly defensively and technically, and / or (2) it's the subsection of a mission (e.g. Save Citizen) so health bar gets bumped through the fight.

Picking a rooftop to fight on and making sure Altair does the throwing off and not the giards would also radically shift the odds.

El_Sjietah
05-01-2010, 01:16 AM
Nah, even in AC1 the best defense is a good offense. Learn to time your strikes right and you'll spend half the time in action camera mode aka invincibility mode.

Murcuseo
05-01-2010, 01:40 AM
Regardless of the debate the point for me is you shouldn't be able to take on that many guards at once... you're an Assassin not Neo. You're meant to be tactical and kill efficiently not just stand in the middle of a huge crowd of NPC's and gradually kill them off one by one.

If you're stupid enough to get caught in a situation where you have to take on more than 5 or 6 NPC's I think the risk of dying should be higher.... also the strategy needed to stay alive should be a lot more complicated. Positioning, timing, weapon choice, fighting style etc etc all should come into account

The AI certainly does fail in that regard, NPC's takin turns to have a swing at you is probably one of the most annoying features of the fighting system in ACII... sometimes theres 10 of them and they just stand there, you have to taunt one to get him to attack you. Shtoopid!

Xanatos2007
05-01-2010, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
sometimes theres 10 of them and they just stand there, you have to taunt one to get him to attack you. Shtoopid!
Actually most of the time while you're busy taunting one guard his friend will walk up behind you & jam a pike up your robes.

An_Idea
05-01-2010, 09:31 AM
in my opinion AC2 is the better game, but my favorite game is still AC1.

AC2 incorporated everything that the fans of the first game wanted, a better mission structure, more weapons and more kick *** gameplay of this unique genre. Ubi delivered with a game that many consider better than their first try.

even as a better game i still dont like it as much as the first one. i like AC1's setting more, the dusty merchant filled streets of Damascus or the nice green tint in Jeru. it just had a nicer, more natural feel and was a better fit.

i also liked Altair & his uniform better than Ezio. sure Altair has the personality of a spoon of pudding but he seemed more professional and his uniform fit its purpose better than Ezio's.

AC1 also held more mystery for me. every assassination the man parted with a bit more of the puzzle, unlike in AC2 where they just told you where to go next.

all in all AC2 is the better game but AC1 just feels more natural and is perfect in my opinion.

Murcuseo
05-01-2010, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by Xanatos2007:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Robson19822009:
sometimes theres 10 of them and they just stand there, you have to taunt one to get him to attack you. Shtoopid!
Actually most of the time while you're busy taunting one guard his friend will walk up behind you & jam a pike up your robes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But all you have to do is hold down the high profile button to block and you're laughing, you need to die more often in ACIII...thats what I'm trying to say lol

Slartibartfast7
05-01-2010, 06:10 PM
I agree about combat but I think another difference was the way guards would search for you. After a fight in AC2 you could stop worrying, in AC1 other guards could find you. Also, in AC1 other gurads would join the fight, this rarely happens in AC2 and only if you try to run away. At least in my opinion anyways

JohnConnor2012
05-03-2010, 03:33 PM
Apologies for necromancy (JohnDee not JohnConnor?!) but having just finished AC1, one big point and a few lesser ones:

The BIGGIE: The penultimate AC1 mission means you have to take on groups of 18+ guards twice in succession and 2-3 other prety substantial groups too on the road to a certain monarch. Robson must have done it himself to have completed the game, so confused why he thinks it impossible, needs screenshots, etc. It actually wasn't even that hard as most hang back in the fight (as AC2), health revives a bit after you kill every 2-3 (instead of medicene), and you can pretty much auto-kill if you strong attack in cinematic every time you counter-kill or break grasp. Agreed, still more challenging than AC2 though and felt this 'Rambo' aspect of the game wasn't that appealing.

ALSO: Missions in AC1 were sufficiently varied, IMHO, as they were all pretty quick. Haven't tried replaying them though. Even the Save Citizen stuff is just about tolerable, because you slowly see the city 'turn' in your favour. However, the missions were a lot easier than in AC2, esp. the timed ones. The flag-gathering / race ones ended maybe 10-20 seconds from time in AC2 (phew!) and often had to be rerun but AC1 missions could end only 1 min. into a 3 min. mission!

AND: There is a lot more variety of assassination techniques in AC2 as well as weapons--aerial / camo / ledge, etc--and a lot more variety anyway, with stuff like the Villa, Ezio able to swim and boat, etc.

PLUS: People have said the beggars were nastier and more annoying in AC1 than minstrels in AC2. I'd happily swap them for the drunks and those for the (consults PC dictionary) mentally disadvantaged persons that seem to want to play 'piggy in the middle' with poor Altair.

A LAST POINT (V. SPOILER-ISH): People say Altair has no personality when he does, and it changes convincingly during the game. He starts off an arrogant a-hole who thinks he's above the Creed and is punished for it by the Old Man as defender of Creed orthodoxy (whose petty, virulent, point-by-point nagging reminds me of my own boss, BTW). Even half-way through, his version of "not asking" about the truth isn't "realising" it, but "demanding" it of AM. It ends with him humbled enough defend the Creed against his mentor, whose fallen prey to temptation, and then continuing the Assassin order. Sure, he has a ramrod up his posterior when it comes to Creed ethics and his attitute to others that makes him look pretty wooden, but who else could realistically resist the temptation of the POE? As Altair learns in one of his little chats with AM, the Creed is not about freedom but wisdom - in fact, a rather old-fashioned Victorian notion of duty. (Given the limited, repetitive palette, the scripters did a good job of slowly unfolding the implications of the story, with actually good twists at the end.)

stealthmaster23
05-03-2010, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EijiTakayama:
But I do disagree with whoever said that you CAN'T take on a dozen enemies in AC1, I managed it easily with counter attacks)


I'd like to see that, if you could video capture it and post it I'd be most impressed....

I actually said 2 dozen, but my point was you have to strategise during combat in AC, you can't just stand in the middle of a cicle of 50 NPC's and do counter kills... which you can do in ACII.

Try it for yourself, agro as many guards as you can in AC and see how long you last, then do the same in ACII and note the difference. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just killed 25 in a single fight myself. Only took 4 sync bars of dmg because of counterattacks. It's really not that hard when you get your timing right. For anyone willing to give it a shot, try it just outside of Jerusalem. 3 patrols and a static group of 9 in that area. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Video evidence?

I'm an eternal cynic... things have to be proven for me to believe in them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so your an atheist? me too! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

DAS_COOL
05-03-2010, 10:39 PM
Even though the AC1 ps3 version was a bad port to PC/Xbox360, at least it allows us to backup the save data! That's one thing that AC1 was better than AC2.

Character model is also weird. I definitely remember seeing people's face with more details in AC1. But after playing 1 hour, AC2 face model has limited details that looked washed, just like a game that was released in 2008.

Ru1986
05-04-2010, 01:33 AM
I have gone back to AC1 breifly and the fact you cannot do half of the attacks with the hidden blade exc i know Altair wrote the codex after the first game but the attack level are just poor. AC1 was good for its time but its very limited in comparison with the second one plus i prefer renaisence history to almost any other time period.

Murcuseo
05-04-2010, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by JohnConnor2012:
Apologies for necromancy (JohnDee not JohnConnor?!) but having just finished AC1, one big point and a few lesser ones:

The BIGGIE: The penultimate AC1 mission means you have to take on groups of 18+ guards twice in succession and 2-3 other prety substantial groups too on the road to a certain monarch. Robson must have done it himself to have completed the game, so confused why he thinks it impossible, needs screenshots, etc. It actually wasn't even that hard as most hang back in the fight (as AC2), health revives a bit after you kill every 2-3 (instead of medicene), and you can pretty much auto-kill if you strong attack in cinematic every time you counter-kill or break grasp. Agreed, still more challenging than AC2 though and felt this 'Rambo' aspect of the game wasn't that appealing.


I never actually said it was impossible, I said that I'm to much of a cynic to believe what people say on the internet without some kind of evidence lol

Thats 2 different things....

I can't remember taking on that many guards at any point near the end but I may have just had a lapse in memory. I'll replay it later tonight to remind myself.

Backadd
05-04-2010, 10:02 AM
Assassins creed was way better before they made it a biology (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Biology)!

With that i wanted to say that AC1 was better.
Ehhm, I had to say it in such a strange way to squeeze that joke in....

Airbender2010
05-08-2010, 12:09 AM
I played AC 1 when it came out and the only real features I didn't like about it was the lack of free roaming, city setup and well maybe lack of side missions other then that it was better to me then A2. It was better because you could go back and replay missions on the console that is and you could run through the cities being the evil assassin killing everyone. A2 offered more side missions and better immersion into the game with the story line and a hint better combat system like leaping off walls ect. to kill your target but in the end after beating the game you cannot go back and replay missions with all your armor and weapons and you cannot go on a rampage with the civillians other then beating them up. Hopefully in Ac3 they will put some of the things in Ac1 that made the game fun http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

itsamea-mario
05-08-2010, 02:29 AM
*possible spoilers* i think that there was more mystery in AC1, about the pieces of eden, and the use was more effective, you could see the temptation, it caused, it even tempted altair who seems to be quite strong minded, whereas in AC2, you dont get the same feel of mystery, i mean he carries the apple around with him, no effect done to him, all we get at the end of AC2 is some stupid star wars lady telling us the world will end. in my opinion thats where AC2 fall to its first.

i would like to see another game with altair, with new abilities, sort of similar to AC2 except keep the brutality, that i didnt really feel with AC2 moves.

agentpoop
05-09-2010, 01:54 AM
The only thing better in AC was you felt a bit more secretive and assasins like, in AC2 you feel like an assassin on how you do certain things but i never felt apart of a secret group. i felt more like a rogue assassin. but thats kinda what i was so.....

Assassino_one
05-09-2010, 05:18 AM
AC 2 better than AC 1 ,, but only one things I like it in AC 1 is the parts of Arab ,nice city with nice graphics , for me really I love AC 2 but I cant say the AC 1 are bad but is good not excellent like AC 2 with great Italian man Ezio ,, and I like the music in AC 2 and the story , really it's hard to understand it in first time .

Marios725
05-22-2010, 08:19 AM
of course and AC2 is better than AC1 !
watch this vid and u will understand why

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...r7Gw&feature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gc7MzAAr7Gw&feature=channel)

SupremeCaptain
05-22-2010, 10:27 AM
One of the things I liked the most in AC1 combat was how Altair taunts his opponents if he stood still for a while. Like he would show his foe the tip of his blade as in saying "You ready for this?". Also how Altair could get punched to the floor or kicked in the balls by the elite guards. The combat in AC2 was far too easy. Heck, I was dreading of fighting the Brutes in the game, but when all you had to do was disarm and one-hit kill him, that was just stupid.

SWJS
07-12-2010, 01:23 PM
Still, even if they didn't create Ezio they could've continued with Alta´r's storyline. Ezio isn't really a great person he's more like an idiot to me. He is less serious than Alta´r. I know he is important I give him credit for that, he is also kinda cool for wich I also give him credit. But Alta´r really should return. Alta´r was a lot more fun to control. And his set of clothes are waaaaaaaaaaay cooler than Ezio. What kind of assassin wears an cape? He would break his neck jumping all of those buildings with that cape. Ezio wasn't brought into the brotherhood at a young age and taught to be an emotionless killer, that's why he was less serious than Altair. In Ezio's time, Assassins aren't trained until they're twenty. Ezio was shoehorned into being an assassin by unfortunate events.

Ezio isn't even officially inducted into the brotherhood until the end of sequence 11, when he's in his 30s.

By the end of AC2, Ezio has become a lot wiser and realises what it truely means to be an assassin.

In ACB, he'll don more traditional robes, much like what Altair wore, and will become the leader of the Assassins of Rome.

austin128
07-12-2010, 01:40 PM
I like AC2 way better than AC1. I recently went back and played AC1, and it was frustrating compared to 2. You could climb and run on narrow surfaces faster in AC2, better social stealth mechanics (you don't have to run a mile away from an enemy to be in neutral), it goes on and on.
This is my opinion.

DJBare
07-12-2010, 02:21 PM
I like them both, have played 3 sessions of each, but each has it's flaws, in AC1 Atiar could not swim, in AC2 it's definitly the texture quality that suffered, we all know the reason for that, did someone say console http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But for shear atmosphere AC1 tops AC2.

EzioAssassin51
07-13-2010, 03:05 AM
What kind of assassin wears an cape?

A smart one! Notice he covers up his weapons with it? Sure it doesn't cover them up fully but still...

El_Sjietah
07-13-2010, 03:39 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> What kind of assassin wears an cape?

A smart one! Notice he covers up his weapons with it? Sure it doesn't cover them up fully but still... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Everyone and their mother carried a sword back then. No need to cover them up really.

twangling
07-13-2010, 04:29 AM
Talking about how "limited" the hidden blade is used in AC1, I'm always reminded of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di9tORLFbwU

ianxofour's "The Bleeding Effect: An Ode to the Animus". Many may have already seen it long ago, but just in case.

DJBare
07-13-2010, 06:19 AM
Originally posted by twangling:
Talking about how "limited" the hidden blade is used in AC1, I'm always reminded of this video.



ianxofour's "The Bleeding Effect: An Ode to the Animus". Many may have already seen it long ago, but just in case. Not seen it before, thanks for posting the link, very nicely done, and a great sound track!

Razrback16
07-13-2010, 06:31 AM
Originally posted by DJBare:
I like them both, have played 3 sessions of each, but each has it's flaws, in AC1 Atiar could not swim, in AC2 it's definitly the texture quality that suffered, we all know the reason for that, did someone say console http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But for shear atmosphere AC1 tops AC2.

I actually thought the quality was good, especially with AF blasted up to 16x with 8xAA turned on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I do agree with you though, that the game could look better if they didn't build it initially for console. Get rid of the garbage consoles. Build the game for the PC exclusively -- it's so much more powerful than pathetic consoles!

Murcuseo
07-13-2010, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by twangling:
Talking about how "limited" the hidden blade is used in AC1, I'm always reminded of this video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di9tORLFbwU

That kid has far to much time on his hands, needs to get out more lol


Originally posted by Razrback16:

I actually thought the quality was good, especially with AF blasted up to 16x with 8xAA turned on. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I do agree with you though, that the game could look better if they didn't build it initially for console. Get rid of the garbage consoles. Build the game for the PC exclusively -- it's so much more powerful than pathetic consoles!

If you're looking to start a system war and get this thread closed you're going the right way about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

DJBare
07-13-2010, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
If you're looking to start a system war and get this thread closed you're going the right way about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif I agree, my comment was just a little jibe, each to their own, but he is right about one thing, quality is suffering because of consoles, as I've said before, I am certain consoles will one day reach the level of quality that a good pc can deliver, but at my age I'm not sure I'll be around to see it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Crucify Lucifer
07-13-2010, 09:07 AM
Although ACII greatly improved the free roam experience with the villa, various side missions, and the upgrades you can get for Ezio, the story was greatly lacking compared to the first game. AC1's storyline was much more philosophical and in depth. Plus the huge plot twists at the end made it that much more powerful.

I'd have to say gameplay goes to ACII, but AC1 definitely had the best story.

hewkii9
07-13-2010, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
We see Ezio through his entire life. We meet his family, we see his backstory, we meet his friends, his allies, etc. Not to mention Ezio befriends Leonardo da Vinci, and we learn that Machiavelli is the leader of the Assassin Order. Win. I love how if a plot throws a twist at someone who can't comprehend it, they immediaely hate it.

But at the end of the day, does that mean anything? Ezio as a character changes exactly three times - when his father dies, when he kills Vieri, and when he goes to Rome. His twenty-something-year epic doesn't change the story, because Ezio barely changes as a character. He spends the whole game stabbing his way through the Conspiracy chart.

And on that point, where exactly does his quest for revenge end? He kills Uberto for revenge. Then he kills Vieri for revenge. Francesco through Jacopo all die for revenge [on Lorenzo's behalf]. Sequence 7 is such a mess that I can't tell you why Emilio dies. Is it around Venice that Ezio begins killing to further Assassin ideals rather than his own?

But back to my main point. Despite twenty years of killing, Ezio is the same man as he was when he got his throwing knives. Give him a razor and I mean that literally, too. There's so much that could have been done with Ezio's character, but wasn't. What would have happened to him if Uncle Mario, his mentor and closest thing to a father figure now, died? {I know it happens in Brotherhood] Or his mother, who after two missions turns into a statue? What if we even just got to see Leonardo, his best [and only] friend turn into that bald bearded guy from his self-portrait? Or Borgia. I could buy Ezio sparing his life if we saw that Rodrigo had become a pitiful old man hellbent on getting something that Ezio had just taken away from him forever.

Assassin's Creed has the better story because it goes far enough. Assassin's Creed II didn't go far enough.

SWJS
07-13-2010, 05:49 PM
Ezio changes more times than Altair did then. Altair doesn't even let go of his "I'm better" ideals until memory block 4, and he doesn't even appologize for his mistakes until the last couple memory blocks. Even then, Altair is still no better. He kills just because he's told to. Sure he doubts, but he never confronts Al Mualim, never questions him, until he's got Altair by the family jewels with the Apple.

Also, Ezio's quest isn't just about vengeance. Killing Uberto was the vengeance part. The rest of the game is more about Ezio finding out why his father and brothers were murdered. He spends much of the game searching for answers, and stoping the templars before they gained control. He also briefly puts his ideals for vengeance aside in order to save Lorenzo's life. Lorenzo ordered him to kill the Pazzi too, so Ezio really didn't have a choice there. The Pazzi just happened to be templars.

Ezio progresses just as much, if not more than Altair does as AC2 goes on. Unlike Altair, he grows up very quickly, and as he grows, he loses his arrogant naivety and begins to see the bigger picture. Even admitting to being young and immature to Leonardo.

AC2 goes far enough, but if you're too near-sighted and focus on what's right in front of you, you wont see it. AC1's storyline beats you over the head with it's philisophical wisdom right from the start.

AC2 on the other hand, spreads it out and sticks it in the background, making the story far more engaging, believable and relatable. As an amateur writer, I know from a writer's point of view that the story for AC2 is better because of such. AC1's story had nothing to back it up, and no amount of epic badassery would change that fact.

El_Sjietah
07-13-2010, 06:53 PM
The main difference between Ezio and Altair as philosophical characters, is that Altair finds out the truth by himself, wheras Ezio needs to have everything explained to him. Which is ironic, given the speech he gives at the end of sequence 13.

Replay the story in your head; every revelation was given by one of the other characters. The was between assassins and templars? Mario. The existence of the Codex? Mario. How to translate the codex? Leonardo. The existence of the PoE? Mario. The prophecy? Leonardo and Borgia. The fact that Ezio himself is the prophet (which even the slowest players would have gotten by then)? The other assassins. Even the last lines he had in AC2 were lines of incomprehension. The only 'revelation' on Ezio's part is that the Vault is in Rome and that's just because he's the only one who has eagle vision and apparently is still smart enough to be able to read a map.

