PDA

View Full Version : ACR Single player campaign length



sean67854
10-02-2011, 09:37 AM
Will ACR see the same sort of single player campaign reduction that ACB saw in order to accommodate the multiplater component? I rarely play online, so if the single player campaign is greatly reduced, I'll pass on this game. I'm interested in a single player campaign of at least 12 hours to make it worth the $60 for me.

By way of comparison, the single player campaign of Homefront checked in at 6 hours for me. Halo 3 was about 6 hours too.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 09:41 AM
If the Single Player for Halo and Homefront were only 6 hours, but you need a minimum of 12 hours, why did you buy them and play them and not pass on them either?

I think it was confirmed by the people who do the censors and stuff that we're looking at 30 minutes worth of cutscenes more than Brotherhood, but 15 minutes less than AC2.

It's not all about cutscenes however, a game is only as long as you make it. If you rush through it then it will be over quick, if you spread it out then it'll last longer.

And if you're an AC fan, you will buy it. Not because it's possibly short, but because it's shaping up to be the most interesting one to date, and more or less has been confirmed that they're closing all those doors they decided to open over the years.

sean67854
10-02-2011, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by dewgel:
If the Single Player for Halo and Homefront were only 6 hours, but you need a minimum of 12 hours, why did you buy them and play them and not pass on them either?

I think it was confirmed by the people who do the censors and stuff that we're looking at 30 minutes worth of cutscenes more than Brotherhood, but 15 minutes less than AC2.

It's not all about cutscenes however, a game is only as long as you make it. If you rush through it then it will be over quick, if you spread it out then it'll last longer.

And if you're an AC fan, you will buy it. Not because it's possibly short, but because it's shaping up to be the most interesting one to date, and more or less has been confirmed that they're closing all those doors they decided to open over the years.

Halo was my first purchase of a Halo game, and I didn't know it was so short. Homefront was a rental from Gamefly.

I don't tend to rush through games and enjoy sidequests. I'm somewhere around 120 hours into Oblivion and am only about 1/3 of the way through the main questline, if that gives you any indication of how I play games.

I will definitely play ACR no matter what, I'm just trying to determine if it's a Pre-order, rental, or wait a year for the price to drop.

I'm just tired of games that gut the single player experience in order to build a bigger multiplayer.

Gears of War 2 was an example of that. The multiplayer Horde mode was fantastic, but the quality of the single player campaign, in comparison to gears 1, was ridiculous.

Chronomancy
10-02-2011, 10:18 AM
Well in story length do you also count collectibles? If you do well that adds a bit of time to it. But I highly doubt an AC game would go for 12 hours but I may be wrong.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by sean67854:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dewgel:
If the Single Player for Halo and Homefront were only 6 hours, but you need a minimum of 12 hours, why did you buy them and play them and not pass on them either?

I think it was confirmed by the people who do the censors and stuff that we're looking at 30 minutes worth of cutscenes more than Brotherhood, but 15 minutes less than AC2.

It's not all about cutscenes however, a game is only as long as you make it. If you rush through it then it will be over quick, if you spread it out then it'll last longer.

And if you're an AC fan, you will buy it. Not because it's possibly short, but because it's shaping up to be the most interesting one to date, and more or less has been confirmed that they're closing all those doors they decided to open over the years.

Halo was my first purchase of a Halo game, and I didn't know it was so short. Homefront was a rental from Gamefly.

I don't tend to rush through games and enjoy sidequests. I'm somewhere around 120 hours into Oblivion and am only about 1/3 of the way through the main questline, if that gives you any indication of how I play games.

I will definitely play ACR no matter what, I'm just trying to determine if it's a Pre-order, rental, or wait a year for the price to drop.

I'm just tired of games that gut the single player experience in order to build a bigger multiplayer.

