PDA

View Full Version : Anybody else feel that Brotherhood was a major step back from Assassin's Creed 1?



luckyto
07-11-2011, 10:36 AM
I loved the original Assassin's Creed, and when II came and upped the ante in terms of story and diversity of gameplay, I applauded. But Brotherhood feels like a major step backwards in many ways.

1) Environment: Rome is significantly smaller than its predecessors. The Kingdom and it's cities are massive in scope and diversity compared to Rome. And only one third of Rome (less than half the size of Jerusalem) is even dense, with the remaining sections being sparse farm land. Further, I would argue that navigation (free running) across rooftops is much more poorly designed than either of the previous installments. Haystacks are lacking where you might expect them, and consistent paths are sometimes hard to find --- to the point that I prefer to stay on the ground.

2) Core mechanics are skimmed over for quantity. No better example than pickpocketing - which was once a tense and focused act of stealing from a target is now nothing more than bumping people, mashing X and ringing bells. This is true for many things. Or the new mechanic of Assassin Recruitment and Training, what should be a prolonged and character-rich experience with some narrative and Assassin Wisdom is nothing more than an introductory saving and hello, an initiation and an ongoing Facebook game (click here, level up). There is too much going on in this game to give any thing the proper fanfare it deserves to have payoff. With 15 vials of medicine, how does health even matter?

3) Notoriety System. I can literally stand in front of guards with my sword drawn and they do nothing. Notoriety needs a major overhaul. It worked best in AC1. If even a wanted poster exists for you, Guards should perk up when your are nearby. If you are notorious, there should be huge patrols in the street looking for you. (BTW, where are the 10-12 man patrols of AC1?) If you enter a fight in the street, guards should continue to arrive, maybe a few every 30 seconds or so. In AC1, if you get into a big brawl in public, guards will continue to show up and in some places, it is almost overwhelming. Perhaps, make notoriety a timed system so that the longer one remains anonymous the lower your notoriety becomes, or combine such a system with the existing mechanic and increase the AI. At least increase the AI.

4) Too many restrictions on missions. Don't be detected, don't kill anyone, do it in this time limit AND you can only go in this specific mission area. Some of the end missions (Sequence 8 and 9) were obscenely restrictive. It's just not fun. You know, if stealth is required, at least give me time. If I escape, don't activate some in-game alarm system that automatically brings attackers even though there were no guards within sight to raise the alarm. Don't restrict my environment so I have to follow the developers set way of approach. OPENNESS. That's why I replay these games. Honestly, I had never had a bad experience in an AC game until Brotherhood, and a couple of missions were just plain frustrating. That's the dark and easy path difficulty, and it is just frustrating not fun. That's not depth. In AC1, there was a best way to assassinate - it was a challenge - but the reward was pulling it off quickly and like an Assassin. If you failed, you rarely were restarting the memory - it just looked ugly.

5) Story and character development. Cesare was a great villain, shame we were only exposed to him at the beginning and end. AC2's story was hands-down the most well thought of the franchise --- almost of all of your activities were neatly tied back in to the story and offered some great character development. Many have said that Al Mualim's teachings helped weight the story in AC1, and I totally agree, and Robert de Sable was at least involved in that his fellow Templar's were orchestrating his plans. Templars were heavily present in AC1 (as random encounters) and to top it off, you had Desmond held captive by the ****** Vidic.

On the whole, Brotherhood lost focus. Too much stuff. Too many threads. Too many gameplay mechanics. When you add so much, it becomes hard to treat any one thing with emphasis. The only thing that Brotherhood added which was plus to the franchise was the chain-kill mechanic. With better AI, then combat will have finally gotten to where we all wanted it in AC1. But for the next installments, I'd like to see a return to the care and focus of the first Assassin's Creed.

SquarePolo27
07-11-2011, 10:42 AM
Gotta agree with you there. Brotherhood didn't have the story that AC2 had and the Atmosphere of AC1. It was just a city, an assassin and an antagonist who has some epic armor http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NORTHBOERN1
07-11-2011, 10:45 AM
Not at all. It's a great game, but it could have been more difficult. In reality, playing Rome at the end of ACII would have made the game to huge. Rome needed its own game.

Jexx21
07-11-2011, 11:21 AM
Brotherhood was the best Assassin's Creed in my opinion. It was harder than Assassin's Creed 2 in terms of combat difficulty, but easier than Assassin's Creed 1. But it introduced new gameplay mechanics to make up for it being easier than AC1.