The entire plotline focusses on the side characters and Ezio is just a narrative tool who stabs his way from one scenario to the next.

SWJS
07-13-2010, 07:27 PM
is that Altair finds out the truth by himself
By going to Al Mualim ask asking.

Altair only finds out info on his targets by himself. All the philisophical stuff he learns comes from Al Mualim.

He even has to be told what the connection between the 9 marks is, even though it's clear they're templars.

The only way he learns about the vault and the map is from TWCB, through the apple.

Altair also found out other things from his targets, like Al Mualim's secret from Robert.

Altair got all his info from others too, mostly Al Mualim.
The entire plotline focusses on the side characters and Ezio is just a narrative tool who stabs his way from one scenario to the next. It's the same thing in AC1. However, Ezio is killing his targets to learn the truth.

Altair just killed them because he was told to.

DavisP92
07-13-2010, 10:22 PM
AC2 is a all out better game. combat, story, side missions, the enviorments, the animations, and the music too. and about the ppl that say Ezio broke the series and how he isn't as good as Altiar. Please stop whinning, i personally don't wanna play a sequal with a different character that has the same exact personallity as the orginal game's character. Altiar was crazy cool, the best assassin, only because how philosophical he was. and thats it. hopefully Ezio's personallity will resemble Altiar in Brotherhood. and the only thing that AC1 beat AC2 in was the stealth and preperation for the assassination. Which is very big for me, but AC2 didn't fail in that. hopefully Ubisoft will take the best of AC1 (the stealth, preperation and philosophical character), AC2 (the variety, music, customization, and story) and AC:BH (the Multi-player, allied assassins and combat) and improve on all of that and the graphics as well.

EzioAssassin51
07-14-2010, 03:39 AM
Like some of the others have said, Altair only killed the people to please his master and to get his weapons back! He only happened to stumble into the conspiracy that his master is a Templar.

Ezio knew there was a conspiracy and was killing to both stop it, and find out about it!


But at the end of the day, does that mean anything? Ezio as a character changes exactly three times - when his father dies, when he kills Vieri, and when he goes to Rome. His twenty-something-year epic doesn't change the story, because Ezio barely changes as a character.

You say he changes three times and then you say he doesn't change at all! lol!

El_Sjietah
07-14-2010, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">is that Altair finds out the truth by himself
By going to Al Mualim ask asking.

Altair only finds out info on his targets by himself. All the philisophical stuff he learns comes from Al Mualim.

He even has to be told what the connection between the 9 marks is, even though it's clear they're templars.

The only way he learns about the vault and the map is from TWCB, through the apple.

Altair also found out other things from his targets, like Al Mualim's secret from Robert.

Altair got all his info from others too, mostly Al Mualim.
The entire plotline focusses on the side characters and Ezio is just a narrative tool who stabs his way from one scenario to the next. It's the same thing in AC1. However, Ezio is killing his targets to learn the truth.

Altair just killed them because he was told to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uhm, no. Altair killed who he was told, but kept questioning whether he was doing the right thing, becoming ever more doubtful and eventually gets proven right in the end. Al Mualim only had those discussions with Altair because his answers weren't satisfactory. He got his info from both sides of the conflict and had to piece together the truth himself. Something he succesfully did.

Ezio never questions why he's killing his targets. All he does is end whoever some guy he just met told him to, then goes back to gobble up whatever else they have to tell him. Nowhere does Ezio actively seek out a truth other than what he's being told. That's a big difference.

Razrback16
07-14-2010, 07:24 AM
The thing I really miss from AC1 is having the throwing knives & short blade doubling together. That's how I fought against the masses -- throwing knives armed so you'd be using a short blade if you needed to counter, but if you could put enough distance between yourself and the enemies you could drop them with a throwing knife.

Murcuseo
07-14-2010, 07:49 AM
Originally posted by Razrback16:
The thing I really miss from AC1 is having the throwing knives & short blade doubling together. That's how I fought against the masses -- throwing knives armed so you'd be using a short blade if you needed to counter, but if you could put enough distance between yourself and the enemies you could drop them with a throwing knife.

That was actually one of my biggest complaints aswell, apart from the crappy weapon wheel and the lack of assignable hotkeys for the PC version. Also, the fact the the triggers on 360 controller couldn't be reassigned. I was going to try and use Xpadder to set up the controls properly but I couldn't get it to work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Razrback16
07-14-2010, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:

That was actually one of my biggest complaints aswell, apart from the crappy weapon wheel and the lack of assignable hotkeys for the PC version. Also, the fact the the triggers on 360 controller couldn't be reassigned. I was going to try and use Xpadder to set up the controls properly but I couldn't get it to work. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Right there with ya. I didn't mind the weapon wheel itself that much but the fact you couldn't re-assign buttons for quick use (for example I almost never use a sword) was really annoying. At least the combat pauses for you when you push the weapon wheel button to switch.

Murcuseo
07-14-2010, 09:08 AM
Originally posted by Razrback16:

Right there with ya. I didn't mind the weapon wheel itself that much but the fact you couldn't re-assign buttons for quick use (for example I almost never use a sword) was really annoying. At least the combat pauses for you when you push the weapon wheel button to switch.

I was lucky enough to invest in a decent gaming mouse so I have a few extra buttons to play about with but still, they really made no effort to port it properly lol

I quite like to change weapons during combat just to spice it up a little and often swap to the sword... but I much prefer the short blade and they never mapped a spot for it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif

I'd actually like to know the reason why they choose to do that....

DavisP92
07-14-2010, 09:52 AM
the weapon wheel wasn't a bad idea, but i never really used the sword. i used the knife, my hands and the hidden blade and thats it. what i really liked about AC1 was how the short sword was on Altiar's back. that was my fav. weapon, they should have carried that over into the AC2 rather than the Atiar's sword. and hopefully in Brotherhood or AC3 u can have a short sword on ur back again. one like Atiars weapon.

El_Sjietah
07-14-2010, 10:00 AM
The short sword on the back made no sense. It would slide out every time you jumped when you carry it with the handle down.

Murcuseo
07-14-2010, 10:05 AM
It did look cool though, regardless of its flaws lol

iLikeBacon
07-14-2010, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by Razrback16:
The thing I really miss from AC1 is having the throwing knives & short blade doubling together. That's how I fought against the masses -- throwing knives armed so you'd be using a short blade if you needed to counter, but if you could put enough distance between yourself and the enemies you could drop them with a throwing knife.

I also agree with this. It would be awesome to see this come back, but for some reason I think they wouldn't do this. The weapon wheel was too awkward to use in my opinion.

I think difficulty levels would majorly benefit this game. Think about it... New to the series? Go with a low level. Veteran? Go high. Simple as. They would have to be careful as to get it right though imo.

SWJS
07-14-2010, 02:56 PM
Uhm, no. Altair killed who he was told, but kept questioning whether he was doing the right thing, becoming ever more doubtful and eventually gets proven right in the end. Al Mualim only had those discussions with Altair because his answers weren't satisfactory. He got his info from both sides of the conflict and had to piece together the truth himself. Something he succesfully did.
Altair may have doubted, yes, but he still killed without question.

Altair: Master, are you telling me everything?
Al mualim: Nope. Go kill the templars.
Altair: Okay! *skips out of the room*

He didn't find out anything by himself either. Answers were given to him by Al Mualim and his targets. And the only reason he got any information from his targets was because they magically lived long enough, with a bleeding jugular vein. Ezio isn't lucky enough to have magical live-for-fiften-minutes-after-being-stabbed-in-the-neck targets. Vieri made that pretty clear. "I'm sorry, were you expecting a confession?" *dies*
Ezio never questions why he's killing his targets. All he does is end whoever some guy he just met told him to, then goes back to gobble up whatever else they have to tell him. Nowhere does Ezio actively seek out a truth other than what he's being told. That's a big difference. Nobody tells Ezio to kill anyone. All the people Ezio kills are on the list of conspirators who murdered his father and brothers. Also, unlike Altair, Ezio has no reason to question why he kills the others. NONE of them, except Uberto and Dante, are sympathetic. All of them, especially Borgia, are complete psychopaths, who deserve what they got. All they cared about was power, none of them were interested in peace.

Ezio also DOES, seek out a truth. He seeks out the truth of the conspiracy behind his father's death. Once Ezio finds proof in the Assassin/Templar war by looking through the villa's library, he actively seeks out the truth.

Sure he sleeps with a few women, but Ezio was still very young in those years. By ACB, he takes a much more serious approach to life.

Altair and Ezio are no different.

DavisP92
07-14-2010, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
The short sword on the back made no sense. It would slide out every time you jumped when you carry it with the handle down.

uhhh u know that they have straps that hold the blade into the sheath. so u can't get the blade out unless u unstrap it. so i guess u really didn't put a lot of thought into ur statement. :P

OGCFB
07-14-2010, 03:21 PM
maybe you didn't consider how there is no unstrapping animation...

lilbacchant
07-14-2010, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by iLikeBacon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Razrback16:
The thing I really miss from AC1 is having the throwing knives & short blade doubling together. That's how I fought against the masses -- throwing knives armed so you'd be using a short blade if you needed to counter, but if you could put enough distance between yourself and the enemies you could drop them with a throwing knife.

I also agree with this. It would be awesome to see this come back, but for some reason I think they wouldn't do this. The weapon wheel was too awkward to use in my opinion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't find it awkward so much, as just frustrating that you couldn't, as others have said, use it to hot-key.


I think difficulty levels would majorly benefit this game. Think about it... New to the series? Go with a low level. Veteran? Go high. Simple as. They would have to be careful as to get it right though imo.

I absolutely agree. I don't know why they've been so resistant to difficulty levels. The only explanation I've heard (we want it accessible for entry-level players) makes no sense whatsoever. In fact, it more so seems to justify putting in difficulty levels -- just default it to an easy level if they want.

DavisP92
07-14-2010, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by OACFB:
maybe you didn't consider how there is no unstrapping animation...

haha i did, and don't forget it's a game. still tho they should put in in the next game. it was the best weapon, well for me it was.

hewkii9
07-14-2010, 05:38 PM
You say he changes three times and then you say he doesn't change at all! lol!

Considering that after Vieri was just a superficial change [all it meant was that the death speeches were even more useless], he changes twice-at the very beginning and end of the game. We spend twenty hours with a static Ezio who does nothing but kill his way through all Italy's campest villains. Some of them die for no reason other than being Templars.

Why does he kill Emilio? Because Emilio, as a prominent [if forceful] businessman and unionist, got in the way of the thieves. Obviously, we side with the noble thieves. Despite his last-minute Assassin reveal, Antonio proves himself to be petty, railing at the upper classes simply because he isn't one of them. Rosa is a foul-mouthed generic tough girl whose biggest contributions to the story include being a girl and giving Ezio a book. Ugo is seen a total of twice and has absolutely no personality. Why do we associate ourselves with these criminals? Ezio may be one himself, but he is a noble himself and he's always tried to do the right thing. And in this case the right thing to do is hook up with the cutthroats and kill the old man who may be a Templar and may or may not be mean.

Let's contrast this to Assassin's Creed. Every one of Altair's targets is assigned to him by a higher authority, which Altair is not meant to question. Even though every one of Altair's target's is justifiably despicable, Altair goes ahead and questions killing them. Take Garnier. The other Assassins paint him as a sick Mengele-type figure who experiments on the ill from all cities. He paints himself as a dedicated, groundbreaking doctor who tends for all he treats. Both are equal, if exaggerated views. And Altair questions them. Altair's building up to breaking Al Mualim and the old Assassins from the very second target.

SWJS
07-14-2010, 05:55 PM
Why does he kill Emilio? Because Emilio, as a prominent [if forceful] businessman and unionist, got in the way of the thieves.
Did you never watch any of the target videos?

Emilio had bought the entire police force of venice, and was using it to hold Venice in a vice grip. He also killed anyone who ran against him. And His guards imprison a merchant for "disrupting commerce".

How is Emilio a noble businessman? He's a crook and a murderer.

Ru1986
07-15-2010, 10:06 AM
The thing i miss about AC1 is the fact that Altair is actually an american http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif No shockingly poor game compared to AC2 IMHO

Dwayne111
07-15-2010, 11:36 PM
Altair is not American, he is Middle Eastern. He actually speaks Arabic. He speaks like an American in the game because the Animus 1.27 isn't as synched as the Animus 2.0. Since the Animus 2.0 is more synchronized Italian accents and the language is heard. I could be wrong since in the beginning of AC2 when Desmond used the Animus 1.27 Italian is heard.

Ru1986
07-16-2010, 10:27 AM
If hes Arabic they should have changed his accent i personally think its grossley inaccurate to have him speak with an american accent and then make excuses later

El_Sjietah
07-16-2010, 12:21 PM
It's just as inaccurate to have him speak English with an Arab accent.

SWJS
07-16-2010, 05:43 PM
It's just as inaccurate to have him speak English with an Arab accent.
Okay then. Let's have him speak arabic with an arabian accent. We'll still be able to understand him, and it's not like we don't enjoy reading tiny subtitle text at the bottom of the screen if we can't. Sure, why not? It's not like convience for the millions who can't speak arabic is important. It would make the realism and the story twenty times better! [/sarcasm]

El_Sjietah
07-16-2010, 07:04 PM
Sarcasm only works when you have a valid point.

SWJS
07-16-2010, 08:49 PM
So, what you're saying is that my point of Altair's speaking English is justified, isn't valid? That makes no sense. My point is valid. What's yours?

phil.llllll
07-16-2010, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
How is Emilio a noble businessman? He's a crook and a murderer.

Well, so is Ezio. I think hewkii9 brought up quite a good point. In fact, that's one of the reasons AC2 was a quite a bit more worse off story wise than AC1, in my opinion. They mostly ditched the human side of the assassin character and relativist world view - which is really at the heart of their creed, nothing is true everything is permitted - and opted for a more generic revenge/conspiracy plot.

In the end, Altair was just a lot more fleshed out than Ezio and I think hewkii9 described him pretty well. Whether one likes him more is another matter entirely.




It's just as inaccurate to have him speak English with an Arab accent.

Exactly. Truth be told if someone like the voice actor who did Malik was the voice of Altair instead, I wouldn't have cared (the guy was outstanding). But now that I've played AC many times, I can't imagine him any other way. As others mentioned, it's inaccurate anyway that they're speaking modern day English. I really don't want to imagine all they'd have to go through to make an accurately voiced period set game (e.g. multiple languages that may have been all very different back then). It's no problem at all for me and it's something I was a bit surprised to see they didn't continue with in AC2 - it only really further sets Altair apart from the others and, since that's what they wanted, I think they succeeded.

EzioAssassin51
07-16-2010, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
How is Emilio a noble businessman? He's a crook and a murderer.

Well, so is Ezio. I think hewkii9 brought up quite a good point. In fact, that's one of the reasons AC2 was a quite a bit more worse off story wise than AC1, in my opinion. They mostly ditched the human side of the assassin character and relativist world view - which is really at the heart of their creed, nothing is true everything is permitted - and opted for a more generic revenge/conspiracy plot.

In the end, Altair was just a lot more fleshed out than Ezio and I think hewkii9 described him pretty well. Whether one likes him more is another matter entirely. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Altair is only 'fleshed out' because he asks too many questions to waste 5 minutes each time we start up the game!
He has no emotion and doesn't have much expression! ou only ever here a bit of anger in his voice and he always sounds the same, always calm, sounding almost bored. Even when he finds out what happen at the end (avoiding spoilers) he hardly acts surprised, unlike Ezio!

Besides, i liked both plots anyway and the Conspiracy thing gave a clearer explanation to everything!

Ezio may be a murderer but he does it for a just cause. Emilio is corrupt and is destroying Venice's marketplaces and it's business for his own personal gain!

El_Sjietah
07-17-2010, 03:09 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
So, what you're saying is that my point of Altair's speaking English is justified, isn't valid? That makes no sense. My point is valid. What's yours?

Seeing that you quoted me and then responded in that manner, you implied I said something ridiculous. Or in other words, that you'd think having an Arabian assassin from the 12th century speak modern English with an Arabic accent would be more authentic than having him speak American English. Both make no sense, so they're both just as unauthentic.

If you meant something else and I simply misunderstood your post, I apologise for that. Sarcasm on the internet is a tricky thing.

SWJS
07-17-2010, 08:23 AM
12th century speak modern English with an Arabic accent would be more authentic than having him speak American English. Both make no sense, so they're both just as unauthentic.
I actually wasn't referring to that argument at all. I was implying that Altair speaking English is justified, twice. Once by Lucy, and once by reality. It wouldn't be wise to make the game so authentic as to have Altair speak arabic, because no one playing would understand him, unless they knew arabic. Even if Altair speaking English in the Holy Land is innacurate, it would be more authentic for him to speak English in an arabian accent, rather than an american accent. Altair does sound out of place compared to everyone else around him if you think about.
Sarcasm on the internet is a tricky thing.
I agree.

phil.llllll
07-17-2010, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:

Altair is only 'fleshed out' because he asks too many questions to waste 5 minutes each time we start up the game!

It may not have interested you but to say that they simply threw dialogue in there to stretch out the duration of the game is a bit ridiculous.


Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
He has no emotion and doesn't have much expression! ou only ever here a bit of anger in his voice and he always sounds the same, always calm, sounding almost bored. Even when he finds out what happen at the end (avoiding spoilers) he hardly acts surprised, unlike Ezio!


His character is cold, focused, accepting and at times indifferent; and they protrayed that spot on. There's emotion and conviction in what he says, he just doesn't let his emotions get the better of him. Regarding the ending - was he really unsurprised? He certainly seemed genuinely surprised in his talk with Robert, and finally at the end, but in a way you're right in that it didn't seem that surprising to him - but for obvious reasons as hinted at throughout the game.

I'm not saying I disliked Ezio completely - he's a character alright - but I was genuinely not as involved with him as I was Altair. Someone who is interesting that we know hardly anything about is Desmond. We've been with him for two games now and although we've learned a lot about him we've barely scratched the surface. I'm hoping Desmond has his turn in AC3 as there's a lot to be offered there, in my opinion.

thesilentkill4
07-27-2010, 11:40 AM
To write everything I have to say about those games would take an eternity, so I`ll try to make a short summary of my thoughts.

First of all, when AC1 was released, it was an unseen phenom, there were millions of things people hadnt seen before. I liked that it took place in middle-East. I am really fascinated in history, escpescially in Crusades, I have read countless of books on that subject. So I tryed to grasp as much of the game as possible. I thought it was great, the game itself wasnt all historically correct or anything but it gave the sense of the life in the big cities like Damascus for example. During the 12th century, biggest European cities had approx. 50K citizens, while Bagdad on the other hand was a million megalopolis. I appreciated the athmosphere in the Damascus market areas, the speeches of the preachers, the multi-cultural sociaty of Jerusalem and Acre. As in AC2, they tryed to make the cities as similar as in real life. For me the scenery in AC1 was more stunning: the area around the Al-Aqsa mosque, the dome of the rock, the harbour in Acre, the breathtaking entrance to Jerusalem..etc.