Gears of War 2 was an example of that. The multiplayer Horde mode was fantastic, but the quality of the single player campaign, in comparison to gears 1, was ridiculous. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"According to a recent rating from the British Board of Film Classifications, Revelations will have approximately 2 hours and 45 minutes of cutscenes, which is fifteen minutes more than Brotherhood, but less than the whopping 3 hours of cutscenes found in Assassinís Creed 2. Revelations received a 15 rating, suggesting that the level of violence will equal that of the other Assassinís Creed games. The rating also revealed that the short film Assassinís Creed: Embers that is included with the special editions of Revelations will last 20 minutes and 31 seconds."

If that helps you at all.

However, bearing in mind.. that's cutscenes. We all love them, but there's plenty of Gameplay on top of it.

I do agree though, the multiplayer should be less prioritised. They said last year Brotherhood was a multiplayer game, with a Single Player mode included.

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 11:26 AM
For me, my first playthrough of Assassin's Creed was 30 hours. AC2 and ACB were both around 40 hours. No doubt that ACR will be the same.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
For me, my first playthrough of Assassin's Creed was 30 hours. AC2 and ACB were both around 40 hours. No doubt that ACR will be the same.

40 hours, but in one big playthrough? Or did you restart?

If you racked up 40 hours on ACB and this game is equal in length I don't think you'll have many worries.

eagleforlife1
10-02-2011, 11:33 AM
I've got to admit I would much prefer the emphasis put on single player and would prefer no multiplayer altogether.

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by dewgel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
For me, my first playthrough of Assassin's Creed was 30 hours. AC2 and ACB were both around 40 hours. No doubt that ACR will be the same.

40 hours, but in one big playthrough? Or did you restart?

If you racked up 40 hours on ACB and this game is equal in length I don't think you'll have many worries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One big playthrough for both games, getting 100% sync. Which I haven't done in ACB yet because of the tank mission. I do have around 80 hours on both games with restarts.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 11:42 AM
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 dewgel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
For me, my first playthrough of Assassin's Creed was 30 hours. AC2 and ACB were both around 40 hours. No doubt that ACR will be the same.

40 hours, but in one big playthrough? Or did you restart?

If you racked up 40 hours on ACB and this game is equal in length I don't think you'll have many worries. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

One big playthrough for both games, getting 100% sync. Which I haven't done in ACB yet because of the tank mission. I do have around 80 hours on both games with restarts. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, I don't get it. I thought you were saying you weren't going to get it if it was the same length as Brotherhood, but you seem pretty happy with it here.

I think I know what you're getting at, I just hope it doesn't feel as unfinished as Brotherhood, or jump from story to story. The final memories with Cesare's end were terrible, they just kept jumping forward and forward.

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 11:45 AM
What? I never said anything like that! I love Brotherhood, it's my favorite AC game. I'm not the OP, incase you didn't know.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 12:00 PM
I loved Brotherhood, the gameplay was great, but did you not think it felt unfinished? It is the best game, but little things like when you upgrade a recruit to Master Assassin, and there's no sound or any music, it's pretty bland.

Not to mention the recruits are glitchy.

I still love it though!

Serrachio
10-02-2011, 12:03 PM
As much as I love the multiplayer aspect that was introduced in ACB, I'd much rather have a long and compelling story.

I'm hoping that ACR's story isn't left as shallow as ACB was constructed, and I want to experience the feeling of fulfillment I got when I completed AC2.

Altair661
10-02-2011, 12:06 PM
I feel like AC2 was more of like a "hero" story. But with the AC twist...cause he's an assassin! And with ACB, it was good, but I just thought the Ezio story was a little lacking, it's the best game dont get me wrong, but you kinda new what would happen with the Ezio story even though it was epic. I was more excited to see what would happen with Desmond rather than Ezio. But now in ACR, I kinda care the least about Ezio, Im getting a little tired of him. He better be freaking awesome in ACR. But overall Im most interested in Altair, and S16. This is why ACR will be better than ACB. Because there is so much story to be told, you really do not know whats going to happen. Rather than ACB, which was more of a resistance story more than anything else.

masterfenix2009
10-02-2011, 12:07 PM
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2.