I personally loved the Assassin Recruits, I just wish we could of had a more personal experience with them.

The only thing that I didn't like so much in Brotherhood is the abundance of side missions. it's a good thing that in Revelations the side missions system will be replaced by a Random Quests system.

All in all, I think that all the games are great, but I personally think that Brotherhood was the best one. I have to say that I enjoyed the characters and character development in Brotherhood more too.

So, yea, I disagree with you, but I do agree on parts of the frustrating process of getting a 100% synch.

Rea1SamF1sher
07-11-2011, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Brotherhood was the best Assassin's Creed in my opinion. It was harder than Assassin's Creed 2 in terms of combat difficulty, but easier than Assassin's Creed 1. But it introduced new gameplay mechanics to make up for it being easier than AC1.
I think the Combat System in Brotherhood couldn't make an Assassin's Creed Game more easier. It's the easiest of all combat systems.


I have to say that I enjoyed the characters and character development in Brotherhood more too.
AC2 has the best character development in my opinion. I don't see where Brotherhood does anything for the character development other then the Desmond part.

reini03
07-11-2011, 11:42 AM
Yay, another "ACB sucks" thread. Seriously, of all the AC games I enjoyed Brotherhood the most and also replayed it more often than any other video game. Stop permanently writing about its flaws, take ACB's awesomeness in account as well. Or do you think everything about Brotherhood was bad...? I'm quite sure you don't. But as long as nobody comes up and rants about the graphics, I'm fine...

Stowdace
07-11-2011, 11:51 AM
At least the side missions had more variety than Altiars info gathering. Enjoyed "The miracle is in the execution" too.

RzaRecta357
07-11-2011, 11:57 AM
I hate how everyone bags on the story also.

It was meant to be the finish to AC2's story in a way. More to move the main story along with Desmond.

Besides the lack of awesome talking moments during the assassinations..I thought it was awesome.

Noble6
07-11-2011, 12:10 PM
Acb may be as good as ac2 or maybe better but because it was so similar to it that it had no wow effect and got boring very fast.

naran6142
07-11-2011, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by MagnifyHope:
Yay, another "ACB sucks" thread. Seriously, of all the AC games I enjoyed Brotherhood the most and also replayed it more often than any other video game. Stop permanently writing about its flaws, take ACB's awesomeness in account as well. Or do you think everything about Brotherhood was bad...? I'm quite sure you don't. But as long as nobody comes up and rants about the graphics, I'm fine...

I completely agree with you here. There are way to many threads that down on ACB, it was a good game.

For the guy that made the thread. You have valid points
The main problem with ACB is that a lot of the stuff was over emphasized like recruits, horses and the size of rome.

these ideas were cool just not everything that we thought that they would be. Brotherhood had a lot of cool things just not delivered as well as they could have

as for lacking story, i dont think is true. cuz it sets up a lot of twists that revelation will answer and remember the ending.

Jexx21
07-11-2011, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Andre202:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Brotherhood was the best Assassin's Creed in my opinion. It was harder than Assassin's Creed 2 in terms of combat difficulty, but easier than Assassin's Creed 1. But it introduced new gameplay mechanics to make up for it being easier than AC1.
I think the Combat System in Brotherhood couldn't make an Assassin's Creed Game more easier. It's the easiest of all combat systems.


I have to say that I enjoyed the characters and character development in Brotherhood more too.
AC2 has the best character development in my opinion. I don't see where Brotherhood does anything for the character development other then the Desmond part. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For character development you have :

La Volpe thinking Machiavelli a traitor, the conflict between Claudia and Ezio for Claudia leading the Courtesans, the process of Claudia becoming an Assasssin.

And for the combat part being harder, I actually died in combat in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. I didn't in AC2. In my opinion, that means that Brotherhood was harder.

luckyto
07-11-2011, 12:59 PM
Originally posted by MagnifyHope:
Yay, another "ACB sucks" thread. Seriously, of all the AC games I enjoyed Brotherhood the most and also replayed it more often than any other video game. Stop permanently writing about its flaws, take ACB's awesomeness in account as well. Or do you think everything about Brotherhood was bad...? I'm quite sure you don't. But as long as nobody comes up and rants about the graphics, I'm fine...

Sorry, I'm pretty new to these forums. I didn't realize that this topic had been over-hashed. For the record, I do not think "Brotherhood sucks." Just that Brotherhood is the least of the franchise, and there is a very big difference. I'm glad to own it - more like a big DLC - just that I believe the other two did many things better.