In AC1, then the fight was on , the adrenalin was rushing through my veins, I remember a mission in Damascus where I had to fight 50+ souldiers at once and they all were chasing me and more and more back up came. Finally I confronted them with almoust all my life power gone and a dagger in my hand (for better blocking chances). I started taking them down 1 by 1,constantly blocking their hits. It took over an hour but I finally killed them all.
Also the mission with Robert de Sable where you have to fight with about 10 templars.. I failed over and over again, until I finally made it, and it was freaking exhilerating.

I very much liked the story line of AC2 and the historycal places and tombs. But it was too damn easy! Even if I used a violin for attacking, I still wouldnt be defeated. And 20 life potions? For what? I didnt have trouble with any of the missions and the fighting was rediculously dull. Although, I did figure out all of the Truth puzzles and codex pages and the ending of the game was pretty good too, in my opinion.
AC2 was more like a movie or a visit back in time to relax and enjoy the rennaisance but AC1 was a thrilling fighting experience.

In before, tl;dr.

itsamea-mario
07-27-2010, 11:59 AM
i do agree that the scenery was much more stunning in AC1, and that the combat was more brutal and felt more violent whilst remaining with the idea of a cool quick killing assassin, ezio's moves weren't like that, they were either just not violent enough, or over the top, like repeatadly smashing someone in the head with a hammer. i actually prefer the character of altair rather than ezio, altair's much more cool and proffesional.

SWJS
07-27-2010, 01:07 PM
but AC1 was a thrilling fighting experience.
That's just it though. Let's think a bit realistically here, since everyone already wants games to be as realistic as possible.

The AC series is in the Action-Adventure-Stealth genre. You're playing as an assassin, a job in which real lfe, stealth is the biggest key. Hypothetically let's say you wanted to assassinate a political leader. You wouldn't just jump out and start fighting everyone in the area, your focus would be on your main target.

The game is called Assassin's Creed, not "Jump-Out-and-Fight-Everyone-In-an-Epic-Action-Sword-Duel Creed." The purpose is to stealthily assassinate your target.

The reason the fighting in AC2 was 'easier' was because the devs wanted stealth to have a bigger role, because in AC1 Altair was more of a Warrior monk, rather than an assassin.

But it seems that Ubisoft, no matter what they want their series to be liks ultimately faithful to fans, and so are bringing back the "Epic Action Sword Duel" fighting from the first game. It's a shame too. I was hoping they'd take stealth further. But now that Ezio's getting a brotherhood behind him, he might as well be leading an army to conquer the world. :/

El_Sjietah
07-27-2010, 01:34 PM
How would making combat easier encourage stealth? From my experience, stealth was even less necessary in AC2 than it was in AC1.

Chris199930
07-27-2010, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but AC1 was a thrilling fighting experience.
That's just it though. Let's think a bit realistically here, since everyone already wants games to be as realistic as possible.

The AC series is in the Action-Adventure-Stealth genre. You're playing as an assassin, a job in which real lfe, stealth is the biggest key. Hypothetically let's say you wanted to assassinate a political leader. You wouldn't just jump out and start fighting everyone in the area, your focus would be on your main target.

The game is called Assassin's Creed, not "Jump-Out-and-Fight-Everyone-In-an-Epic-Action-Sword-Duel Creed." The purpose is to stealthily assassinate your target.

The reason the fighting in AC2 was 'easier' was because the devs wanted stealth to have a bigger role, because in AC1 Altair was more of a Warrior monk, rather than an assassin.

But it seems that Ubisoft, no matter what they want their series to be liks ultimately faithful to fans, and so are bringing back the "Epic Action Sword Duel" fighting from the first game. It's a shame too. I was hoping they'd take stealth further. But now that Ezio's getting a brotherhood behind him, he might as well be leading an army to conquer the world. :/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
In my opinion,Assassin's Creed isn't like Splinter Cell.An assassin's greatest skil is to appear from nowhere,kill his target,and then vanish like a shadow.The point is,when the assassins kill someone,it is a direct warning against their target.

hewkii9
07-27-2010, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
Altair is only 'fleshed out' because he asks too many questions to waste 5 minutes each time we start up the game!
He has no emotion and doesn't have much expression! ou only ever here a bit of anger in his voice and he always sounds the same, always calm, sounding almost bored. Even when he finds out what happen at the end (avoiding spoilers) he hardly acts surprised, unlike Ezio!

Besides, i liked both plots anyway and the Conspiracy thing gave a clearer explanation to everything!

Ezio may be a murderer but he does it for a just cause. Emilio is corrupt and is destroying Venice's marketplaces and it's business for his own personal gain!
Your first point is an issue with how the story was told, rather than AC1's actual story. And I think we can all agree that unskippable cutscenes bookending every assassination wasn't the best way to tell it. Altair's voice is always restrained because that's who he is. He was raised by Al Mualim to withhold his emotions regardless, so he won't go crying and spouting off heartfelt speeches. Also, part of the reason that Altair doesn't act as surprised at the end is because the Piece of Eden's powers are slowly seeded into the story, not thrown right through the fourth wall within ten minutes of the credits. When the actual revelations [of Al Mualim's true intentions, and the Piece's power] are made, Altair's on his feet fighting for his life right away. The revelation isn't of a nature that would cause Altair to go "What? What is a globe?", anyway. If he did it would have been silly.

Your second point. Hmm. How is a series of glyphs and a chart that loosely connect almost every single historical event a clearer way to tell a story than by doing it largely through dialogue?

Where is the proof that Emilio was trying to destroy Venice's markets? It was only ever made clear that Emilio wanted to put them together. Considering the power that the other Templars held in Venice, it would only harm them to weaken Venice economically. Also consider that Emilio was far from doing anything for personal gain. Every Templar was working as a gear in Borgia's machine.

And, finally, [for this post] how do we know Ezio was killing for a 'just cause'? Beyond Ezio's ill-thought out revenge plan, and revenge never works, what does Ezio kill for? Because it's "for the people"? No. That idea is only ever discussed by the hypocritical thieves, and never actually shown in-game. Taking out the save citizens mean we see not a single regular citizen being harmed by the Templars, apart from the defiant fish man. We are only ever told that we're fighting "for the people", and since it's a largely laughable and romantic notion anyways, we can't actually call that our just cause.
Is it because Ezio, as a member of the Assassin's Order, is duty-bound to defy all Templars? Surely, no. Ezio formally becomes an Assassin at the end of Sequence 11, and kills thirteen people after that. Two, the Orsi, are hitmen hired by a Templar. One, Savonarola, is a mentally ill clergyman. Nine were deluded civilians. [Fighting for the people, indeed!] Only one, Borgia, is a Knight Templar. And his death didn't even take. So I don't think Ezio is killing out of Assassin responsibility.
Instead, Ezio kills because people ask him to. Mario asks him to kill Vieri. Lorenzo asks him to kill the Pazzi Conspirators. Antonio asks him to kill Emilio and Carlo. Teodora [a discussion in herself: let's replace AC1's discussion of religion with "well-I'm-a-madam-and-a-nun"] asks Ezio to kill Marco. It goes on. Now I ask you, does hired hitman mesh with the romantic, Renaissance, once wide-eyed Ezio we're supposed to know?

SWJS
07-27-2010, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
How would making combat easier encourage stealth? From my experience, stealth was even less necessary in AC2 than it was in AC1. That wasn't my point.

I said the devs wanted to make stealth more prominent in AC2, so they toned down on the combat.


In my opinion,Assassin's Creed isn't like Splinter Cell.An assassin's greatest skil is to appear from nowhere,kill his target,and then vanish like a shadow.The point is,when the assassins kill someone,it is a direct warning against their target. You can't exactly give your target a warning by killing someone, if they're the person you're supposed to kill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

itsamea-mario
07-27-2010, 02:37 PM
very thourough, and very true,
altough some of the targets dont seem that bad in the first game either, sibrand (the guy on the boat?) and william of monferrat for example dont seem particulary evil, a bit cruel, in sibrands case he has been driven paranoid BY the assassins, but there intentions dont seem too bad, however most of them are pretty nasty pieces of work, also in AC1 there's more sense of the creed, as there is an actual assassins order that has its own cerimonies and regulations, also there are actually people there to punish assassins who break tennents of the creed. ezio himself actually kind of breaks one of these tennants, the one which says you must never draw attention to you and your fellow assassins (or something like that) well i dont think that after killing somebody shouting around and telling everybody who you are, and at another point even revealing the other assassins to a crowd of people, would have been looked upon favourably by the old assassins.

the new assassins dont have the same feel, just killing templars because they're templars seems pointless, when most of the time it has no real effect, appart from getting you paid (and laid wink nudge) you dont get the same sense of a creed that binds them together, it seems more like a club than a faction.

hewkii9
07-27-2010, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
very thourough, and very true,
altough some of the targets dont seem that bad in the first game either, sibrand (the guy on the boat?) and william of monferrat for example dont seem particulary evil, a bit cruel, in sibrands case he has been driven paranoid BY the assassins, but there intentions dont seem too bad, however most of them are pretty nasty pieces of work, also in AC1 there's more sense of the creed, as there is an actual assassins order that has its own cerimonies and regulations, also there are actually people there to punish assassins who break tennents of the creed. ezio himself actually kind of breaks one of these tennants, the one which says you must never draw attention to you and your fellow assassins (or something like that) well i dont think that after killing somebody shouting around and telling everybody who you are, and at another point even revealing the other assassins to a crowd of people, would have been looked upon favourably by the old assassins.

the new assassins dont have the same feel, just killing templars because they're templars seems pointless, when most of the time it has no real effect, appart from getting you paid (and laid wink nudge) you dont get the same sense of a creed that binds them together, it seems more like a club than a faction.

Some of AC1's Templars don't seem that bad because they might just not be that bad. It's all a matter of spin. I used Garnier to illustrate this point before, but I'll take William this time. The Assassins think he is conspiring to forcibly take over Acre, kill King Richard, and institute something like martial law. William believes he is making a major effort to end the crusades and preparing the people of Acre for the future. Remember, in AC1 it truly was all shades of grey.

Yeah, Ezio was pretty unprofessional. And the Renaissance Assassins' Order seems more like the cool kids table than an actual organization. Machiavelli was the Grand Master of the Assassins when Ezio was inducted? He was nineteen. You own practically the entire criminal underworld in Venice, and you can't ensure the silence one merchant until Ezio comes along?

Chris199930
07-27-2010, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
very thourough, and very true,
altough some of the targets dont seem that bad in the first game either, sibrand (the guy on the boat?) and william of monferrat for example dont seem particulary evil, a bit cruel, in sibrands case he has been driven paranoid BY the assassins, but there intentions dont seem too bad, however most of them are pretty nasty pieces of work, also in AC1 there's more sense of the creed, as there is an actual assassins order that has its own cerimonies and regulations, also there are actually people there to punish assassins who break tennents of the creed. ezio himself actually kind of breaks one of these tennants, the one which says you must never draw attention to you and your fellow assassins (or something like that) well i dont think that after killing somebody shouting around and telling everybody who you are, and at another point even revealing the other assassins to a crowd of people, would have been looked upon favourably by the old assassins.

the new assassins dont have the same feel, just killing templars because they're templars seems pointless, when most of the time it has no real effect, appart from getting you paid (and laid wink nudge) you dont get the same sense of a creed that binds them together, it seems more like a club than a faction.

Some of AC1's Templars don't seem that bad because they might just not be that bad. It's all a matter of spin. I used Garnier to illustrate this point before, but I'll take William this time. The Assassins think he is conspiring to forcibly take over Acre, kill King Richard, and institute something like martial law. William believes he is making a major effort to end the crusades and preparing the people of Acre for the future. Remember, in AC1 it truly was all shades of grey.

Yeah, Ezio was pretty unprofessional. And the Renaissance Assassins' Order seems more like the cool kids table than an actual organization. Machiavelli was the Grand Master of the Assassins when Ezio was inducted? He was nineteen. You own practically the entire criminal underworld in Venice, and you can't ensure the silence one merchant until Ezio comes along? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ezio is like Altair before he was demoted.Reckless and rushing to his revenge.I personally hope that in AC:B he will be wiser.Anyway,it takes wisdom to be the leader of a brotherhood,doesn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ArtofParkour
07-27-2010, 04:02 PM
Hey there.

I think that you guys putting this thing into a box and saying that a peson MUST have a preference (or suggesting that most would) is a bit shallow. I would argue that the evolution of Alta´r as a character suggests that he wanted the Assassin order to be more like Ezio. As a matter of fact, it is Alta´r who says in his codex pages that the Brotherhood under his banner would be allowed to love their children and provide more than just skills and shelter for them. It was he who dramatically changed the Brotherhood after the death of Al Mualim to be more "human."

I think if there were a game about Alta´r closer to his supposed death, you would see a man much more like Ezio than himself. At the end of the day, I think it's just the time periods that render most people's decisions. If you prefer the middle ages, we know who you'll prefer and the same can be said for the renaissance.

The truth, I think, is that they're more alike than different.

Oh, and hewkii, I don't think there really was a "leader." The man you're speaking of was probably just introduced in the fashion he was because he hadn't been seen up until that point. He certainly was the figure head though and I'd see why you suggest him to be the leader, it just didn't seem that way to me. Though the order still existed, it's clear the the original Brotherhood concept had been lost to them until Ezio revives it in Brotherhood, which I imagine begins around 1503.

Chris199930
07-27-2010, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
How would making combat easier encourage stealth? From my experience, stealth was even less necessary in AC2 than it was in AC1. That wasn't my point.

I said the devs wanted to make stealth more prominent in AC2, so they toned down on the combat.


In my opinion,Assassin's Creed isn't like Splinter Cell.An assassin's greatest skil is to appear from nowhere,kill his target,and then vanish like a shadow.The point is,when the assassins kill someone,it is a direct warning against their target. You can't exactly give your target a warning by killing someone, if they're the person you're supposed to kill. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No,but it's a warning,that if they don't change their ways,THEY will be next.
Sorry for the late answer.

masterfenix2009
07-27-2010, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
Altair is only 'fleshed out' because he asks too many questions to waste 5 minutes each time we start up the game!
He has no emotion and doesn't have much expression! ou only ever here a bit of anger in his voice and he always sounds the same, always calm, sounding almost bored. Even when he finds out what happen at the end (avoiding spoilers) he hardly acts surprised, unlike Ezio!

Besides, i liked both plots anyway and the Conspiracy thing gave a clearer explanation to everything!

Ezio may be a murderer but he does it for a just cause. Emilio is corrupt and is destroying Venice's marketplaces and it's business for his own personal gain!
Your first point is an issue with how the story was told, rather than AC1's actual story. And I think we can all agree that unskippable cutscenes bookending every assassination wasn't the best way to tell it. Altair's voice is always restrained because that's who he is. He was raised by Al Mualim to withhold his emotions regardless, so he won't go crying and spouting off heartfelt speeches. Also, part of the reason that Altair doesn't act as surprised at the end is because the Piece of Eden's powers are slowly seeded into the story, not thrown right through the fourth wall within ten minutes of the credits. When the actual revelations [of Al Mualim's true intentions, and the Piece's power] are made, Altair's on his feet fighting for his life right away. The revelation isn't of a nature that would cause Altair to go "What? What is a globe?", anyway. If he did it would have been silly.

Your second point. Hmm. How is a series of glyphs and a chart that loosely connect almost every single historical event a clearer way to tell a story than by doing it largely through dialogue?

Where is the proof that Emilio was trying to destroy Venice's markets? It was only ever made clear that Emilio wanted to put them together. Considering the power that the other Templars held in Venice, it would only harm them to weaken Venice economically. Also consider that Emilio was far from doing anything for personal gain. Every Templar was working as a gear in Borgia's machine.

And, finally, [for this post] how do we know Ezio was killing for a 'just cause'? Beyond Ezio's ill-thought out revenge plan, and revenge never works, what does Ezio kill for? Because it's "for the people"? No. That idea is only ever discussed by the hypocritical thieves, and never actually shown in-game. Taking out the save citizens mean we see not a single regular citizen being harmed by the Templars, apart from the defiant fish man. We are only ever told that we're fighting "for the people", and since it's a largely laughable and romantic notion anyways, we can't actually call that our just cause.
Is it because Ezio, as a member of the Assassin's Order, is duty-bound to defy all Templars? Surely, no. Ezio formally becomes an Assassin at the end of Sequence 11, and kills thirteen people after that. Two, the Orsi, are hitmen hired by a Templar. One, Savonarola, is a mentally ill clergyman. Nine were deluded civilians. [Fighting for the people, indeed!] Only one, Borgia, is a Knight Templar. And his death didn't even take. So I don't think Ezio is killing out of Assassin responsibility.
Instead, Ezio kills because people ask him to. Mario asks him to kill Vieri. Lorenzo asks him to kill the Pazzi Conspirators. Antonio asks him to kill Emilio and Carlo. Teodora [a discussion in herself: let's replace AC1's discussion of religion with "well-I'm-a-madam-and-a-nun"] asks Ezio to kill Marco. It goes on. Now I ask you, does hired hitman mesh with the romantic, Renaissance, once wide-eyed Ezio we're supposed to know? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> mario didnt ask him to kill him ezio went over there and wanted to kill him because it was his fault he was here. Ezio was already gonna kill the pazzi. ezio was gonna kill emilio before he knew antonio and went to antonio for help on how to kill carlo and how to kill marco from tedora whos religon was obviosly real if it was a historic landmark. the nine civilians were high political people who were trapping and forcing the civilians into savanoralas religon. for example the doctor was kepping the civilians from having medical care. and not all hade the apple of eden controlling them they acted on tere own will just to keep them high in political order. everyone besides the orsi and savanrola and the political ppl were templars. plus altair killed good ppl to there was one man u interrogated in acre and was a good man forced to do this yet altair killed him. the person killing ppl because someone asked them was altair

thesilentkill4
07-28-2010, 02:24 AM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
very thourough, and very true,
altough some of the targets dont seem that bad in the first game either, sibrand (the guy on the boat?) and william of monferrat for example dont seem particulary evil, a bit cruel, in sibrands case he has been driven paranoid BY the assassins, but there intentions dont seem too bad, however most of them are pretty nasty pieces of work, also in AC1 there's more sense of the creed, as there is an actual assassins order that has its own cerimonies and regulations, also there are actually people there to punish assassins who break tennents of the creed. ezio himself actually kind of breaks one of these tennants, the one which says you must never draw attention to you and your fellow assassins (or something like that) well i dont think that after killing somebody shouting around and telling everybody who you are, and at another point even revealing the other assassins to a crowd of people, would have been looked upon favourably by the old assassins.

the new assassins dont have the same feel, just killing templars because they're templars seems pointless, when most of the time it has no real effect, appart from getting you paid (and laid wink nudge) you dont get the same sense of a creed that binds them together, it seems more like a club than a faction.

Some of AC1's Templars don't seem that bad because they might just not be that bad. It's all a matter of spin. I used Garnier to illustrate this point before, but I'll take William this time. The Assassins think he is conspiring to forcibly take over Acre, kill King Richard, and institute something like martial law. William believes he is making a major effort to end the crusades and preparing the people of Acre for the future. Remember, in AC1 it truly was all shades of grey.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

we must remember that the original order of assassins which originated in Persia (modern-day Iran areas), led by the Old Man of the mountain,always tryed to maintain a balance between two belligerent sides. They didn't want neither of the sides to seize the power so they assassinated men from both forces. And the fact that assassins biggest arch nemesis was templars is not true at all. Assassins had calm relationships with them, sometimes even assisting each others in missions.

El_Sjietah
07-28-2010, 06:07 AM
Sure, but since this thread is about AC, what happened IRL is irrelevant.

hewkii9
07-28-2010, 07:12 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
mario didnt ask him to kill him ezio went over there and wanted to kill him because it was his fault he was here. Ezio was already gonna kill the pazzi. ezio was gonna kill emilio before he knew antonio and went to antonio for help on how to kill carlo and how to kill marco from tedora whos religon was obviosly real if it was a historic landmark. the nine civilians were high political people who were trapping and forcing the civilians into savanoralas religon. for example the doctor was kepping the civilians from having medical care. and not all hade the apple of eden controlling them they acted on tere own will just to keep them high in political order. everyone besides the orsi and savanrola and the political ppl were templars. plus altair killed good ppl to there was one man u interrogated in acre and was a good man forced to do this yet altair killed him. the person killing ppl because someone asked them was altair

While I get the feeling that you might be hiding a good point in there, I can barely read that. Couple things, though:

- Yes, Teodora's sexy-nun brothel was obviously a real thing. Tell me, did you think that there actually was an Ezio Auditore? He had a database entry, too.
- Everyone besides the Orsi, Savonarola, and the Florentine nobles were Templars. Well if you're still going after Sequence 11, that's one person. Who didn't die.
- So what if Altair *also* killed because he was asked? If you remember AC1, that fit his character. That drove the story. I'd better expect a restrained, hardened warrior-monk to kill upon request than Renaissance 90210, whose most promoted character trait before the game's release was "likes girls".

And, thesilentkill, The Old Man of the Mountain wasn't the Hashashin's Persian founder, it was the real-life Al Mualim, who operated out of Syria. The Persian founder was a man named Hasan ibn Sabbah - if you want to know more, read the novel Alamut, by Vladimir Bartol.

phil.llllll
07-28-2010, 08:24 AM
Originally posted by hewkii9:

And, thesilentkill, The Old Man of the Mountain wasn't the Hashashin's Persian founder, it was the real-life Al Mualim, who operated out of Syria. The Persian founder was a man named Hasan ibn Sabbah - if you want to know more, read the novel Alamut, by Vladimir Bartol.

Hasan is also sometimes referred to as The Old Man of the Mountain - as he is in Alamut. I agree about Alamut - anybody who liked AC should definitely check it out. A whole lot in AC was taken from that book (I believe Patrice got the idea for AC after reading it).

hewkii9
07-28-2010, 09:38 AM
Nah, he straight up was inspired by Alamut. A lot of concepts in the first game are taken right out of the book's pages [won't say what, incase anyone wants to read it]

On a completely unrelated note, who's seen the trailer for Sucker Punch? Wow.

masterfenix2009
07-28-2010, 02:19 PM
hewkii9 sorry what i was saying that Ezio was going to kill the templars before anyone asked him too.He didn't even know who Antonio was but was already going to kill Emilio. I don't think there was a Ezio. Giovanni maybe only because it says he helped the Medici bank majorly. I think maria was real do to her journal but anytime i type a character who is related to assassins creed i get bombarded with assassins creed information. I don't think that his most promoted feature was likes girls. I followed assassins creed 2 and I never thought that most about him. His most promoted feature to me was he was seeking vengeance.

El_Sjietah
07-28-2010, 03:15 PM
Even if he was already gonna kill them, it's a fact that others came up with how to do it. Ezio only had to execute their plan. That still makes him inferior to Altair in my eyes.

masterfenix2009
07-28-2010, 03:44 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Even if he was already gonna kill them, it's a fact that others came up with how to do it. Ezio only had to execute their plan. That still makes him inferior to Altair in my eyes.
he thought about how to kill the pazzi by himself. the orsi by himself. the political members by himsel and savanarola.carlo by himself. plus he was still learning so i wouldnt jjudge between the two of them. now in brotherhood it is time to judge who is better

El_Sjietah
07-28-2010, 04:36 PM
Really? Still learning half way in his 30s? Altair was 25 and already knew how to plan that stuff himself.

masterfenix2009
07-28-2010, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Really? Still learning half way in his 30s? Altair was 25 and already knew how to plan that stuff himself.
altair was also trained since he was born . ezio started learnin around his 20s

El_Sjietah
07-28-2010, 05:12 PM
Learning from whom exactly? The only learning I've seen him do was training exercises in the fighting ring when he just arrived in Monteriggioni. Everything after that felt more like taking orders.

masterfenix2009
07-28-2010, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Learning from whom exactly? The only learning I've seen him do was training exercises in the fighting ring when he just arrived in Monteriggioni. Everything after that felt more like taking orders.

he never took orders he choose. he was asked and ezio said yes because he was already going to kill them. He was learning from experience mostly.other than that paola, mario

El_Sjietah
07-28-2010, 05:23 PM
I don't recall ever being asked. Sure, he volunteered, but after that, people simply told him what to do. Learning from experience requires explanation either before or after an assignment. Ezio never got either. People simply told him their plan and he went out to do it.

And Paola and Mario only taught Ezio the year after his family got executed. And Paola only if you consider learning to stand next to some random people and pickpocketing innocent civilians assassin training.

hewkii9
07-28-2010, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
hewkii9 sorry what i was saying that Ezio was going to kill the templars before anyone asked him too.He didn't even know who Antonio was but was already going to kill Emilio. I don't think there was a Ezio. Giovanni maybe only because it says he helped the Medici bank majorly. I think maria was real do to her journal but anytime i type a character who is related to assassins creed i get bombarded with assassins creed information. I don't think that his most promoted feature was likes girls. I followed assassins creed 2 and I never thought that most about him. His most promoted feature to me was he was seeking vengeance.

Assassino, have you ever heard of a narrative technique called false documentation? Basically, a story's told through false letters, newspaper articles, and so on. Makes it seem real. Like how the Sherlock Holmes stories are always told as "Sherlock and Watson did this then Watson wrote it down". I can assure you that no member of the Auditore family existed in real life.

I followed the AC2 hype pretty closely too. Before the game's release, all I really knew about Ezio was "bangs babes", "dead dad", and "badass". Badass is an overused and practically meaningless word, too.

About Ezio's choosing to kill people: I think you can hardly call it a choice when Ezio always does it. Stab, stab, stab. Did he ever think that killing almost every politician he saw and leaving a group of thieves to fill the vaccuum would do worse "for the people"?

Murcuseo
07-28-2010, 06:12 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Even if he was already gonna kill them, it's a fact that others came up with how to do it. Ezio only had to execute their plan. That still makes him inferior to Altair in my eyes.

Ezio seemed to be driven by his childish need to prove himself at the beginning which did give you a bad impression but he grew out of it somewhat. One prime example is Savonorolas 9 Lieutenants. Although he does talk to Machiavelli about it who informs him of their existence it's Ezio that comes up with the plan to kill them and give the power back to the people. He explains to Machiavelli what he plans to do and Machiavelli compliments him on his cunning.

After he kills Savonorola on the spire he evens gives the speech...



Ezio Auditore:

Silenzio, silenzio...Twenty-two years ago, I stood where I stand now- and watched my loved ones die, betrayed by those I had called friends. Vengeance clouded my mind. It would have consumed me, were it not for the wisdom of a few strangers who taught me to look past my instincts. They never preached answers, but guided me to learn from myself. We don't need anyone to tell us what to do. Not Savonarola, not the Medici. We are free to follow our own path. There are those who will take that freedom from us, and too many of you gladly give it. But it is our ability to choose- whatever you think is true- that makes us human...There is no book or teacher to give you the answers, to show you the way. Choose your own way! Do not follow me, or anyone else.

...about how he couldn't have done anything without his compatriots but it's time for him to go out on his own, metaphorically of course. That for me was a turning point in his character development.

Your point about others deciding his path for him is true but I feel it was guidance rather than orders. The reason he didn't question them is because he knew it was what he had to do in order to achieve his goal... vengeance. Although, ironically he chose to ignore his need for vengeance right at the end of the game lol
Being spurred on by the need for it might have made him question people a lot less. Especially his peer group. The combination of all those things certainly makes him seem weaker but to be fair we don't get to see Altair going through a similar process which he may have so it's a bit of a one sided story.

Ezio may have started out inferior to Altair but he matches up to him and even surpasses him in many aspects. And vise versa of course... I find it impossible to say who I like more. If I knew more of Altairs back story I might be able to choose...

SWJS
07-28-2010, 07:04 PM
Robson. That post is made of win.
About Ezio's choosing to kill people: I think you can hardly call it a choice when Ezio always does it. Stab, stab, stab. Did he ever think that killing almost every politician he saw and leaving a group of thieves to fill the vaccuum would do worse "for the people"? I love the fact you try to make Ezio the monster and make the politicians nothing less than angels.

1. Ezio had a choice. He chose to track down and kill those responsible for the deaths in his family. If someone murdered your dad and brothers, you'd be ticked off too. Ezio was young and brash. While he was angry and ignorant, he had every right to be. I know from experience, watching a loved one die right in front of you isn't sugar and cupcakes. Saying Ezio was wrong for seeking vengeance is like saying you shouldn't cry if your mother dies. I don't want to even meet the man who wouldn't be distraught by the death of a family member.

2. Ezio doesn't always kill. He never walked around mindlessly slaughtering every person he saw. He's not a serial killer. Unlike Altair, Ezio was able to choose what he wanted to do inbetween his assassinations, some of which were years apart.

3. Did you ever think about who these people are? They're politicians. Corrupt politiians. They hold a vice grip over their cities by means of bribery, force, and fear. Before Ezio came along, the people were miserable. It's also heavily implied that the thieves of Antonio = Robin Hood's Merry Men. They only got placed in Della Seta too. Every other politician was replaced by either a new better one, or one who wasn't too great, but still better than the last one.

phil.llllll
07-28-2010, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
about how he couldn't have done anything without his compatriots but it's time for him to go out on his own, metaphorically of course. That for me was a turning point in his character development.

I liked it as well. Seemed like his way of coming to terms with the Creed - nothing is true...

On another note though some of his speeches to the nine were a bit contradicting. First he'd condemn one for allowing their minds to be enslaved and others he basically just says 'it's okay you were tricked'.


Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
I love the fact you try to make Ezio the monster and make the politicians nothing less than angels.

He didn't make them angels at all. It was simply a observation how Ezio just does and doesn't think about the consequences - like Altair did (or maybe Ezio did but it never showed). A mentality like that is dangerous -sort of comparable to how Altair was at the beginning of AC1. Not that he didn't have a heart or anything but he didn't fully understand the Creed - at least not how Altair came to understand it. It probably didn't even mean anything to him until later (as I noted above). Or he interpreted it in a different way of course - one that justified killing anything to get what he was after.

Quite simply put, he came there on a mission to kill regardless of the consequences. The stab, stab he mentioned.

masterfenix2009
07-28-2010, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
hewkii9 sorry what i was saying that Ezio was going to kill the templars before anyone asked him too.He didn't even know who Antonio was but was already going to kill Emilio. I don't think there was a Ezio. Giovanni maybe only because it says he helped the Medici bank majorly. I think maria was real do to her journal but anytime i type a character who is related to assassins creed i get bombarded with assassins creed information. I don't think that his most promoted feature was likes girls. I followed assassins creed 2 and I never thought that most about him. His most promoted feature to me was he was seeking vengeance.

Assassino, have you ever heard of a narrative technique called false documentation? Basically, a story's told through false letters, newspaper articles, and so on. Makes it seem real. Like how the Sherlock Holmes stories are always told as "Sherlock and Watson did this then Watson wrote it down". I can assure you that no member of the Auditore family existed in real life.

I followed the AC2 hype pretty closely too. Before the game's release, all I really knew about Ezio was "bangs babes", "dead dad", and "badass". Badass is an overused and practically meaningless word, too.

About Ezio's choosing to kill people: I think you can hardly call it a choice when Ezio always does it. Stab, stab, stab. Did he ever think that killing almost every politician he saw and leaving a group of thieves to fill the vaccuum would do worse "for the people"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


as i told you i couldnt type anything besides someone really famous without the results being ac2 related thank you for telling me the auditore family wasnt real

Vey03
07-29-2010, 03:36 AM
Robson, that's a brilliant post!

Totally agree about Ezio's speech.

I think the thing people keep going back to is that Ezio was doing everything for revenge. And yes, the story is strongly based on that, and it's something that only goes away when he makes that speech, which is pretty-much the end of the game, so i can understand how it's easy to critisise that all AC2 is about, is revenge.
I think the other issue is that everyone involved in his family's murder, is also involved in the whole conspiracy, so for Ezio it's basically 2 birds, 1 stone. Which is maybe another reason why we're quick to critisise.

I totally agree about him just taking orders. I've said it before. I would have loved him to be more involved in planning. He does not have a single idea of his own.
I don't want to be investigating everything like you had to in AC1, but i just wanted different conversations, different dialogue so it showed Ezio was coming up with ideas and making decisions.

Although i guess that is also explained by the other assassins guiding him and teaching him, so they were the ones who knew what needed doing. They were Ezio's Al Mualim.

But here's something interesting. I reinstalled AC1. When i got the game, i played it once. I started a 2nd game, but stopped about 1/3 way through, and haven't touched it since.
I started a new game 3 days ago. And you know what? I can't be bothered finishing it again.
And with AC2, i've played it 3 times through totally, and i'm probably going to start another game soon.

Why? I guess for me, i prefer a more action based game. I don't want to be finding out all the info like i had to AC1. I found it tedious and repetative. I'm happy to find out info, but i don't want to spend all day doing it.

I don't want a map telling me where guards will be. I'd rather climb onto a building and figure things out myself. I feel more involved, and for me, there's more replay value because next time, i try to figure out another way.

One thing i will say though, the fighting was better in AC1. I could manouver around and to my enemies quite easily. I could go from one guard to another and take on several at a time. If i was fighting one guard and another started to lift his sword, i could get to him and strike before he got me.
I couldn't do that in AC2. I was 'stuck'. It was so hard to go from one to the other, that i just kept hitting the one i was fighting till i killed him.
AC2 was more button-mashing. AC1 i could move around, be more agile.

masterfenix2009
07-29-2010, 04:05 AM
mouse as i said before he was not taking orders. he had a choice. he planned on the death of the pazzi himself and savanarola and the 9 officials too

Murcuseo
07-29-2010, 04:17 AM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:

On another note though some of his speeches to the nine were a bit contradicting. First he'd condemn one for allowing their minds to be enslaved and others he basically just says 'it's okay you were tricked'.

I think that had a lot to do with the varying levels of guilt they felt while they were dying. Some admitted to being led by Savonarola willingly because they wanted power... others were just tricked by the Apple and its seductive powers and wanted forgiveness.

Again that's another sign of Ezios growth as a character, if that mission had been earlier on in the game he probably would have condemned all of them but his respect for death and forgiveness was pretty much fully matured by sequence... whatever it was 12 or 13? Can't remember lol

El_Sjietah
07-29-2010, 06:18 AM
As I recall, he got his instructions for the Pazzi from some random mercenary each time. Well, except for Jacopo, which ironically is also the one where he got caught.

hewkii9
07-29-2010, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
3. Did you ever think about who these people are? They're politicians. Corrupt politiians. They hold a vice grip over their cities by means of bribery, force, and fear. Before Ezio came along, the people were miserable. It's also heavily implied that the thieves of Antonio = Robin Hood's Merry Men. They only got placed in Della Seta too. Every other politician was replaced by either a new better one, or one who wasn't too great, but still better than the last one.

Problem is, how exactly do we know the people are miserable? Beyond exactly one instance of a Templar abusing their power over the citizenry, we're told it. "This is for the people", "Take back what has been stolen from the people", and so on. And all from a thief [why again does Ezio fall in so readily with this crowd? He was born and raised a noble]. This is a video game, let Ezio do something that shows how the people were being abused. As is, it comes off as nothing more than Antonio's justification for being a thief.

I don't see the Venice thieves as Merry Men. They're all functionally useless, largely devoid of personality, and I don't think the Merry Men needed so much rescuing.

Also, what about the pickpockets? Are they 'bad' thieves, and Ezio can go around hunting them down all the time?

SlimeDynamiteD
07-29-2010, 09:32 AM
Also, what about the pickpockets? Are they 'bad' thieves, and Ezio can go around hunting them down all the time?

What would you do if your money was stolen? Thinking: Oh it's just a Thief of Antonio...
Or would you go after him to take it back? you don't even have to kill him.

When my money gets stolen I get it back and punch the pickpocket who stole it from me.

El_Sjietah
07-29-2010, 10:22 AM
So it's okay when your friends do it, but not okay when it happens to you?

SlimeDynamiteD
07-29-2010, 11:07 AM
Basicaly, yea.

El_Sjietah
07-29-2010, 11:24 AM
So he's a hypocrite as well. Nice.

Murcuseo
07-29-2010, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
So he's a hypocrite as well. Nice.

Everyone is a hypocrite in some form or another lol

He's Italian for christ sake... it's in their nature :P

Nauman10
07-30-2010, 02:08 AM
Hey guys. All those people which are saying that AC1 was better than AC2 they are wrong because AC2 was a game of the year in my opinion. In AC2 we have larger amount of skills, tactics, the story is brillient and we can play under ground missions and lots of other things which were not in AC1 but I am not saying that AC1 was not good, no. AC1 gave a very good start to UBISOFT in Assassin Creed Series and i hope that this series will continue for long time. But saying that AC1 is better than AC2, this is not good. I played both of the games and but when i end AC2, man that was amazing! Love UBISOFT that they made a revolutionary game and the other thing is that it is on all consoles, thats the key because now days most of the games are releasing on XBOX 360, PS2,PS3 etc but not on PC which was the start of the games, so this is good that they are releasing this game on PC's. Because now days computers are in every house but XBOX 360, PS3,etc are not available for some people and they can't afford it so PC is the basic for the games in my opinion.
I will like to say to the UBISOFT that whenever they release any game it should also have to be on PC. Thanks

EzioAssassin51
07-30-2010, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
He's Italian for christ sake... it's in their nature :P

OI! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

SlimeDynamiteD
07-30-2010, 02:19 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
So he's a hypocrite as well. Nice.

I might be hypocrite, but what do I care if a friend of mine steals something from someone? It's not my problem right?

Murcuseo
07-30-2010, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Robson19822009:
He's Italian for christ sake... it's in their nature :P

OI! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meh, you've got nothing to complain about... I'm Scottish, that's 10 times worse lol


Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
So he's a hypocrite as well. Nice.

I might be hypocrite, but what do I care if a friend of mine steals something from someone? It's not my problem right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can tell a lot from the company someone keeps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It would also depend on what he was stealing and why of course.