Of the positives, I do love the chain-kill system. Even back in AC1, I felt the game needed something of this nature to make combat feel more visceral and dynamic.

I liked that chest had random items in them which you could acquire to get weapons and special items. I think this will be especially effective in Revelations tied to a bomb-making system.

I really like the Borgia towers concept and gameplay. Infiltrate, assassinate and eliminate the Templar influence. If they keep this in Revelations and add a "give and take" slant where territories change hands, it will be fantastic.

The Lairs of Romulus were awesome - perhaps the best part.

Tailoring the cape, optional full synchs with a catch (NOT the in-mission requirements that force desynch, those suck), and replay were all nice to haves.

And yes, it has more variety in missions than AC1, but no more than AC2 and AC2 did them better. For me, something more ideal would be the 'info-gathering' mechanic of AC1 crossed with AC2's variety of missions and side missions tied to story. Though random side quests sounds like an intriguing idea.

As for story, big things happened. But there was very little development. There was a beginning and an end. And the middle is sparse. When you kill the Banker, do you really know anything about him? Compare that to any one of your targets in AC1; where you've been exposed to all of their horrible deeds from your investigation. The only viable sub-plot was Volpe-Machiavelli, but Claudia just becomes an Assassin. Last we saw, Ezio's mother didn't even speak and now he has a few calm conversations with her. There is very little dynamic between Ezio, his family and how he has grown.

I gave my main reasons - smaller environment, poor notoriety system, and a couple of frustrating missions. The main thing that soured me were the few restrictive missions, which I think is the byproduct of making a game "more difficult" but ended up in the frustrating linear gameplay category.

Though - this is all subjective and everybody probably has their own take on it. I really have been wanting to express those sentiments with other AC fans just to get them out and see if anybody agrees -

Jexx21
07-11-2011, 01:06 PM
Actually, I thought that Rome was fairly big. The cities in AC1 were pretty boring IMO.

CRUDFACE
07-11-2011, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Andre202:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Brotherhood was the best Assassin's Creed in my opinion. It was harder than Assassin's Creed 2 in terms of combat difficulty, but easier than Assassin's Creed 1. But it introduced new gameplay mechanics to make up for it being easier than AC1.
I think the Combat System in Brotherhood couldn't make an Assassin's Creed Game more easier. It's the easiest of all combat systems.


I have to say that I enjoyed the characters and character development in Brotherhood more too.
AC2 has the best character development in my opinion. I don't see where Brotherhood does anything for the character development other then the Desmond part. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

For character development you have :

La Volpe thinking Machiavelli a traitor, the conflict between Claudia and Ezio for Claudia leading the Courtesans, the process of Claudia becoming an Assasssin.

And for the combat part being harder, I actually died in combat in Assassin's Creed Brotherhood. I didn't in AC2. In my opinion, that means that Brotherhood was harder. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dude, their isn't a single enemy that can't be straight up counter killed. Like the captains of the squads of soldiers used to be able to stop them, but now they can be killed by everything. Only the Borgia tower guards and papal soldiers can do that. It was added to the standard combat. What was harder for you exactly?

Characters got messed up, and the writing team is doing that stuff where Ezio lets them live for the crappiest reasons. They don't even try to make up good reasons for him anymore to let people go. Seriously, why let an assassin go? And then why is Machiavelli so dumbed down? He knew nothing, was a ****** for no reason and got dumb downed for the sake of the plot. You can at least say he was getting hounded, or he was able to block it...but Ezio lets the assassin go. Smart move. altair killed informants for free they'd tell on him, but Ezio doesn't kill the people who know how to build war machines?

Even though each bad guy in AC1 did that thing where they tried to justify their reasons and it got a little repetitive, at least they had two sides and were deeper then ad therefore showed humanity, "I was bad, I don't care, screw you Ezio..." That's what most amount to. And I swear in AC2 Ezio kinda tortured one of the Orsi brothers when he was assassinating them cause he pushed the hidden blade into his throat extra slow.

Claudia only got little bits, and she never really got to do much, she was always side-lined.

Animuses
07-11-2011, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Actually, I thought that Rome was fairly big. The cities in AC1 were pretty boring IMO.

Yes, Rome was the biggest city, but it became boring after the second sequence. The city was dull, the horses were annoying, and (this is just me nitpicking) some of the civilians were too ugly.

We stayed in Rome the whole game and it can't even compare to Florence, Venice, Tuscany, Forli, Jerusalem, Acre, and Damascus... Yes, I named all of the cities.