Can I point out that this discussion is heading in a pretty pointless direction lol

Neak94
07-30-2010, 03:51 AM
i think too that AC1 is a bit better the story was for me really spectacular when you learned to know the Apple of Eden its power and so on how altair┤s mind changed also Desmond had a good role there not only activating the security system like in ac 2 he could check out the abstergo labor and read the emails oh yeah i loved the emails http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

ac2 i dont know the story was good yeah how ezio grew to an Assassin but it was really too easy desmonds part in the game was not important until the end and i really wonder why not every assassins creed fans rode the Codex written from altair ?
i have read all but thats not the point

ehm both very good games hope there will be some more stealth in the future this is what i missed in both games.

mhmm thanks 2 Ubisoft for such great games http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
but please read more community comments! i know you read them but please read more http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

We are leaving this world now its up to you Ubisoft

SlimeDynamiteD
07-30-2010, 03:52 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Robson19822009:
He's Italian for christ sake... it's in their nature :P

OI! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif



http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Meh, you've got nothing to complain about... I'm Scottish, that's 10 times worse lol


Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
So he's a hypocrite as well. Nice.

I might be hypocrite, but what do I care if a friend of mine steals something from someone? It's not my problem right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can tell a lot from the company someone keeps http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It would also depend on what he was stealing and why of course.

Can I point out that this discussion is heading in a pretty pointless direction lol </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can xD and it is :P

El_Sjietah
07-30-2010, 07:43 AM
Originally posted by SlimeDynamiteD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
So he's a hypocrite as well. Nice.

I might be hypocrite, but what do I care if a friend of mine steals something from someone? It's not my problem right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's called seeing the bigger picture. An art lost to most of humanity nowadays it seems. "If it doesn't affect me directly, it can't hurt me, can it?" You'd think people would have learned by now from the current crisis.

Murcuseo
07-30-2010, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:

You'd think people would have learned by now from the current crisis.

Oh dear, it's getting precariously close to the philisophical edge...

SBRedFlag
07-30-2010, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:

You'd think people would have learned by now from the current crisis.

Oh dear, it's getting precariously close to the philisophical edge... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well I think that the "what do I care if a friend of mine steals something from someone? It's not my problem right?" viewpoint is incredibly shallow, especially in this context. The goal of the Assassins is to better the world, even if sacrifices must be made. So Assassins shouldn't just be concerned with themselves, and why I think Antonio is a gigantic *******. Since ***spoiler***<span class="ev_code_WHITE">he's an assassin</span>***/spoiler*** he shouldn't lead a band of thieves, he should be trying to make the world better, maybe kill the corrupt people himself instead of hiring Ezio to do it. All he did was use Ezio to get into power and kill his enemies and then go "It's all right, don't worry, I'm an asassin". At least Paula and Mario have some ideals and don't just exploit Ezio, but Antonio does, and I don't see why he's portrayed in a good way for doing that.

hewkii9
07-30-2010, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by AssassinDartz:
i think too that AC1 is a bit better the story was for me really spectacular when you learned to know the Apple of Eden its power

ehm both very good games hope there will be some more stealth in the future this is what i missed in both games.

You make some good points. For me, the real twist at the end of Assassin's Creed isn't "Oh no my master has betrayed me", that's too predictable. I see the real twist as being the idea that the Piece of Eden only creates illusions. It's an extension of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". And I think AC1 works because, largely, it takes that to heart. Altair is living in the Third Crusade, but we see him through the eyes of the Animus. Al Mualim wishes to see the Templars destroyed, but only so he can have sole power. The Piece of Eden is an ancient, almost magical artifact, but it only creates illusions. Again and again, nothing is true.

Also, yes yes yes. If Assassin's Creed invented social stealth, why is it so rarely really implemented?


Originally posted by sbredflag:
Well I think that the "what do I care if a friend of mine steals something from someone? It's not my problem right?" viewpoint is incredibly shallow, especially in this context. The goal of the Assassins is to better the world, even if sacrifices must be made. So Assassins shouldn't just be concerned with themselves, and why I think Antonio is a gigantic *******. Since ***spoiler***<span class="ev_code_WHITE">he's an assassin</span>***/spoiler*** he shouldn't lead a band of thieves, he should be trying to make the world better, maybe kill the corrupt people himself instead of hiring Ezio to do it. All he did was use Ezio to get into power and kill his enemies and then go "It's all right, don't worry, I'm an asassin". At least Paula and Mario have some ideals and don't just exploit Ezio, but Antonio does, and I don't see why he's portrayed in a good way for doing that.

Antonio is a petty, ineffective little weasel who swings his wooden sword at the upper classes simply because he wasn't one of them. He personally does absolutely nothing of note throughout the entire game and could have been eliminated entirely were we introduced to Bartolomeo [who suffers from many of Antonio's problems, but is a far more likeable character] sooner.

itsamea-mario
07-30-2010, 11:56 AM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AssassinDartz:
i think too that AC1 is a bit better the story was for me really spectacular when you learned to know the Apple of Eden its power

ehm both very good games hope there will be some more stealth in the future this is what i missed in both games.

You make some good points. For me, the real twist at the end of Assassin's Creed isn't "Oh no my master has betrayed me", that's too predictable. I see the real twist as being the idea that the Piece of Eden only creates illusions. It's an extension of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". And I think AC1 works because, largely, it takes that to heart. Altair is living in the Third Crusade, but we see him through the eyes of the Animus. Al Mualim wishes to see the Templars destroyed, but only so he can have sole power. The Piece of Eden is an ancient, almost magical artifact, but it only creates illusions. Again and again, nothing is true.

Also, yes yes yes. If Assassin's Creed invented social stealth, why is it so rarely really implemented?


Originally posted by sbredflag:
Well I think that the "what do I care if a friend of mine steals something from someone? It's not my problem right?" viewpoint is incredibly shallow, especially in this context. The goal of the Assassins is to better the world, even if sacrifices must be made. So Assassins shouldn't just be concerned with themselves, and why I think Antonio is a gigantic *******. Since ***spoiler***<span class="ev_code_WHITE">he's an assassin</span>***/spoiler*** he shouldn't lead a band of thieves, he should be trying to make the world better, maybe kill the corrupt people himself instead of hiring Ezio to do it. All he did was use Ezio to get into power and kill his enemies and then go "It's all right, don't worry, I'm an asassin". At least Paula and Mario have some ideals and don't just exploit Ezio, but Antonio does, and I don't see why he's portrayed in a good way for doing that.

Antonio is a petty, ineffective little weasel who swings his wooden sword at the upper classes simply because he wasn't one of them. He personally does absolutely nothing of note throughout the entire game and could have been eliminated entirely were we introduced to Bartolomeo [who suffers from many of Antonio's problems, but is a far more likeable character] sooner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

In AC1 i would have prefered if once altair realised it was all an illusion, he broke out of it or something, but alas no.

El_Sjietah
07-30-2010, 12:22 PM
He did break out of it. That's why Al Mualim couldn't control him like the others.

SBRedFlag
07-30-2010, 12:54 PM
Well not quite. Altair was able to resist the illusions even when he wasn't aware of the PoE's power. When Al Mualim tried to posess Altair in his office, Altair had no idea, but he was still immune. So it wasn't the knowledge of the PoE's power that kept him from being controlled, it was his stronger mind, it seems.

El_Sjietah
07-30-2010, 01:41 PM
It's a genetic difference actually. Altair is a descendent from TWCB after they interbred with humans, which makes him lack the neurotransmitter that's triggered by a PoE.

But you're right, it wasn't because he could see past the illusion, it was just that his mind wasn't receptive to it in the first place.

masterfenix2009
07-30-2010, 08:02 PM
i dont understand how all theives have to be in antonios group. Just because they are theives doesnt mean they are apart of a group. And Antonio is a good person. One of my favorite characters.Antonio and his band of theives are GOOD. Can u really see rosa stealing from someone poor? All of Antonios theives steal and kill evil ppl or templars.

hewkii9
07-31-2010, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
i dont understand how all theives have to be in antonios group. Just because they are theives doesnt mean they are apart of a group. And Antonio is a good person. One of my favorite characters.Antonio and his band of theives are GOOD. Can u really see rosa stealing from someone poor? All of Antonios theives steal and kill evil ppl or templars.

You know, if it were that easy to convince people of something, this topic would be about three posts long.

Antonio is BAD. Or do you think that someone appointed to safeguard man's evolution should do that by gathering up the dispossessed and teaching them to steal? Considering how thieves were treated back then, more would have been sent to their deaths than not. He can hardly claim to work "for the people" when all the people he affects are a)murdered, b)stolen from, or c)pulled into crime.

I can't see any thief worth their salt stealing from the poor, by the way; they're poor, what's the point in stealing from them?

El_Sjietah
07-31-2010, 11:06 AM
And just because someone's rich, doesn't make him automatically evil or okay to steal from. Get ready for a shocker: Some rich people actually earned their fortune *gasp*

SBRedFlag
07-31-2010, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
i dont understand how all theives have to be in antonios group. Just because they are theives doesnt mean they are apart of a group. And Antonio is a good person. One of my favorite characters.Antonio and his band of theives are GOOD. Can u really see rosa stealing from someone poor? All of Antonios theives steal and kill evil ppl or templars.
Anyone can say Antonio is a good person, but from what we've seen from him, he was an arrogant, incompetent, exploitative, fool that passed of his crime as "for the greater good" without actually achieving anything except stealing from people who are probably innocent. You're making the mistake that being rich automatically defines you as evil. It doesn't.
Antonio resents the rich because he isn't one of them. This is in no way heroic, this is jealousy disguised as righteousness.

SWJS
07-31-2010, 05:26 PM
Anyone can say Antonio is a good person, but from what we've seen from him, he was an arrogant, incompetent, exploitative, fool that passed of his crime as "for the greater good" without actually achieving anything except stealing from people who are probably innocent. You're making the mistake that being rich automatically defines you as evil. It doesn't.
Arrogant and incompetent? Please. Now you guys are just making things up. Where on Earth did you get the impression Antonio was such? Antonio is an Assassin, sworn to uphold the good will of the common people. Those who have wealth and power are guarenteed to abuse it. The people Ezio killed abused their power for personal gain. They stole, lied, cheated, and used force to gain their wealth. Silvio Barbarigo killed his uncle to inherit his wealth. They all mocked the poor and treated them like dirt, flaunting their wealth and power like they deserved to.

Antonio and his theives guild set about giving back free will to the people, and stopping such attrocities, as well as stoping the templars from having absolute power. All the people killed were TEMPLARS, mind you. They succeed in their goals, with help from Ezio. I wouldn't call that incompetent or arrogant. They dethroned wealthy tyrants, tried to save the life of the Doge and preventing another evil man from taking over.

How is that bad? Yes killing is bad, but the templars had done it many times more, and even commited worse attrocities. What's worse? Stop the wealthy tyrant from treating the poor like dirt and causing the people misery, or just let it continue to happen until the poor starve, die, and suffer? The templars were the greater fault here, and everyone knows it.
Antonio resents the rich because he isn't one of them. This is in no way heroic, this is jealousy disguised as righteousness. Antonio resents the Venetian nobility because they're arrogant and selfish. He himself, though not born a noble, studied hard and worked hard to become one of them, and they rejected him for trying to be like them. Antonio worked hard to achieve nobility, and was denied it. That in no way justifies the actions of the nobles, nor does it make Antonio any worse than they are.

Saying the nobles worked to earn their wealth doesn't make them any better. Back then, you were either born into nobility, or poverty. There was no "work to earn your salery." Most servents were FORCED into servitude, by the nobles. They earned nothing and worked tirelessly day and night without much reward, except for a place to stay, a meager meal, and being able to keep their lives.

So yes, Antonio is a horrible man because he kills arrogant tightwads who own servents and were born into rich families, and never did anything to earn what they had.

The Assassin cause is just. Antonio's cause is just. Painting Antonio as the bad guy, when we are shown several times that his cause is good, while the templar nobility is guilty of haneous actions is foolish in itself.

/discussion

El_Sjietah
07-31-2010, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
The people Ezio killed abused their power for personal gain. They stole, lied, cheated, and used force to gain their wealth.

Funny, here I was thinking that's exactly what Antonio is doing.


Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:

Saying the nobles worked to earn their wealth doesn't make them any better. Back then, you were either born into nobility, or poverty. There was no "work to earn your salery." Most servents were FORCED into servitude, by the nobles. They earned nothing and worked tirelessly day and night without much reward, except for a place to stay, a meager meal, and being able to keep their lives.

So yes, Antonio is a horrible man because he kills arrogant tightwads who own servents and were born into rich families, and never did anything to earn what they had.

Italian "nobility" was formed of elite families that had gained their fortune through banking, which means they were new money, no more than 1 or 2 generations old. They saw an opportunity others didn't and made some good money off of it. It's how capitalism works. Unless capitalism is somehow "evil" as well of course.

The rest of your post is just a rehash of sentiments, so no point addressing that.

hewkii9
07-31-2010, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
Arrogant and incompetent? Please. Now you guys are just making things up. Where on Earth did you get the impression Antonio was such? Antonio is an Assassin, sworn to uphold the good will of the common people.
Arrogant and being an Assassin are not mutually exclusive, or did you not play Assassin's Creed?

Those who have wealth and power are guaranteed to abuse it.
Well there's your worldview summed up quite nicely. No wonder you eat up Antonio's 'for the people' propaganda so readily. Also, isn't Ezio pretty much the richest and most powerful man in Italy by the end of the game? This guy owns a personal city and breaks into the Vatican like it's his garage.

The people Ezio killed abused their power for personal gain. They stole, lied, cheated, and used force to gain their wealth. Silvio Barbarigo killed his uncle to inherit his wealth. They all mocked the poor and treated them like dirt, flaunting their wealth and power like they deserved to.
Gee, don't thieves steal, lie, cheat, and use force typically? Please point out one instance in the game of a target actively mocking the poor.

Antonio and his thieves guild set about giving back free will to the people, and stopping such atrocities
What atrocities? Beyond the singular case of the fish merchant, not one atrocity perpetrated upon "the people" is committed by a Templar or their agents. And how did the deaths of Emilio, Carlo, Marco, Silvio, or Dante restore Venice's "free will"? You're reacting as if they already had the city mesmerized by the Piece and at their gate.

They succeed in their goals, with help from Ezio. I wouldn't call that incompetent or arrogant. They dethroned wealthy tyrants, tried to save the life of the Doge and preventing another evil man from taking over.
Actually, this practically the textbook definition of incompetence. Ezio does literally everything of note for the thieves. All they can manage to do on their own is get Rosa shot in the leg [by barging right in in the middle of the day]. You say they tried to save the life of the Doge. Tried is the key word. They did not save the life of the Doge. Antonio decided to replace Marco with a man named Agostino Barbarigo. This is all good and historically accurate, but does Antonio not realize that every single other Barbarigo is a Templar? Incompetence.

How is that bad? Yes killing is bad, but the templars had done it many times more, and even commited worse attrocities. What's worse? Stop the wealthy tyrant from treating the poor like dirt and causing the people misery, or just let it continue to happen until the poor starve, die, and suffer? The templars were the greater fault here, and everyone knows it.
Again. Where are these atrocities of which you speak?

Antonio resents the Venetian nobility because they're arrogant and selfish. He himself, though not born a noble, studied hard and worked hard to become one of them, and they rejected him for trying to be like them. Antonio worked hard to achieve nobility, and was denied it. That in no way justifies the actions of the nobles, nor does it make Antonio any worse than they are.
Do you think that "the nobles" met up in their evil lair, and colluded to prevent Antonio from joining their axis? No. Why did Antonio "study and work hard", anyways? Wouldn't it come up during his formal education that you cannot pull yourself into nobility by your bootstraps? Rather than find a profitable living some other way, Antonio decided to get back at those darn nobles in the crudest way possible, using his "hard work" to justify it to himself.

Saying the nobles worked to earn their wealth doesn't make them any better. Back then, you were either born into nobility, or poverty. There was no "work to earn your salary." Most servants were FORCED into servitude, by the nobles. They earned nothing and worked tirelessly day and night without much reward, except for a place to stay, a meager meal, and being able to keep their lives.
But, if they worked to earn their money, then they wouldn't have been born into it. And what does having servants have to do with anything?

So yes, Antonio is a horrible man because he kills arrogant tightwads who own servants and were born into rich families, and never did anything to earn what they had.

The Assassin cause is just. Antonio's cause is just. Painting Antonio as the bad guy, when we are shown several times that his cause is good, while the Templar nobility is guilty of heinous actions is foolish in itself.
No, Antonio's an incompetent criminal excuse for an Assassin who spouts rhetoric at every turn to justify his actions. He didn't even manage to kill those tightwads himself. The Templars are equally guilty, but their purity of intention have never been what I'm arguing.

And again with the servants? Why do you have such a large chip on your shoulder?

/discussion
No, the discussion's not over.

SBRedFlag
07-31-2010, 07:48 PM
hewkii, you stole the words right out of my mouth. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

I didn't know you had an account here, but hell, I'm glad you do, because you saved me from all that typing http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

primerib69
07-31-2010, 07:53 PM
Hahaha damn Hewkii chill out there bro. But yeah I get what you're saying http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

SBRedFlag
07-31-2010, 07:58 PM
He's just making a point that requires a lot of words to make, that's all.

EzioAssassin51
07-31-2010, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The people Ezio killed abused their power for personal gain. They stole, lied, cheated, and used force to gain their wealth. Silvio Barbarigo killed his uncle to inherit his wealth. They all mocked the poor and treated them like dirt, flaunting their wealth and power like they deserved to.
Gee, don't thieves steal, lie, cheat, and use force typically? Please point out one instance in the game of a target actively mocking the poor.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

May i? Well, you said it yourself! The fish monger!

And the deaths of those targets restored Venice's free will, by actually ridding them of corrupt politicians who were destroying the markets (Emilio), who killed a Doge to make ne of their own Doge so they could corrupt Venice more (Carlo) and to get rid of the Corrupt Doge (Marco(! But i have no idea why Silvio and Dante were killed. Probably because i haven't played it in ages!

SWJS
07-31-2010, 11:56 PM
Well there's your worldview summed up quite nicely. No wonder you eat up Antonio's 'for the people' propaganda so readily. Also, isn't Ezio pretty much the richest and most powerful man in Italy by the end of the game? This guy owns a personal city and breaks into the Vatican like it's his garage.
My 'worldview' has nothing to do about it. Antonio is sincere in his speeches about his goals, and works to achieve them. I never saw him as the monster you're so quick to make him out to be. No. Sure Monterrigioni has an income and such, but the money you garner during gameply is for gameplay. It has no relation to the story. While Ezio does own his own city, he doesn't brag, he treats his citizens decently, and he works to bring the city to life. He breaks into the vatican to kill a man who became pope just to have power over the people. Ezio wouldn't have if the pope weren't an evil death dealer.

Gee, don't thieves steal, lie, cheat, and use force typically? Please point out one instance in the game of a target actively mocking the poor.
Funny, here I was thinking that's exactly what Antonio is doing.
You're stereotypical modern day vision of burglars do. The word theif standardly means 'one who steals from another,' not 'one who lies, cheats, steals and uses force.' The thieves of Renaissance Europe had an orderly code of conduct, a set of rules. They believed in honor, and justice. They were nothing like today's criminals, which is the general misinterpretation you have about a common thief. All they did was pickpocket, or steal from a chest of gold in the night. Sure there were bad seeds, but the majority of them were decent people.

Did you seriously not watch any of the videos on the targets that Shaun composed after reading up on them? Vieri held races, if he lost he killed the winners. Francesco was brought up to hate and torment the middle class. Rodrigo murdered/slaughtered countless people and became the pope just to have power over the masses. Marco tried to kill the captain of his guard to steal his wife. Carlo Grimaldi sold out two lovers to the girl's father, just for power. Need I go on, or do you not count murder, greed, and desire for power as bad for the people?

What atrocities? Beyond the singular case of the fish merchant, not one atrocity perpetrated upon "the people" is committed by a Templar or their agents. And how did the deaths of Emilio, Carlo, Marco, Silvio, or Dante restore Venice's "free will"? You're reacting as if they already had the city mesmerized by the Piece and at their gate.
I'll repeat myself. "Did you seriously not watch any of the videos on the targets that Shaun composed after reading up on them? Vieri held races, if he lost he killed the winners. Francesco was brought up to hate and torment the middle class. Rodrigo murdered/slaughtered countless people and became the pope just to have power over the masses. Marco tried to kill the captain of his guard to steal his wife. Carlo Grimaldi sold out two lovers to the girl's father, just for power."

All of that affected the people in some way. Every one of them was a greedy tyrant who wanted power, save for Uberto, Dante, and Jacopo.
Actually, this practically the textbook definition of incompetence. Ezio does literally everything of note for the thieves. All they can manage to do on their own is get Rosa shot in the leg . You say they tried to save the life of the Doge. Tried is the key word. They did not save the life of the Doge. Antonio decided to replace Marco with a man named Agostino Barbarigo. This is all good and historically accurate, but does Antonio not realize that every single other Barbarigo is a Templar? Incompetence. Another goal of the thieves is to guide Ezio to become a true assassin. They succeed. They also come up with the plans for infiltration and such, save for Ezio's flying machine idea. The thieves' plans worked. Ezio's failed. Hoo boy, that's some series incompetence right there. The failure of saving the Doge was EZIO'S fault, not the thieves. And it matters that they even tried. They could have just said "let them go through with the murder, it's not like we should do the right thing and stop them!" Not to mention Agostino was never affilated with the templars, but with the assassins, and Venice was far better under his rule, than the templar rule. I still fail to see how all the success made them incompetent.

Again. Where are these atrocities of which you speak?
I'll repeat myself. Again. "Did you seriously not watch any of the videos on the targets that Shaun composed after reading up on them? Vieri held races, if he lost he killed the winners. Francesco was brought up to hate and torment the middle class. Rodrigo murdered/slaughtered countless people and became the pope just to have power over the masses. Marco tried to kill the captain of his guard to steal his wife. Carlo Grimaldi sold out two lovers to the girl's father, just for power."
Do you think that "the nobles" met up in their evil lair, and colluded to prevent Antonio from joining their axis? No. Why did Antonio "study and work hard", anyways? Wouldn't it come up during his formal education that you cannot pull yourself into nobility by your bootstraps? Rather than find a profitable living some other way, Antonio decided to get back at those darn nobles in the crudest way possible, using his "hard work" to justify it to himself.
No. Venetian nobility refused to accept Antonio into their social clique. They treated him as nothing more than a lowly commoner, even though he worked hard to climb the social ladder. He worked and studied hard to make his mother and father proud and be able to support them. Yet the nobles wouldn't accept him into society. Shortly after, he joined the assassins and opened up the thieves guild to combat tyrants, and to take in poor folk and help them live a decent life. Yes, there are people who steal and beg to be able to eat. Astonishing, isn't it? They wouldn't be reduced to doing so if the rich didn't greedily flaunt about their wealth and spend it on luxuries they don't even need. Like buying the the entire police force and using them to control commerce for wealth.(Emilio).
But, if they worked to earn their money, then they wouldn't have been born into it. And what does having servants have to do with anything?
That's just it. They didn't earn their wealth. Their great great grandparents did. They were born with it.

I brought up servitude as an example of how nobility forced lower classes to work for them with no pay or salary. In some cases servents were happy, Like the Auditore servant, but more often than not, they were treated harshly.
No, Antonio's an incompetent criminal excuse for an Assassin who spouts rhetoric at every turn to justify his actions. He didn't even manage to kill those tightwads himself. [B]The Templars are equally guilty, but their purity of intention have never been what I'm arguing. Actually it technically is what you're arguing, because all the nobles killed in-game were templars.

By the way, I know all this from in-game conversations, templar videos, and database entries. Just thought I'd clarify where my points were being derived from.

There's nothing in the game that shows Antonio or his thieves as being evil cheating liars. Their goals appeared justified to me. If you can provide evidence saying otherwise, I'll gladly correct myself and move on. Otherwise, I rest my case.

He's just making a point that requires a lot of words to make, that's all. A point that, if you think about it, is only brought up until just recently, and is only about the thieves. Why all of a sudden are the thieves so evil? So they steal change out of a nobles purse. It's not like they sell their bodies for money, or fight in wars for petty change, or kill people for sport. Nothing ever said that they lie, or cheat, or use force. Where in-game does it show this? The accusations came completely out of nowhere. I've played AC2 probably more than twenty times, and the thieves never came across to me as arrogant, incompetent, lying cheaters. I actually found Antonio's speech of nobility to be true. Money changes people, and those who have little are usually kind and generous.

May i? Well, you said it yourself! The fish monger!

And the deaths of those targets restored Venice's free will, by actually ridding them of corrupt politicians who were destroying the markets (Emilio), who killed a Doge to make ne of their own Doge so they could corrupt Venice more (Carlo) and to get rid of the Corrupt Doge (Marco(! But i have no idea why Silvio and Dante were killed. Probably because i haven't played it in ages! Thank you! I'd like to add on to that too. They made up a law just so they could arrest the monger for threatening to report them for their wrong-doings. If that isn't example enough, I dunno what is!

By the way, Silvio was killed because he also wanted the seat of Doge, even though Rodrigo forbade it. He also murdered his own uncle to inherit his wealth, and killed an entire family for ploting against him. Dante was killed for being a conspirator, and a templar.

primerib69
08-01-2010, 02:42 AM
Word.

Murcuseo
08-01-2010, 03:52 AM
lol this has gone off topic a little... or a lot

primerib69
08-01-2010, 03:58 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

El_Sjietah
08-01-2010, 06:38 AM
These posts are getting too long for me. Have fun you two http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Final two cents from me: the stuff with the fish monger can't be directly related to Emilio. For all we know, it's the city guard that's corrupt and Emilio has nothing to do with it. We only assume it's Emilio's doing because Antonio says so.

hewkii9
08-01-2010, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
May i? Well, you said it yourself! The fish monger!

And the deaths of those targets restored Venice's free will, by actually ridding them of corrupt politicians who were destroying the markets (Emilio), who killed a Doge to make ne of their own Doge so they could corrupt Venice more (Carlo) and to get rid of the Corrupt Doge (Marco(! But i have no idea why Silvio and Dante were killed. Probably because i haven't played it in ages!
Where is this "restoring the free will" everyone keeps going on and on about? You only parrot this because it's the easiest motivation for Antonio, yet there is absolutely no evidence that the typical Venetian's "free will" is being repressed.

EziotheAssassin: I see where you're coming from, but I'd like to call attention to some key points in your arguments.


While Ezio does own his own city, he doesn't brag, he treats his citizens decently, and he works to bring the city to life. He breaks into the vatican to kill a man who became pope just to have power over the people.
So, every rich and powerful man is rotten to the core, except for Our Hero? Also, Rodrigo became Pope to gain access to the Vault. Nothing more or less.


You're stereotypical modern day vision of burglars do. The word theif standardly means 'one who steals from another,' not 'one who lies, cheats, steals and uses force.' The thieves of Renaissance Europe had an orderly code of conduct, a set of rules. They believed in honor, and justice. They were nothing like today's criminals, which is the general misinterpretation you have about a common thief. All they did was pickpocket, or steal from a chest of gold in the night. Sure there were bad seeds, but the majority of them were decent people.
How do you know so much about thieves in the Renaissance? Right now, I'm going to go 'Thief=criminal', rather than 'thief=Little John'.


Another goal of the thieves is to guide Ezio to become a true assassin. They succeed. They also come up with the plans for infiltration and such, save for Ezio's flying machine idea. The thieves' plans worked. Ezio's failed. Hoo boy, that's some series incompetence right there. The failure of saving the Doge was EZIO'S fault, not the thieves. And it matters that they even tried. They could have just said "let them go through with the murder, it's not like we should do the right thing and stop them!" Not to mention Agostino was never affilated with the templars, but with the assassins, and Venice was far better under his rule, than the templar rule. I still fail to see how all the success made them incompetent.
Everything the thieves achieved was done specifically by Ezio. The thieves' plans for Emilio involved having Ezio steal a boat. Ezio steal armor. Ezio kill archers. Ezio kill Emilio. The thieves didn't do anything but rob the player of an escape sequence. The thieves then had no plan for Carlo, nor Marco. And, if you remember, Marco was the target where Antonio told Ezio to give up. Not like doing the right thing, indeed. Sure, Agostino wasn't actually a Templar. But how colossally stupid do you have to be to replace a Templar with his cousin, when every single other member of his family is a Templar?


"Did you seriously not watch any of the videos on the targets that Shaun composed after reading up on them? Vieri held races, if he lost he killed the winners. Francesco was brought up to hate and torment the middle class. Rodrigo murdered/slaughtered countless people and became the pope just to have power over the masses. Marco tried to kill the captain of his guard to steal his wife. Carlo Grimaldi sold out two lovers to the girl's father, just for power."
Here's the thing. Gaming is an interactive medium. You can't expect me to fully believe the villains', well, villainous natures when they're presented to me in a minute-and-a-half clip with accompanying British narration. An entirely optional clip, too. I need to feel this in the game. I need to hear Carlo recount the story to Silvio with pride in his voice. I need to see even one in-game example of Francesco actually tormenting the middle-class. It doesn't work when it's presented to me in a style completely detached from the main game.

Also, if I may add: All those videos were created by Shaun. They're not taken straight from genetic memory, so there's a chance that they're not true. And I wouldn't put it past Shaun, easily the shiftiest of Team Desmond, to embellish or outright modify those stories to breed Desmond's Templar hatred.


I brought up servitude as an example of how nobility forced lower classes to work for them with no pay or salary. In some cases servents were happy, Like the Auditore servant, but more often than not, they were treated harshly.
Again. All nobles treat their servants like dirt, except for Our Hero?


I actually found Antonio's speech of nobility to be true. Money changes people, and those who have little are usually kind and generous.
That's just your opinion. I found it to ring hollow.

Also, was there no better way for Antonio to help the dispossessed than by pulling them into a profession where they'd probably be killed if they got caught?

Murcuseo
08-01-2010, 10:48 AM
Am I right in thinking you two are having a discussion... about morals... in a computer game?

Is that right? lol

ArmamentMaster
08-01-2010, 11:17 AM
to each their own, but i personally thought more of assassin's creed ii than it's predecessor. assassin's creed was decent enough, however there's far more replay value and depth in assassin's creed ii.

phil.llllll
08-01-2010, 11:18 AM
I think the main thing to take away from this is that neither can be seen as a saint or evil person but as doing what they thought was right relative to their motivations. It's important to also note that even Shaun mentions in game that they shouldn't get too carried away with calling themselves good guys but rather interpret it from a broader perspective.

The templars certianly appear to be complete scum but if one looks at it from a different point of view Ezio isn't much different. For instance the templars want power and will stop at nothing to get it (including killing anything in their path). Ezio wants answers and does the exact same thing. Who ends up right in the end is the person who ends out on top. History is written by the victors, as they say.



Originally posted by Robson19822009:
Am I right in thinking you two are having a discussion... about morals... in a computer game?

Is that right? lol

Why is that laugh worthy? Especially considering AC was mainly about right/wrong and 'truth'. Unless you meant from a point of trying to find some background basis for the characters motivations that that they themselves placed there from their own view - in that case I agree it's a little ridiculous.

Murcuseo
08-01-2010, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:

Why is that laugh worthy? Especially considering AC was mainly about right/wrong and 'truth'. Unless you meant from a point of trying to find some background basis for the characters motivations that that they themselves placed there from their own view - in that case I agree it's a little ridiculous.

What I find funny isn't really up to you is it, I do get chance to construct my own sense of homour as a human being do I not... or have I been getting that wrong my whole life lol

Morals are personal guidelines set by someones opinions on right and wrong... now... add a fictional character or two into the mix. And by fictional I mean their personality as it's defined in the game, not real life. Who the hell knows what their motivations were in real life.

That's why I found it funny... argueing over fictional morals just makes me laugh is all http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

primerib69
08-01-2010, 12:04 PM
Oh dear....This is getting kind of out of hand...


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

phil.llllll
08-01-2010, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Robson19822009:
What I find funny isn't really up to you is it, I do get chance to construct my own sense of homour as a human being do I not... or have I been getting that wrong my whole life lol


That's why I found it funny... argueing over fictional morals just makes me laugh is all


That's not quite what I meant. I was just pointing out that it seems like a perfectly normal line of discussion for any kind of fiction but point taken.

Mr_Shade
08-01-2010, 12:07 PM
Guys..

Agree to disagree - and walk away, or continue this in private...

primerib69
08-01-2010, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Mr_Shade:
Guys..

Agree to disagree - and walk away, or continue this in private...

Real talk shade couldnt say it any better

hewkii9
08-01-2010, 02:10 PM
While it's not like EziotheAssassin and I had started to devolve into personal attacks, we did kind of get off-topic. Even if AC1 is better than AC2 [my opinion, but only in its story], it's nice to know that AC2 can inspire such debate.

Something I found lacking in AC2 was the Assassin's maxim. In AC1, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" threads through every part of the game. I touched on this already, but you can find that taken to heart throughout it. Desmond is held captive by Big Pharma, but they're Templars. Al Mualim is Altair's master, but he holds Templar ideas. Again and again, nothing is true. Altair's inability to comprehend nothing being true leads him to taking everything is permitted literally. The free-running is a way to implement everything is permitted into the gameplay, too.

In Assassin's Creed II, though, you're over ten hours in before anyone even mentions the titular creed. In a way this makes sense, since Ezio isn't actually an Assassin until ten hours in, but it leaves the story feeling a bit rambling. Say what you will about AC1, though, but that was a tightly plotted video game story.

SBRedFlag
08-01-2010, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
While it's not like EziotheAssassin and I had started to devolve into personal attacks, we did kind of get off-topic. Even if AC1 is better than AC2 [my opinion, but only in its story], it's nice to know that AC2 can inspire such debate.

Something I found lacking in AC2 was the Assassin's maxim. In AC1, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" threads through every part of the game. I touched on this already, but you can find that taken to heart throughout it. Desmond is held captive by Big Pharma, but they're Templars. Al Mualim is Altair's master, but he holds Templar ideas. Again and again, nothing is true. Altair's inability to comprehend nothing being true leads him to taking everything is permitted literally. The free-running is a way to implement everything is permitted into the gameplay, too.

In Assassin's Creed II, though, you're over ten hours in before anyone even mentions the titular creed. In a way this makes sense, since Ezio isn't actually an Assassin until ten hours in, but it leaves the story feeling a bit rambling. Say what you will about AC1, though, but that was a tightly plotted video game story.
Especially Memory block 6, that part of the story and game was done spectacularly. It was a great end to the story, even if it did leave tons of loose ends.

primerib69
08-01-2010, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by sbredflag:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hewkii9:
While it's not like EziotheAssassin and I had started to devolve into personal attacks, we did kind of get off-topic. Even if AC1 is better than AC2 [my opinion, but only in its story], it's nice to know that AC2 can inspire such debate.

Something I found lacking in AC2 was the Assassin's maxim. In AC1, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" threads through every part of the game. I touched on this already, but you can find that taken to heart throughout it. Desmond is held captive by Big Pharma, but they're Templars. Al Mualim is Altair's master, but he holds Templar ideas. Again and again, nothing is true. Altair's inability to comprehend nothing being true leads him to taking everything is permitted literally. The free-running is a way to implement everything is permitted into the gameplay, too.

In Assassin's Creed II, though, you're over ten hours in before anyone even mentions the titular creed. In a way this makes sense, since Ezio isn't actually an Assassin until ten hours in, but it leaves the story feeling a bit rambling. Say what you will about AC1, though, but that was a tightly plotted video game story.
Especially Memory block 6, that part of the story and game was done spectacularly. It was a great end to the story, even if it did leave tons of loose ends. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeeeeeeeeee

EzioAssassin51
08-02-2010, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
May i? Well, you said it yourself! The fish monger!

And the deaths of those targets restored Venice's free will, by actually ridding them of corrupt politicians who were destroying the markets (Emilio), who killed a Doge to make ne of their own Doge so they could corrupt Venice more (Carlo) and to get rid of the Corrupt Doge (Marco(! But i have no idea why Silvio and Dante were killed. Probably because i haven't played it in ages!
Where is this "restoring the free will" everyone keeps going on and on about? You only parrot this because it's the easiest motivation for Antonio, yet there is absolutely no evidence that the typical Venetian's "free will" is being repressed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Last thing Shade...


Lol you were the one who brought up Venice's Free Will!!!

SBRedFlag
08-02-2010, 06:58 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:

Lol you were the one who brought up Venice's Free Will!!!

Well, I can't allow the Pro-Antonio side to get the last word, so... :P


Originally posted by EzioAssassin51 (not hewkii):

And the deaths of those targets restored Venice's free will, by actually ridding them of corrupt politicians...


You actually brought that up. And you've argued it several more times. The point is that you firmly believe that Antonio did something to restore the free will of Venice. However, we're given no example of free will being restored except laughing crooks and sentimental music. Further, any free will that was restored was a direct result of Ezio's actions. Antonio played no part in this so-called freeing of Venice.

Vey03
08-02-2010, 08:58 AM
Hmm, interesting discussion guys.

I have to admit, my least favourite parts of AC2 was all the stuff i had to do for Antonio and Bartolomeo.
Antonio to me was a bit arrogant. What did he say? Something like 'your work in Florence was unrefined', gesturing with his hand when he said 'unrefined'. He may not have been accepted by the nobles, but he thought he was one.
Bugger off mate! And go steal your own boat!

I felt like they were all sitting around waiting for me to do everything for them.

And i felt Ezio was too late from saving the Doge because he got no help from Antonio. If Antonio did more than just sit in his palazzo giving orders, maybe Ezio would have gotten to the Doge in time.
I know it's just a game, and if this happened, it would screw the game up, or end it, and i don't want to put real life thinking into a computer game, but that's just a 'feeling' i get from that whole section of gameplay.