Luckily, Constantinople looks absolutely amazing.

I dislike having to criticize Brotherhood so much, but that's what happens when the games go from amazing to decent.

CRUDFACE
07-11-2011, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Actually, I thought that Rome was fairly big. The cities in AC1 were pretty boring IMO.

Yes, Rome was the biggest city, but it became boring after the second sequence. The city was dull, the horses were annoying, and (this is just me nitpicking) some of the civilians were too ugly.

We stayed in Rome the whole game and it can't even compare to Florence, Venice, Tuscany, Forli, Jerusalem, Acre, and Damascus... Yes, I named all of the cities.

Luckily, Constantinople looks absolutely amazing.

I dislike having to criticize Brotherhood so much, but that's what happens when the games go from amazing to decent. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weird enough, my friend can't tell that each city has a different feel to it. But I, personally, felt like Rome was never as colorful as Florence or as serene as Venice was.

Rome was pretty drab personally. But the districts in Constantinople look amazing and unique, especially the underground city!

iN3krO
07-12-2011, 01:15 AM
AcB was another game just like Ac1...

Nice Ideas not well executed...

At least Ac1 had anything special that still makes me play it but brotherhood doesn't. Almost everything in brotherhood is good but not how it's now.
It's more unlikly that AcR will fix major problems http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

eagleforlife1
07-12-2011, 01:36 AM
Completely agree with OP.

AlphaAltair
07-12-2011, 02:53 AM
Gotta agree with OP too!

I don't really get why people complain about these topics?

Even the biggest fanboy would have to admit AC:B wasn't a "perfect" game and a LOT think it was a big step down from AC/AC2, all we're doing is providing feedback to help the devs make the next game the best it can be.

Who doesn't want that?

FiskMunk
07-12-2011, 03:46 AM
Doesn't point 2,3 and 4 go for AC II as well, though?

SAVMATIC
07-12-2011, 03:51 AM
anyone else feel these topics are a royal ****ing waste of time? lots of ppl hate AC1, its just an opinion, whether you like it or not. They are never going to make another so.....
if you like it, enjoy, if you dont like the new games, go away. quit talking so ****ing much about ACB by the way. give them a chance to release another full game like ACR before you ppl rape the whole franchise over ONE subpar game(out of 3....)

LightRey
07-12-2011, 04:24 AM
I can't believe what I'm hearing. I absolutely loved ACB. To consider it to be a step down from ACI or ACII is just insulting. Especially if you consider the fact that they made the game in like one year and it's not even part of the "main sequence" (ACI, II, III) of AC games.

ElDoucherino
07-12-2011, 06:09 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
I can't believe what I'm hearing. I absolutely loved ACB. To consider it to be a step down from ACI or ACII is just insulting. Especially if you consider the fact that they made the game in like one year and it's not even part of the "main sequence" (ACI, II, III) of AC games.

Amen! Finally a voice of reason. Why don't people just take ACB as well as ACR for what it is, huge DLC's for us to play with until the next numbered sequence. Even if ACB was lacking in some areas i spent numerous of hours with it, and enjoyed it. I think people in here are way to worried...i for one have faith in Ubisoft.

luckyto
07-12-2011, 08:05 AM
Savmatic, LightRey, Shanki --- if you read my posts, you'd know that I did enjoy Brotherhood and I'm not knocking the whole franchise. I even called it a "very big DLC." I'll play it more than 90% of my other titles even with its shortcomings. But perhaps Ubisoft cranking it out in just a year is part of the problem. I think, or know, that they could have produced a better product with six more months.

Look, it's a discussion. It's not insulting, it's just opinions. Don't go hater. Such discussion is not a waste of time if something good comes out of the next few AC games.

Based on the GameSpot interview at E3 with Alex Amencio ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUvYBcn9rKE ), it sounds like they are addressing a number of these problems. He talks at length about bringing the different systems (side missions, recruits, Lairs, etc) into one cohesive experience tied to story. He mentions that while Constantinople is same size as Rome; it is dense --- Rome was almost 60% farm land and had it been all city, then it might have worked better. Plus add Masyaf and the underground city and you will have some variety.

So it sounds to me like they LISTEN. And if so, it continues to be worth discussing and providing specific details about what worked and what didn't.