Bart was a likable character. Just found the missions for him, again, a little tedious.

masterfenix2009
08-02-2010, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
While it's not like EziotheAssassin and I had started to devolve into personal attacks, we did kind of get off-topic. Even if AC1 is better than AC2 [my opinion, but only in its story], it's nice to know that AC2 can inspire such debate.

Something I found lacking in AC2 was the Assassin's maxim. In AC1, "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" threads through every part of the game. I touched on this already, but you can find that taken to heart throughout it. Desmond is held captive by Big Pharma, but they're Templars. Al Mualim is Altair's master, but he holds Templar ideas. Again and again, nothing is true. Altair's inability to comprehend nothing being true leads him to taking everything is permitted literally. The free-running is a way to implement everything is permitted into the gameplay, too.

In Assassin's Creed II, though, you're over ten hours in before anyone even mentions the titular creed. In a way this makes sense, since Ezio isn't actually an Assassin until ten hours in, but it leaves the story feeling a bit rambling. Say what you will about AC1, though, but that was a tightly plotted video game story.

i felt that too. i think in ac2 it was more about free to choose..example the savanarola mission

Ru1986
08-02-2010, 10:17 AM
This is out of hand i think you should close the topic shade IMO.

masterfenix2009
08-02-2010, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
[QUOTE] While Ezio does own his own city, he doesn't brag, he treats his citizens decently, and he works to bring the city to life.

I cant say i teated my citizens fairly. :}

someone had to make them pay the city fee. a little pickpocket there and a dead body in the corner wasnt to bad.

SBRedFlag
08-02-2010, 10:58 AM
I don't think the topic is getting out of hand at all. We're just having a friendly debate. Isn't that acceptable? I don't think everyone has to agree on a point. It's just interesting hearing each others' views. That's not a bad thing, is it, Ru?

SWJS
08-02-2010, 11:10 AM
And i felt Ezio was too late from saving the Doge because he got no help from Antonio. If Antonio did more than just sit in his palazzo giving orders, maybe Ezio would have gotten to the Doge in time.
Antonio actually went out to help Ezio scout the Palazzo Ducale. He never sat aside and did nothing. He did try and help Ezio, but Ezio came up with the flying machine idea. The difference? Ezio's plan failed.
Antonio played no part in this so-called freeing of Venice.
If it weren't for Antonio's plans and strategies, Ezio never would have killed the templars. How is that playing no part?
However, we're given no example of free will being restored except laughing crooks and sentimental music. The thieves are more of a band of plucky freedom fighters than they are crooks. Did anybody ever stop and think maybe the thieves guild is a cover profession for what they really do? Like how Giovanni used his banking profession to hide his true profession as an assassin? Like Paola, and a creed tenant, said "hide in plain sight," "seen, but unseen."

I do agree though. I did feel as though AC2's targets were just placeholders or something. They didn't feel like they were horrible, like AC1's targets, but they still did some bad stuff. AC1's story was much darker and more in-depth. It fit the time period. I think the same can be said for AC2. The lighthearted feeling reflects the renaissance.

SBRedFlag
08-02-2010, 11:27 AM
You make a good point with the seen but not seen idea, but it doesn't change the fact that the thieves steal, and often die in the process. And let's not forget the thief that murdered the courtesan after Ezio gets the hidden gun. Sure he was just one rotten egg, but likely, he was drawn into the life of crime by Antonio, and then thought something along the lines of "if stealing is ok, murder must be too!"

Also, what plans and strategies are you referring to, exactly? If I recall correctly, while Ezio's plan may have failed to save the Doge, Antonio's plan was to simply give up, I think. If Ezio went with that plan, the Doge still would have died, and Carlo would have survived.

Also, if you're talking about the plans about taking out Emilio, it was simply "get some costumes for us and kill the archers, then kill him". That doesn't require a genius to work out, honestly.

SWJS
08-02-2010, 11:37 AM
Sure he was just one rotten egg, but likely, he was drawn into the life of crime by Antonio, and then thought something along the lines of "if stealing is ok, murder must be too!"
Or perhaps he wasn't one of Antonio's thieves, and was just desperate and had a family to feed? Sure there were better ways to go, but if you're desperate, you rarely think clearly.
Also, what plans and strategies are you referring to, exactly? If I recall correctly, while Ezio's plan may have failed to save the Doge, Antonio's plan was to simply give up, I think. If Ezio went with that plan, the Doge still would have died, and Carlo would have survived. Looking back on the desperation idea, once again, they were desperate and couldn't think clearly. They only had until nightfall to think of something, and when a life is at stake, and you're in a rush, it's hard to think clearly. Even though Ezio did think of something, it still took too long to prepare, and they were too late. Time was something they didn't have.
Also, if you're talking about the plans about taking out Emilio, it was simply "get some costumes for us and kill the archers, then kill him". That doesn't require a genius to work out, honestly. Regardless, it still worked, and the assassins still succeeded. It was also much more detailed, including placement of his men, etc. Even if it was simple, it took some strategizing.

SBRedFlag
08-02-2010, 11:45 AM
I had always assumed that it was one of Antonio's thieves because he was wearing the Thieves Guild "uniform", so to speak, with the bandana, etc, as opposed to the pickpocketers, who just look mangy.

Once someone uses desperation as an excuse for making a mistake, they can't be defined as competent. One of the essential traits of a (good) leader is the ability to plan with a clear head, no matter the situation.

Also, of course Antonio's plan worked, but, I'm trying to argue that anyone, including Ezio, could have come up with that plan. Antonio is in no way essential or special, in my opinion. Just someone trying to climb the social ladder, like so many others.

El_Sjietah
08-02-2010, 01:26 PM
You two suck at agreeing to disagree.

hewkii9
08-02-2010, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by EzioTheAssassin:
I do agree though. I did feel as though AC2's targets were just placeholders or something. They didn't feel like they were horrible, like AC1's targets, but they still did some bad stuff. AC1's story was much darker and more in-depth. It fit the time period. I think the same can be said for AC2. The lighthearted feeling reflects the renaissance.

Yes. Sure, if you watch the videos, [and we both know you did], AC2's targets are technically as horrible as AC1's. But because it's just an optional video, instead of standing silently by while Tamir goes nuts during a mission, you don't feel it. Hearing the target's side of things after you kill them [instead of one in eleven ways to say goodbye in Italian] humanizes them, and here the long cutscene works because it changes your perception of the target - you're making the same journey Altair is. It stumbles when you get an equally long conversation with Al Mualim almost directly after your escape, but that's more a fault of the game's design rather than its story.

masterfenix2009
08-02-2010, 01:48 PM
i agree with el

ArtofParkour
08-02-2010, 02:09 PM
It is amusing hewkii how you claim Antonio just uses rhetoric to prove his cause when you do the same thing there. Saying that the videos are "optional" proves absolutely nothing because they are STILL part of the game. The truth glyphs are also "optional," yet are they not very important to the game? Talk about spouting rhetoric.

Anyway...

How people can say the villians in AC1 were worse than the ones in AC2 absolutely blows my mind. I mean hell, they designed the game so that you would have sympathy for the villians in AC1. At least the Templars in the first game actually desired something good. The guys in AC2 save Uberto were just greedy, horrible men hungry for power.

As for suggesting that the Assassin's Creed story was even on the level of the Assassin's Creed 2 story from a writers perspective is quite frankly laughable. The long drawn out cutscenes at death following being impaled by a blade in the jugular are very cheap literary devices which don't make much sense either in the concept of reality. The Ubisoft team realizes this and that is why it's not in the second game. Because, while it's an easy way to progress the story, they know it's a very cheap and unrealistic way as well.

SWJS
08-02-2010, 04:30 PM
Once someone uses desperation as an excuse for making a mistake, they can't be defined as competent. One of the essential traits of a (good) leader is the ability to plan with a clear head, no matter the situation. Sure... So in order to be competent, they can't have human flaws? Essentially in order for Antonio to be competent, he would have to be a robot, or have no soul?

Most leaders have a good amount of time to plan for something. A week or more. And they usually have information to assist them in making the plan. Antonio and Ezio barely had anything to go by, and less than twelve hours to plan. They couldn't exactly think ahead, when they had no idea the Templars were going to murder the Doge until five minutes ago.
Yes. Sure, if you watch the videos, [and we both know you did], AC2's targets are technically as horrible as AC1's. But because it's just an optional video, instead of standing silently by while Tamir goes nuts during a mission, you don't feel it. Hearing the target's side of things after you kill them [instead of one in eleven ways to say goodbye in Italian] humanizes them, and here the long cutscene works because it changes your perception of the target - you're making the same journey Altair is. It stumbles when you get an equally long conversation with Al Mualim almost directly after your escape, but that's more a fault of the game's design rather than its story. I agree.
You two suck at agreeing to disagree. We don't call it a debate for anything. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hewkii9
08-02-2010, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by ArtofParkour:
How people can say the villains in AC1 were worse than the ones in AC2 absolutely blows my mind. I mean hell, they designed the game so that you would have sympathy for the villains in AC1. At least the Templars in the first game actually desired something good. The guys in AC2 save Uberto were just greedy, horrible men hungry for power.

Not all targets in AC2 were horrible power-hungry maniacs, that's the thing. What about Vieri? Even if you read his letter and watch his video, he's still just kind of a petty, enabled ******. Or Jacopo? We saw him in about one scene before he died, and you can't feel anything but pity when he does die. How about Emilio? He obviously already had power- look at the size of his house! He was just trying to make a merchant's union, really. Or Dante? He was mentally disabled. Orsi brothers? Just doing a job. Savonarola? Convinced he was doing the work of God. My, what a sorry, power-mad lot.

We think they're worse because we actually see them be bastards. You're going to hate a man who poisoned about thirty people and then set archers on them before your own eyes far more than you'll hate a feeble old man who supposedly organized the failed killing of a secondary character. Humanizing Abul just makes him a more rounded-out character. Which, from a writer's perspective, would seemingly be a good thing. Unless, of course, you want the agents of an allegedly shades-of-grey organization [as Lucy called the Templars in AC1] to be portrayed as evil, evil, unionist, and evil.

Who is the most memorable fictional villain of all time? A lot of you are going to say Darth Vader, right? He was a stone cold bastard who chokes people about as often as you breathe. But at the end of the day, he had been tricked by the Emperor into his service, and died getting out of it. More specifically, he died to save his son's life. That's pretty sympathetic. You're not going to say the Emperor, who was just plain evil. Nobody cares about flat-out, pure evil.


As for suggesting that the Assassin's Creed story was even on the level of the Assassin's Creed 2 story from a writers perspective is quite frankly laughable. The long drawn out cutscenes at death following being impaled by a blade in the jugular are very cheap literary devices which don't make much sense either in the concept of reality. The Ubisoft team realizes this and that is why it's not in the second game. Because, while it's an easy way to progress the story, they know it's a very cheap and unrealistic way as well.

No, the drawn-out cutscenes that characterize your targets and move the plot forward aren't in AC2. Instead, they were replaced with lip-service, ten-second cutscenes where Ezio says "Bye-bye". How is that better from a story perspective? It's still very laughable that Ezio will talk to these guys in computerized limbo after stabbing them through the neck. So why replace a meaningful story moment with this vignette? Either way, complaining about this is more about game design than story.

And the very last thing - nothing more ridiculous than someone whining about realism while discussing Assassin's Creed. Remember, this is a game where you witness your ancestors' conception and fall hundreds of feet without a scratch. Who cares how the plot is moved forward?

SBRedFlag
08-02-2010, 06:49 PM
Sure... So in order to be competent, they can't have human flaws? Essentially in order for Antonio to be competent, he would have to be a robot, or have no soul?

Most leaders have a good amount of time to plan for something. A week or more. And they usually have information to assist them in making the plan. Antonio and Ezio barely had anything to go by, and less than twelve hours to plan. They couldn't exactly think ahead, when they had no idea the Templars were going to murder the Doge until five minutes ago.

No one says that a good leader can't have any human flaws, but I'm going to say that compulsive decision-making through desperation isn't a universal human flaw. That's just a pretty bad flaw for a leader to have. The strongest, best leaders, can make decisions with judgment even under limited time. Imagine, if Antonio can't decide how to get into a building with 12 hours of planning, how the hell is he supposed to deal with a surprise attack? He'll be desperate then too, so he'll make a bad decision, (and cause dozens of deaths in the process). Competent leaders have to have good decision making skills, there's no question.

primerib69
08-02-2010, 08:10 PM
Yeah um....I think AC2 is better than AC1....

Vey03
08-03-2010, 12:41 AM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
We think they're worse because we actually see them be bastards. You're going to hate a man who poisoned about thirty people and then set archers on them before your own eyes far more than you'll hate a feeble old man who supposedly organized the failed killing of a secondary character. Humanizing Abul just makes him a more rounded-out character. Which, from a writer's perspective, would seemingly be a good thing. Unless, of course, you want the agents of an allegedly shades-of-grey organization [as Lucy called the Templars in AC1] to be portrayed as evil, evil, unionist, and evil.

Who is the most memorable fictional villain of all time? A lot of you are going to say Darth Vader, right? He was a stone cold bastard who chokes people about as often as you breathe. But at the end of the day, he had been tricked by the Emperor into his service, and died getting out of it. More specifically, he died to save his son's life. That's pretty sympathetic. You're not going to say the Emperor, who was just plain evil. Nobody cares about flat-out, pure evil.


Yeah, totally agree. Whether intentional or not (and i'd like to think it was), this was very well done in AC2.
Honestly, i think the villians in AC1 were worse. You see them breaking people's legs, using them for experiments, and i didn't care for any of them.
It's been a while since i played AC1, but i don't remember the kind of character development and insight you get in AC2 into the people you're actually killing.

In AC1 it was more, 'go kill him', and you did. Not knowing anything about the person.

In AC2, you have background info about them, see how they are treated by others, how they speak etc, and yes, you do feel a little sorry for some of them.
Dante comes to mind foremost. Even in death, he was willing to give you information.

In AC2 you are given an insight into the type of person they are. Which is a great way to handle a storyline.
It makes you feel emotion. Makes you think 'you seem like an ok guy, i'm only doing this because you're a Templar, and i have to.'
AC2 makes things more 'human', more substance to it all.

hewkii9
08-03-2010, 06:11 AM
Originally posted by Mouse03:
Yeah, totally agree. Whether intentional or not (and i'd like to think it was), this was very well done in AC2.
Honestly, i think the villians in AC1 were worse. You see them breaking people's legs, using them for experiments, and i didn't care for any of them.
It's been a while since i played AC1, but i don't remember the kind of character development and insight you get in AC2 into the people you're actually killing.

In AC1 it was more, 'go kill him', and you did. Not knowing anything about the person.

In AC2, you have background info about them, see how they are treated by others, how they speak etc, and yes, you do feel a little sorry for some of them.
Dante comes to mind foremost. Even in death, he was willing to give you information.

In AC2 you are given an insight into the type of person they are. Which is a great way to handle a storyline.
It makes you feel emotion. Makes you think 'you seem like an ok guy, i'm only doing this because you're a Templar, and i have to.'
AC2 makes things more 'human', more substance to it all.

Wait, what? That's pretty much the opposite of what I was arguing.

primerib69
08-03-2010, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Mouse03:
Yeah, totally agree. Whether intentional or not (and i'd like to think it was), this was very well done in AC2.
Honestly, i think the villians in AC1 were worse. You see them breaking people's legs, using them for experiments, and i didn't care for any of them.
It's been a while since i played AC1, but i don't remember the kind of character development and insight you get in AC2 into the people you're actually killing.

In AC1 it was more, 'go kill him', and you did. Not knowing anything about the person.

In AC2, you have background info about them, see how they are treated by others, how they speak etc, and yes, you do feel a little sorry for some of them.
Dante comes to mind foremost. Even in death, he was willing to give you information.

In AC2 you are given an insight into the type of person they are. Which is a great way to handle a storyline.
It makes you feel emotion. Makes you think 'you seem like an ok guy, i'm only doing this because you're a Templar, and i have to.'
AC2 makes things more 'human', more substance to it all.

Wait, what? That's pretty much the opposite of what I was arguing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

SBRedFlag
08-04-2010, 08:16 AM
primerib, I have a question: do you ever contribute to discussions, or are you always like this?

EzioAssassin51
08-05-2010, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by sbredflag:
primerib, I have a question: do you ever contribute to discussions, or are you always like this?

Better yet, do you always have to contribute to discussions with pointless spam?

primerib69
08-05-2010, 01:55 AM
Hate the game, not the player http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm just sharing my opinion, bros.

EzioAssassin51
08-05-2010, 02:57 AM
Originally posted by primerib69:
Hate the game, not the player http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm just sharing my opinion, bros.

Could you express them less spammy?

rain89c
08-05-2010, 09:58 AM
Like most people have said,
AC1 had a better atmosphere and attention to detail. The combat was a lot more smoother.
AC1 felt a lot more realistic feel to it, first time playing it felt like a movie-like experience.

AC2 only had a better storyline, and gameplay.

primerib69
08-05-2010, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by primerib69:
Hate the game, not the player http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I'm just sharing my opinion, bros.

Could you express them less spammy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No problem, bro. I like posting short little posts for fun so I'll stop that if it's getting you mad.

hewkii9
08-05-2010, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by rain89c:
Like most people have said,
AC1 had a better atmosphere and attention to detail. The combat was a lot more smoother.
AC1 felt a lot more realistic feel to it, first time playing it felt like a movie-like experience.

AC2 only had a better storyline, and gameplay.
What? I'm certainly not saying AC2 had a better story. Exactly the opposite. And I don't think anybody has lauded AC2 for its realism - sure, you meet more figures than just Richard the Lionheart and the Old Man of the Mountain, but stuff like Machiavelli as Assassin makes no sense.

SBRedFlag
08-05-2010, 05:02 PM
Originally posted by primerib69:
Hate the game, not the player http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Um... that doesn't make any sense... Are you suggesting that the forum is actually FORCING you to spam it? Because that's what that quote means in this scenario.



I'm just sharing my opinion, bros.

Pro tip: http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif is not an opinion. That's an emotion.


Originally posted by hewkii9:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rain89c:
Like most people have said,
AC1 had a better atmosphere and attention to detail. The combat was a lot more smoother.
AC1 felt a lot more realistic feel to it, first time playing it felt like a movie-like experience.

AC2 only had a better storyline, and gameplay.
What? I'm certainly not saying AC2 had a better story. Exactly the opposite. And I don't think anybody has lauded AC2 for its realism - sure, you meet more figures than just Richard the Lionheart and the Old Man of the Mountain, but stuff like Machiavelli as Assassin makes no sense. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, hewkii, the story for AC1 was actually pretty generic, if you ask me.

Master: You suck, go kill these evil people to get better.

Apprentice: OKOK, brb

*a week later*

Apprentice: all done killing the bad peeps

Master: Good, because you just killed all my enemies! I'm actually evil, mwahahahaha!

Apprentice: NOOOOOO. Time to die, master.

They just threw some magical objects into the mix and called it an original story. I really could barely empathize with Altair, but Ezio's story was really engaging.

RipYourSpineOut
08-05-2010, 06:15 PM
-drops 2 cents-

AC1 had its moments. Altair was a overall ok character in terms of emotion. He does grow as a character, being a self-centered, arrogrant ***** to a person who stands for justice and peace, and, well, ISN'T arrogrant, but I can't say he had a lot of emotion. Ezio fixed this. He had a wide range of emotion, and that helped me connect with him. I couldn't connect with Altair because I don't always feel angry, neutral, or just plain calm. Both AC1 and AC2 has great stories and I had great fun playing both, but AC1 suffered for one thing. Repetitiveness. I just can't forgive them for that.

Overall, I just have to say that AC1 is no contest to AC2. AC2 does what a good sequel is supposed to do. Improve from the last game.

hewkii9
08-05-2010, 07:20 PM
I don't think that you can't relate to someone just because you aren't the same kind of person as them. Take the Tenth Doctor [Doctor Who] for example. He spends most of his time in utter glee at the fact that humanity's being itself, or consumed in righteous fury. I'm not personally touched when I see a Chinese market, the Doctor is. But I can still relate to him.

I think it's easier to relate to Altair than Ezio because, while nobody who plays video games is the kind of person that Altair is, you make the same journey as him over the course of the game. As Altair uncovers the Templars' ideologies and motives, you do too.

When you pick up Assassin's Creed, and you hear "Nothing is true, everything is permitted", you think "Free-running and shanking, *****in'" [unless, of course, you don't say '*****in']. By the end of the game, you should understand what it really means. Just to be sure, Al Mualim shares that view at the end of the game, and you stab it in the neck. Al Mualim says that he only aimed to end the Crusades and achieve true peace, but at this point, for him, any talk of peace is a pleasant side-effect. If he really wanted to do that, the first thing he would do wouldn't be to mesmerize Masyaf and have them waiting at his gate. He was basically playing God at that point, which is underscored by the fact that you fight him in the Assassins' garden, listed in the Animus as 'Paradise'.

I've gone on a tangent, I'm really sorry. But basically my point is that Altair is a more relatable character than Ezio because you make discoveries as he does. Not even The Vault has the same impact on you that it does on Ezio, since we know just by the title that there'll probably be an infuriating twist at the end. [Oh, God, I'm making Ubi Montreal sound like M. Night Shyamalan.]

I'd bring in my theory that the real twist of AC1 isn't Al Mualim-is-evil, but the Piece's true nature, except I have to get up early tomorrow.

Also, et tu, sbredflag? :P

Vey03
08-06-2010, 12:59 AM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
Wait, what? That's pretty much the opposite of what I was arguing.

Lol, i didn't read all the replies, and i think you may have been talking about AC1?
I was refering to AC2.
Sorry.

SBRedFlag
08-06-2010, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
I don't think that you can't relate to someone just because you aren't the same kind of person as them. Take the Tenth Doctor [Doctor Who] for example. He spends most of his time in utter glee at the fact that humanity's being itself, or consumed in righteous fury. I'm not personally touched when I see a Chinese market, the Doctor is. But I can still relate to him.

I think it's easier to relate to Altair than Ezio because, while nobody who plays video games is the kind of person that Altair is, you make the same journey as him over the course of the game. As Altair uncovers the Templars' ideologies and motives, you do too.

When you pick up Assassin's Creed, and you hear "Nothing is true, everything is permitted", you think "Free-running and shanking, *****in'" [unless, of course, you don't say '*****in']. By the end of the game, you should understand what it really means. Just to be sure, Al Mualim shares that view at the end of the game, and you stab it in the neck. Al Mualim says that he only aimed to end the Crusades and achieve true peace, but at this point, for him, any talk of peace is a pleasant side-effect. If he really wanted to do that, the first thing he would do wouldn't be to mesmerize Masyaf and have them waiting at his gate. He was basically playing God at that point, which is underscored by the fact that you fight him in the Assassins' garden, listed in the Animus as 'Paradise'.

I've gone on a tangent, I'm really sorry. But basically my point is that Altair is a more relatable character than Ezio because you make discoveries as he does. Not even The Vault has the same impact on you that it does on Ezio, since we know just by the title that there'll probably be an infuriating twist at the end. [Oh, God, I'm making Ubi Montreal sound like M. Night Shyamalan.]

I'd bring in my theory that the real twist of AC1 isn't Al Mualim-is-evil, but the Piece's true nature, except I have to get up early tomorrow.

Also, et tu, sbredflag? :P

I'm SBIzokronus from THB in case you didnt' know (i'm guessing you did, though)

Anyway, I still think "free-running and shanking, *****in'", so I guess I'm immune to the PoE illusion that is the AC1 storyline http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But, as I've said before, the last two memory blocks in AC1 were amazing, and the writer(s) should be commended for that. All I'm going to say right now since I'm short on time is that the rest of it had potential, but didn't quite make it in my mind.

hewkii9
08-06-2010, 03:45 PM
Really? I knew that you were sbredflag on the old Assassin's Creed Maps forum, but didn't know you changed your name on THB.

SBRedFlag
08-06-2010, 04:41 PM
Yeah I did. I thought you would notice because I have the same sig on both websites http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KCizzll
08-07-2010, 02:31 PM
My take, categorized for easy reading:

Climbing - tie -
I enjoyed the challenge of it in the first game but the speed in the second was also nice. Tough call.

Graphics (buildings) - AC1-
I found the stone textures much nicer and general building design made me feel more like a living place. All the roofs in AC2 felt the same to me. Rich and poor districts were a nice touch as well.

Graphics (people) - AC2 -
easy choice

Challenge - AC1 -
Also easy. I actually died a couple times in AC1. Like when I fought my first templar. Was a good feeling!

Atmosphere - AC1 -
The dark and gritty vibe is something I REALLY liked in the first one that seems to have been lost.

notafanboy
08-07-2010, 03:26 PM
graphics: ac2
climbing: ac1
atmosphere: ac2 (more interesting landmarks)
difficulty: ac1
i did not feel like there was any assassins in ac2 every one looked like thugs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
in ac1 you could see other assassins but inac2 they just said "yeah im an assassin trust me"

phil.llllll
08-07-2010, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by sbredflag:
Well, hewkii, the story for AC1 was actually pretty generic, if you ask me.

Master: You suck, go kill these evil people to get better.

Apprentice: OKOK, brb

*a week later*

Apprentice: all done killing the bad peeps

Master: Good, because you just killed all my enemies! I'm actually evil, mwahahahaha!

Apprentice: NOOOOOO. Time to die, master.

They just threw some magical objects into the mix and called it an original story.

That's really not giving it the credit its due. That was more of a backdrop. They really could have used any number of situations but obviously they might not have made for a good video game setting. At its heart it was more of an examination of why people do as they do (motivations and specific morals) and ultimately the Assassins' Creed, Nothing is true, everything is permitted... Of course the sci fi stuff (if one is into that) is an obvious extra.

AC1 had a better story, in my opinion, because they had a great book guiding them. AC2 seemed a lot less complex and a bit generic in comparison - overall I still loved the story and game but for different reasons.

thebutcherhead
08-08-2010, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by sbredflag:

Well, hewkii, the story for AC1 was actually pretty generic, if you ask me.

Master: You suck, go kill these evil people to get better.

Apprentice: OKOK, brb

*a week later*

Apprentice: all done killing the bad peeps

Master: Good, because you just killed all my enemies! I'm actually evil, mwahahahaha!

Apprentice: NOOOOOO. Time to die, master.

They just threw some magical objects into the mix and called it an original story. I really could barely empathize with Altair, but Ezio's story was really engaging.

Well, if you put it that way, the story for AC 2 was a generic revenge story:

Ezio's father: be a good boy, son

Ezio: ci padre

father: dies

Ezio: I'll kill you for what you've done!!
*kills them for what they did*

ezio's uncle: itsa me! Mario!!

Marco barbarigo: tonight! we celebrate Carnivale!

ezio: say hello to my little friend!

*pops a cap in random enemy number 15; kills some more templars*

But I guess maybe introducing sophisticated space aliens and a conspiracy about global warming during the last 5 seconds of the game adds an original touch to the story.

Really tbh I don't think many video games EVER tell engaging stories without avoiding obvious cliches. Not that I mind that, but I think it's questionable when AC 2 is hailed as some ground-breakingly original innovation in video game story-telling.

All I really noticed was a revenge story coupled with game mechanics, an environment to use them in, and cutscenes to display the dialogue which were all things I'm pretty sure I've seen before in a video game they were done well, I don't think they were original.

But yeah, forget all that. I'm just pisesd off because I can't see where ezio's legs are when he runs and it makes parts of his body flip out of proportion.

Also the graphics look really wierd to me sometimes, it's like they use blurred gradients and large faded patches of color to create an illusion of detail on the character models esp the horses that makes everything look like it's made out of ribbons or shiny plastic glitter fabric.

At first glance, I thout the graphics just sucked but then for an instant I stopped my horse and saw a flash of detail like I could see the texture of the fur all over the horse. So idk maybe that's where all these arguments about AC1 having better graphics stem from: some people see the detail illusion thing and don't notice a downgrade and some people can't see or can't fully see the weird blur-texture detail.

If neither then I'm a total psycho who's lost tough with his eye brain coordination and I'm mortally afraid for my sanity. and my eyes.

DavidPV86
08-08-2010, 10:14 PM
Setting: I prefer the Crusades (mostly because of Acre) over the Italian Renaissance, I find the crusaders, saracens, hospitalier, teutonic more over the assassins creed 2 templars, my vote goes for AC1

Gameplay: AC1 is only about investigations, either interrogation, eavesdropping, pickpocketing and the informer, and then kill the target, while the second includes money, weapons, clothing, diversity of missions etc. To me everything is better on the AC2 but the combat, which is clearly better and more entertaning on the first one, yet my vote goes for AC2.

Plot: Well as I said before, templars on the AC1 believed on their cause and most of them were warriors, while the AC2 templars were fat, old and greedy bastards caring only for money, also Altair is better than Ezio.

Graphics: Both are pretty similar, but I find Acre to be the best city, its greatly designed, so my vote goes for AC1

Replay value: collecting more 400 ******* flags and get no rewards, and listen to the Al Mualim speech EVERY TIME well it just sucks!!!, whereas AC2 has the assassins tombs, assassination contracts, monterriggioni, etc etc, so AC2 here and BY FAR.

Well, overall AC2 is a better game, but at the end I like the first one a little bit more, mostly because acre

And I hope that brotherhood can mix the best things of both games!!!, and as far as have seen it is, there is actually an assassin order while in AC2 is nowhere to be found

dalby2010
08-09-2010, 06:28 AM
Sorry I Just Think AC2 is so much better let me tell you plot because you obviously forgot. Go to city talk to guild eavsdrop x2 assassinate got to city talk to guild ETC

dalby2010
08-09-2010, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by DavidPV86:
Setting: I prefer the Crusades (mostly because of Acre) over the Italian Renaissance, I find the crusaders, saracens, hospitalier, teutonic more over the assassins creed 2 templars, my vote goes for AC1

Gameplay: AC1 is only about investigations, either interrogation, eavesdropping, pickpocketing and the informer, and then kill the target, while the second includes money, weapons, clothing, diversity of missions etc. To me everything is better on the AC2 but the combat, which is clearly better and more entertaning on the first one, yet my vote goes for AC2.

Plot: Well as I said before, templars on the AC1 believed on their cause and most of them were warriors, while the AC2 templars were fat, old and greedy bastards caring only for money, also Altair is better than Ezio.

Graphics: Both are pretty similar, but I find Acre to be the best city, its greatly designed, so my vote goes for AC1

Replay value: collecting more 400 ******* flags and get no rewards, and listen to the Al Mualim speech EVERY TIME well it just sucks!!!, whereas AC2 has the assassins tombs, assassination contracts, monterriggioni, etc etc, so AC2 here and BY FAR.

Well, overall AC2 is a better game, but at the end I like the first one a little bit more, mostly because acre

And I hope that brotherhood can mix the best things of both games!!!, and as far as have seen it is, there is actually an assassin order while in AC2 is nowhere to be found



I agree on most of those facts but pesonally i think the templars are better in AC2 because it has more of a conspiracy element rather than the open conunisam (cant spell that) of AC1

GPkingmaker15
08-09-2010, 09:53 AM
dont get me wrong i loved AC2 but i recently got AC1 again & i missed it soooo much lol

hewkii9
08-09-2010, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by dalby2010:
I agree on most of those facts but pesonally i think the templars are better in AC2 because it has more of a conspiracy element rather than the open conunisam (cant spell that) of AC1
Templars aren't communists. If anything, Assassins are communists. Especially since, you know, Desmond grew up in a desert commune.

I think that I should go into a bit more detail on what I think about AC1's ending. I've mentioned a couple times that the real twist is the Piece's nature, but never gone into detail.

Nothing is true, everything is permitted. It's kinda new agey and in every nerd's signature, but it is AC1. The developers, whether intentionally or not, made that maxim pervade every aspect of the game. You can kill anyone and go anywhere, because everything is permitted. The story is full of twists and revelations - in the finale, Al Mualim both quotes and destroys the Bible. It's clear nothing is true, either.

The revelation of the Piece of Eden is the ultimate presentation of that idea. Its very existence makes Abstergo's mission clear. The idea of this ancient tech makes all Vidic's cryptic words ring true. Water never turned to wine. He who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.

Almost the entire game is played under Al Mualim's thumb - as the student, this is simply the way of the world. But when the Piece's nature becomes clear? The master is defeated by the student.

hewkii9
08-25-2010, 08:02 PM
So this topic kinda died, let's start it back up! What themes, if any, does ACII have?

SBRedFlag
08-25-2010, 08:30 PM
I think AC2 tries to stick with the same "nothing is true, everything is permitted" concept, considering that everything that Ezio had known for his whole life was a lie. I don't know, I'm grasping for ideas here, but you can see what I'm saying, right?

phil.llllll
08-25-2010, 08:55 PM
To be honest, I'm not quite sure there is one - a single one that is, since it zips through different time periods. Like sbred mentioned it sort of stuck to the whole truth concept, with the truth videos and conspiracy plot being the most obvious. Ezio's story, being the main one, seemed to be the most basic of them all, being pretty much a straight up revenge plot - everytime the creed was mentioned it seemed a bit forced. Everything as a whole seemed a bit generic though especially in comparison with AC1 - the conspiracy truth stuff was quite horrible. Maybe it's because they tried to do too much at once, with all the Desmond, Ezio, Altair, and the history of man.

I did really like Altair's philosophical reflections in his journals (e.g. life, knowledge, truth, the actions of men, and questions of achieving immortality being the highlights) and they definitely stuck out the most for me.

hewkii9
08-26-2010, 01:56 PM
If you cut the Vault and change the names, ACII would be a completely unrelated game to Assassin's Creed. Rather than the core of the story being "a ****** tries to redeem himself, but manages that and far more", the core of ACII is "a tragedy occurs, and our hero's grief takes the form of a twenty-year killing spree".

Changing the hero for ACII would mean that we have to lose the chance to develop off of Altair's actions in the first game, right? Wrong. Sure, Altair is long dead in the Renaissance. But the Codex still exists, and his words are one of the best parts of the game . You feel intrigued when you find a new Codex page and Altair is talking about the origin of religion, or morality, or his own mortality. It's really deep stuff for a video game.

Why not rework the story in such a way that Ezio can feel that same intrigue? I'd enjoy ACII more if Ezio learned from a long-dead mentor [and if you played ACI, he's essentially [I]you which is a cool concept] than if he learned from some ******s, thieves, and Bartolomeo. You can go through ACII without ever actually reading a Codex page. Which is a bit of a let-down.

And one more thing - Ezio goes from an impulsive, passionate young man to a passionate, impulsive older man who can kill. If Ezio became a brilliant intellect, capable of actually discussing everything in the Codex, not to mention a talented killer, he'd be a true Renaissance man, like Leonardo. That'd be a nice payoff for the player.

phil.llllll
08-26-2010, 03:04 PM
Perhaps he'll grow somewhat in Brotherhood, since it should be more focused. Something they should've keep in from AC1 was the memory logs where it was possible to read Altair's thoughts after the missions. Would've been a great chance to develop him further.

hewkii9
08-26-2010, 05:39 PM
Since flags and save citizens seem to be making a comeback, fingers crossed that investigation information makes a reappearance in some capacity as well.

souNdwAve89
08-26-2010, 06:48 PM
Originally posted by hewkii9:
Since flags and save citizens seem to be making a comeback, fingers crossed that investigation information makes a reappearance in some capacity as well.

Yeah, having investigation in AC: B would be pretty cool, but leave the missions like how AC2 is. It will give the game less linear feel. I personally like investigation since it adds more to the story and gives a background on your target. It also makes you feel more like an assassin too lol.

phil.llllll
08-26-2010, 06:55 PM
Yeah. A lot of the feeling of being an assassin (gathering info and hunting your prey) was lost in AC2. They should have reworked and expanded upon the idea instead of ditching it entirely.

hewkii9
08-26-2010, 07:42 PM
While it's safe to say that absolutely nobody wants the actual investigations from AC1 back, losing the information you got was a sore blow. I loved planning that stuff out, and with the creation of the database there's a spot ready-made for it now.

EzioAssassin51
08-27-2010, 12:24 AM
I wouldn't mind if there was a mix of AC1 and 2 in AC:B, investigation wise. As in, with AC1, you had to investigate to find out where the guy was, but in AC2, you had to use Eagle Vision!

I think it'd be cool if some assassinations require you to investigate then kill, while others do something else!

dalby2010
08-31-2010, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:
To be honest, I'm not quite sure there is one - a single one that is, since it zips through different time periods. Like sbred mentioned it sort of stuck to the whole truth concept, with the truth videos and conspiracy plot being the most obvious. Ezio's story, being the main one, seemed to be the most basic of them all, being pretty much a straight up revenge plot - everytime the creed was mentioned it seemed a bit forced. Everything as a whole seemed a bit generic though especially in comparison with AC1 - the conspiracy truth stuff was quite horrible. Maybe it's because they tried to do too much at once, with all the Desmond, Ezio, Altair, and the history of man.

I did really like Altair's philosophical reflections in his journals (e.g. life, knowledge, truth, the actions of men, and questions of achieving immortality being the highlights) and they definitely stuck out the most for me. Damn you type a lot but what im trying to say is in AC1 the templars were very open and i found that took a certian amount away from the game rather than the AC2 feel of they could be absolutley anywhere http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/typing.gif

IAmLuke.
08-31-2010, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
am I the only one who thinks this?

Tbh I think AC2 is far better, I dont know what it is about it just makes me love it, I got bored of AC1 almost straight away.

KCizzll
08-31-2010, 03:31 PM
It was most likely the very repetitive nature of AC1. I didn't like the noteriety system of AC2 or the low low LOW difficulty but the amount and variety of side missions made it MUCH more enjoyable to wander around.

I also really missed the templars though. AC2 needed a hard enemy type, brutes + spearmen were too easy to disarm.