DavisP92
07-12-2011, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by MagnifyHope:
Yay, another "ACB sucks" thread. Seriously, of all the AC games I enjoyed Brotherhood the most and also replayed it more often than any other video game. Stop permanently writing about its flaws, take ACB's awesomeness in account as well. Or do you think everything about Brotherhood was bad...? I'm quite sure you don't. But as long as nobody comes up and rants about the graphics, I'm fine...

well that's good u enjoyed it where u could replay it a lot, i loved it. but honestly i sold the game after a while, while i still have AC1 and AC2 and replay those. i think the atomosphere was best in AC1, as well as the blending factor, but AC2 had the best story. ACB was really fun but after i beat it 3 times i didn't replay it again.

(replayed AC1 5 or so times, and AC2 more then 9 times)

LightRey
07-12-2011, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
Savmatic, LightRey, Shanki --- if you read my posts, you'd know that I did enjoy Brotherhood and I'm not knocking the whole franchise. I even called it a "very big DLC." I'll play it more than 90% of my other titles even with its shortcomings. But perhaps Ubisoft cranking it out in just a year is part of the problem. I think, or know, that they could have produced a better product with six more months.

Look, it's a discussion. It's not insulting, it's just opinions. Don't go hater. Such discussion is not a waste of time if something good comes out of the next few AC games.

Based on the GameSpot interview at E3 with Alex Amencio ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pUvYBcn9rKE ), it sounds like they are addressing a number of these problems. He talks at length about bringing the different systems (side missions, recruits, Lairs, etc) into one cohesive experience tied to story. He mentions that while Constantinople is same size as Rome; it is dense --- Rome was almost 60% farm land and had it been all city, then it might have worked better. Plus add Masyaf and the underground city and you will have some variety.

So it sounds to me like they LISTEN. And if so, it continues to be worth discussing and providing specific details about what worked and what didn't.

We never "went hater". If you truly wanted a healthy discussion instead of interpreting our defense of ACB as hate, you would've invited us to join this discussion instead of grouping us with haters even though we haven't actually shown any sign of aggression (except for SAVMATIC).

In my opinion ACB is the perfect example of a giant DLC and it's supposed to be. In fact, when I played it I was surprised by just how great a part the game played in the main storyline.
My point is that really what you guys have been talking about here is not so much about the quality of ACB, but rather that you expected it to be a full Assassin's Creed game (essentially an Assassin's Creed III) and while, even if that were the case, I think it would've done a great job, it was never meant to be an ACIII, it was just an amazing job at a "side" story.
basically, ACB is to ACII like Halo 3: ODST is to Halo 3.

luckyto
07-12-2011, 09:35 AM
You never "went" hater, I was asking for people not to "go" hater. This is discussion board, invitation to discuss is implied, and in my mind, welcome; especially if it deals with specific aspects of the game rather than general/overall impressions.

LightRey
07-12-2011, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
You never "went" hater, I was asking for people not to "go" hater. This is discussion board, invitation to discuss is implied, and in my mind, welcome; especially if it deals with specific aspects of the game rather than general/overall impressions.

I'm not saying you never actually invited us to discuss in the literal sense. I merely stated that if you really wanted us to, instead of, or at least besides, criticizing our criticism, you would've attempted to constructively counter our arguments, which you up till now have almost completely ignored.
It was never my intention to come over as insulting, in fact, I was attempting to prevent the possible destructive results of SAVMATIC's comment and in turn, open up the discussion to the people who, at least partly, agree with him.
Regardless of how SAVMATIC put it, I did and still do agree that this thread doesn't give ACB the credit it deserves, and I wished to express that.

anyways, to be a more constructive part of this discussion, I will sum up some of the things I really liked about ACB:

1. Recruits. It's an awesome gameplay dynamic and I absolutely loved using them both on missions and just for the heck of it.

2. The nearly unlimited range of options you have, even during story missions. Even though AC has always given us the opportunity to fulfill missions in numerous different ways (all flawlessly, if you're good enough) in ACB that reached a new high. Almost Every time I replayed a mission I found new ways of getting where I needed to be and being stealthy doing so.

3. All the little things they added to the gameplay. Using the gun together with your sword, throwing axes, etc. at people from a distance, assassinating people from horseback, everything.

FiskMunk
07-12-2011, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
3. All the little things they added to the gameplay. Using the gun together with your sword, throwing axes, etc. at people from a distance, assassinating people from horseback, everything.

This. They introduced so many new cool new gimmicks and improvements, it didn't just feel like a cheap money-milking spin off at all; It's a full-fledged AC game, and I personally love it.
Also you've got to play it in order to follow the storyline...

Speaking of story, I myself loved it. We got to learn to know a bunch of characters from Assassin's Creed II a lot more, such as Shaun and Rebecca outside the Animus, and Machiavelli inside. The Assassins felt like Assassins rather than a bunch of awkwardly dressed mental patients, the end made me truly go "waht a twist" etc

And Cesare was a really awesome villain, I think mostly because of the voice acting (Same went for Rodrigo). Had both of them had other voices, I dunno'... To me, I think they would had been rather bland characters.

Sorry, what were we talking about?

sassinscreed
07-12-2011, 11:32 AM
i thought the same when i first time finished brotherhood, but after i replayed all ac games second time i realized that ac 1 is boring compared to other two because all you do is investigate about target( the most boring part of game which is very annoying) and then assassinate him(but i can say that assassinations were much better in ac 1 then other two ) but that is all you can do and investigations are boring

ac 1 also has whole kingdom but its really useless it is huge but all you can do there is ride horse through it

imagine how awesome ac 1 would be if investigations are better, some story and side missions around kingdom, missions which aren't only assassinations in the same world with same combat but now its boring

ac brotherhood has too short story but i enjoyed it more than ac 1

and ac 2 is the best because it has long storyline, many assassinations, big world, many characters and side missions

if ubisoft worked little more on ac 1 world it would be the best assassins creed

luckyto
07-12-2011, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by sassinscreed:

imagine how awesome ac 1 would be if investigations are better, some story and side missions around kingdom, missions which aren't only assassinations in the same world with same combat but now its boring

...

if ubisoft worked little more on ac 1 world it would be the best assassins creed

I agree a 1000%! And add the chain-kill system. I think the best would be a hybrid of the best of the three.


LightRey - I respect your opinion. I just differ on them. I cannot argue or counter anyone on how much they enjoyed a game --- everybody is different and the world is better for it.

To me, the Assassin Recruits system was not very well integrated. It was amusing in the same way that a Facebook game is - but not much more. Though, using the Assassins in battle or within a mission was good fun. It did make things almost too easy, but I admit --- it was very nice. I just would have liked to see the whole system more integrated into the overall story.

I feel about the same way concerning Cesare. He was a great villain, but he was very sparringly used. Why? Probably because of the one-year rush job. I assassinated half of his Templar Agents and destroyed a half dozen Borgia towers, but never did we see a scene where Cesare is reacting to the ongoing crisis.

I think that's the overwhelming point of my critique - is that for the many things they added, very few were focused, well-planned and executed with care. Where AC1 did so few things, but they did them well.

----
And as for the unlimited range of options during missions, I totally disagree. I have never felt so limited in an AC game. In fact, I have never even been frustrated or annoyed in an AC game until Brotherhood, and several missions left me with a very sour taste in my mouth.

ProletariatPleb
07-12-2011, 12:14 PM
I agree to every damn point!

masterfenix2009
07-12-2011, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by sassinscreed:

imagine how awesome ac 1 would be if investigations are better, some story and side missions around kingdom, missions which aren't only assassinations in the same world with same combat but now its boring

...

if ubisoft worked little more on ac 1 world it would be the best assassins creed

I agree a 1000%! And add the chain-kill system. I think the best would be a hybrid of the best of the three.


LightRey - I respect your opinion. I just differ on them. I cannot argue or counter anyone on how much they enjoyed a game --- everybody is different and the world is better for it.

To me, the Assassin Recruits system was not very well integrated. It was amusing in the same way that a Facebook game is - but not much more. Though, using the Assassins in battle or within a mission was good fun. It did make things almost too easy, but I admit --- it was very nice. I just would have liked to see the whole system more integrated into the overall story.

I feel about the same way concerning Cesare. He was a great villain, but he was very sparringly used. Why? Probably because of the one-year rush job. I assassinated half of his Templar Agents and destroyed a half dozen Borgia towers, but never did we see a scene where Cesare is reacting to the ongoing crisis.

I think that's the overwhelming point of my critique - is that for the many things they added, very few were focused, well-planned and executed with care. Where AC1 did so few things, but they did them well.

----
And as for the unlimited range of options during missions, I totally disagree. I have never felt so limited in an AC game. In fact, I have never even been frustrated or annoyed in an AC game until Brotherhood, and several missions left me with a very sour taste in my mouth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>None of the missions were frustrating to me. Only if you do full synchronization, which is optional. Cesare was barely used because he was not in Rome. He was out fighting somewhere.
We actually do see Cesare react. Remember when he killed Rodrigo? Robert De Sable was also barely in the game. I think even less than Brotherhood.

luckyto
07-12-2011, 01:12 PM
You saw the work of de Sable's agents throughout the game. For example, when you went to assassinate the butcherous Doctor, you knew that his evil acts were an extension of de Sable, and when they spoke to you - they spoke of themselves as one cohesive group.

It isn't until the end, until the confrontation with Rodrigo that you even get any inkling that the Templars have noticed that you've run havok over their city.

oOAltairOo
07-12-2011, 01:51 PM
I think some of the justifications for the lacking parts in AC:B are really dumd:
"Well, it's a good game for being in development for just one year." The developers could have taken more time for polish.
If i'd have to choose between a "Big rushed DLC" and a polished game, I'd choose the game any day, I mean they still charge full price...

FiskMunk
07-12-2011, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
You saw the work of de Sable's agents throughout the game. For example, when you went to assassinate the butcherous Doctor, you knew that his evil acts were an extension of de Sable, and when they spoke to you - they spoke of themselves as one cohesive group.

It isn't until the end, until the confrontation with Rodrigo that you even get any inkling that the Templars have noticed that you've run havok over their city.

And what was nice with AC I's "bad guys" is that they explained their motives - And their motives were understandable, relatable. They desired the same as the Assassins, yet in a way that stood against the very core of the Creed.

What did we have in AC II? A couple of guys you just knew were responsible for a conspiracy, some other stuff about some artifact you didn't know what it was (At the time), and during the grand finale, the boxing match, Rodrigo just moaned that he just wanted powwa'.
I didn't feel motivated to fight him, I just wished he'd died of an heart attack right there so that he'd stop his looney-speech.
The Brotherhood DLC (Which I and other PC-gamers thankfully got for free) however felt great in the end, to me.
"All these people... I just wanted to end their suffering" or something similar. Brought back the AC I-feel; That there's a hidden war going on, and both sides are righteous in their own way.
(Okay, I know Massimo wasn't a Templar, but he could have been http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

ThaWhistle
07-12-2011, 02:30 PM
AC1 = Brilliant concept and story, decent graphics for its time, horribly repititious, yet forgivable if you like it, combat decent enough.

AC2= Exciting and well developed story, good improvement on graphics(going on the PC version here), less repititious, but a bit slow to start, much more varied gameplay, slow, terrible combat.

ACB=Good, yet somewhat dissappointingly short story, made up for by good concept of city rebuilding, but very tiresome after a while(ala AC1), Actual main mission assassinations had a kind of tense lead up ala AC1, Graphics improved as they did with AC2, combat a mix of AC1 that could be quick, but was more button mashy than timing related.



For people complaining about AC1, and ACB, play them back to back. They are both good and bad in their own ways, but they are both damn good games that id gladly pay for again. ACB is hardly filler. You could call it filler, in the same way that the original AC was filler for the Prince of Persia series. But it really is its own game and if anything seems like it has more depth than the original and then some.

LightRey
07-12-2011, 03:16 PM
I think that you're all forgetting who the real enemy in ACI was. It wasn't Robert, it was Al Mualim and we all know he "didn't want to share", which makes him not so different from both Rodrigo and Cesare.
Besides, this goes for the whole of the templar order. They share the same goals as the assassins, but they believe that the Assassins' view is naive and that they should seize power and control humanity for it's own good, which in turn eventually corrupts them at which point they become like the Borgias.
Basically, the Borgia family is what Robert and his "minions" were eventually going to become.

Animuses
07-12-2011, 08:03 PM
Cesare didn't have the same intentions as the Assassins. He just wanted as much power as he could get and as much land as he could get. He was a great enemy but I wouldn't classify him as a Templar.

FiskMunk
07-13-2011, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
I think that you're all forgetting who the real enemy in ACI was. It wasn't Robert, it was Al Mualim and we all know he "didn't want to share", which makes him not so different from both Rodrigo and Cesare.
Besides, this goes for the whole of the templar order. They share the same goals as the assassins, but they believe that the Assassins' view is naive and that they should seize power and control humanity for it's own good, which in turn eventually corrupts them at which point they become like the Borgias.
Basically, the Borgia family is what Robert and his "minions" were eventually going to become.

...I guess. That sounded pretty wise :P


Originally posted by Animuses:
Cesare didn't have the same intentions as the Assassins. He just wanted as much power as he could get and as much land as he could get. He was a great enemy but I wouldn't classify him as a Templar.

I don't know - In the end, he still mentioned that his intention had been to "lead mankind into a new world".
Same went for Al Mualim. Even as they (By our standards) became corrupt and their lust for power grew, they still yearned for a united world without conflict - Though which would abide by their morals and ethics, like any Templar.

Meh, like I said, I guess.

luckyto
07-13-2011, 07:37 AM
Was he even a Templar? I don't think the story conveys that there is a group of individuals coordinating their efforts towards a single purpose, the Templar view of the world. There are Templar agent missions, but even they don't shed light on the organization as a whole - each is one off.

Animuses
07-13-2011, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by FiskMunk:
I don't know - In the end, he still mentioned that his intention had been to "lead mankind into a new world".
Same went for Al Mualim. Even as they (By our standards) became corrupt and their lust for power grew, they still yearned for a united world without conflict - Though which would abide by their morals and ethics, like any Templar.

Meh, like I said, I guess.

He really said that? All I heard from him was GUARDS and that annoying quote if I want to live, I live.. blah blah blah... that quote wasn't overused in trailers or anything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

FiskMunk
07-13-2011, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by Animuses:
He really said that? All I heard from him was GUARDS and that annoying quote if I want to live, I live.. blah blah blah... that quote wasn't overused in trailers or anything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Meh, never followed the trailers - I pretty much ignored Brotherhood until a couple months after its release to PC. So everything felt fresh when I played the game http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Though I suppose GUARDS GUARDS GUARDS became rather old after the first hundred times.
Old and hilarious.

LightRey
07-13-2011, 08:53 AM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FiskMunk:
I don't know - In the end, he still mentioned that his intention had been to "lead mankind into a new world".
Same went for Al Mualim. Even as they (By our standards) became corrupt and their lust for power grew, they still yearned for a united world without conflict - Though which would abide by their morals and ethics, like any Templar.

Meh, like I said, I guess.

He really said that? All I heard from him was GUARDS and that annoying quote if I want to live, I live.. blah blah blah... that quote wasn't overused in trailers or anything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not when he died. That's where he killed Rodrigo. He was killed years later by Ezio and that's when he said all those things about leading mankind into a new world and stuff.

Animuses
07-13-2011, 10:02 AM
I know.

Ureh
07-13-2011, 01:34 PM
I'm just repeating a lot of what others have said. All of them were enjoyable but had their flaws. It depends on which strengths and weaknesses stood out for you. Here are some things I didn't like about each game:

AC1 was so repetitive. Talk to Al Mualim, go to bureau, do stuff for informants, kill the target, go back to the bureau, finally repeat all of the above for the next target. No mission variety. The cities felt like copies of each other. It almost felt like I was always in the same city, climbing the same tower, despite different lightings, civilians, some different buildings, etc. Finally, the cinematography was poor because I had to press a button when indicated in order for the camera to be at a certain angle.

AC2 was vastly improved on many things but also downgraded on others, such as: combat became too easy and very slow paced, notoriety system was useless, story/characters were easy to follow but often times didn't have the complexity of AC1.

ACB had a lot of improvements and new additions as well but it also had: more bugs/glitches than my experiences with the first two games, graphics were the worst, combat is exciting at times but too easy and brief, a lot of stealth was removed and what's left was too easy, 100% sync should've been a requirement, some story/character developement felt ridiculous/rushed (Claudia was established as a lazy, temperamental, spoiled brat in AC2 but suddenly becomes a supreme noble assassin; recruits felt like randoms picked off the streets; Cesare was a whiny, dirty baby like his father), renovation feature was largely redundant and boring.

I think the main reason why ACB has the most complaints is because it was rushed and it had a lot of features (but none of them were overwhelming) which gave some of us more to gripe about.

LightRey
07-13-2011, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
I know.
Good for you. Regardless, what you quoted wasn't "in the end", so I don't really see how it would've applied to the things he did say in the end.

WortWort117
07-13-2011, 07:53 PM
I see your point, and it was very well made and troll free. I applaude you.

But to your topic. I would somewhat agree. If the ACB world was expanded, I'd be happy. I hadn't played AC1 yet, so I can't judge, but I have played AC2, and it was a large diverse world, lacking in ACB

.

Animuses
07-13-2011, 10:31 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
Good for you. Regardless, what you quoted wasn't "in the end", so I don't really see how it would've applied to the things he did say in the end.
I never said it was in the end, I was speaking in general.