Altair661
10-02-2011, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2.

I never said it was short, the main story was shorter than AC2, but AC2 was all main story and barely any sidequests. I've prolly packed over 50 hours in ACB between my two playthroughs, I've upgraded Rome up to 98%, but I've basically done like everything and I do not feel like just sitting there for an hour just to get the money so I can buy the huge monuments and stuff. But ACB has tons of stuff to do, it's not even funny. I also leveled ALL my recruits to Assassin level.

Serrachio
10-02-2011, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2.

That being said, they had no real depth to them, and that's why people prefer AC2 to ACB.

Altair661
10-02-2011, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2.

That being said, they had no real depth to them, and that's why people prefer AC2 to ACB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

^^This, they need more sidequests like that Copernicus thing (I consider that a sidequest) rather than the general, run to this place, find this guy, kill him, here's your money. With the history they have, they could involve so many people in the sidequests.

Animuses
10-02-2011, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2. The story was short. Sidequests are a crappy way to make up for that.

masterfenix2009
10-02-2011, 12:54 PM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2.

That being said, they had no real depth to them, and that's why people prefer AC2 to ACB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the sidequests had more depth than "go beat up my husband."

masterfenix2009
10-02-2011, 12:59 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 assassino151:
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2. The story was short. Sidequests are a crappy way to make up for that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> It depends on how good the sidequests are. I actually think that AC2 and ACB are on the same level of quality. I consider Brotherhood the unfinished end of AC2. So when people ask which is better, I always say both.

Serrachio
10-02-2011, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
I don't see why everyone says ACB was short. Did you play the sidequests? Upgrade Rome? Level up your Assassins? Destroy the Borgia towers? Those alone make the singleplayer longer than AC2.

That being said, they had no real depth to them, and that's why people prefer AC2 to ACB. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I think the sidequests had more depth than "go beat up my husband." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?

Missions for the factions were pretty simple, they had no over laying effect, and the Templar Agents were just simplistic 'find guy and kill' missions.

The only sidequests that had a small amount of connection to the main story were the Leonardo War Machines and the Romulus lairs.

Then again, those two examples were pretty detached from the main plot, and only were implemented to reward Ezio with items.

AC2 might have had its side missions, but the fact that the story was so rich and deep meant that they were enjoyable because they offered a small break from the massive narrative that the main missions offered.

ACB at its core lacked much of a plot for the player, and used its side missions as a crutch to keep the player distracted from the underwhelming content it displayed.

I'd have to say that the Da Vinci Disappearance add-on was better written than the whole of ACB's main plot. The only thing hinging the player into the game was the urge to avenge the great injustice that was Mario's death, which meant that the real only worthwhile points in the game was Cesare's assassination, the modern day segments and the revival of the Roman Brotherhood.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 01:45 PM
I liked the ACB side missions. They actually had part in the story. All of the missions are focused on removing the Borgia control over Rome step by step.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
I liked the ACB side missions. They actually had part in the story. All of the missions are focused on removing the Borgia control over Rome step by step.

They're a tad glitched though, I mean, after you kill Cesare, they still mention Cesare and such as if he hasn't even left Rome yet

LightRey
10-02-2011, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by dewgel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I liked the ACB side missions. They actually had part in the story. All of the missions are focused on removing the Borgia control over Rome step by step.

They're a tad glitched though, I mean, after you kill Cesare, they still mention Cesare and such as if he hasn't even left Rome yet </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not glitched. They happened before you kill Cesare. They were part of the whole "rebuilding Rome" theme and it was Ezio's intention to take away Cesare's influence in Rome while he was gone.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dewgel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I liked the ACB side missions. They actually had part in the story. All of the missions are focused on removing the Borgia control over Rome step by step.

They're a tad glitched though, I mean, after you kill Cesare, they still mention Cesare and such as if he hasn't even left Rome yet </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not glitched. They happened before you kill Cesare. They were part of the whole "rebuilding Rome" theme and it was Ezio's intention to take away Cesare's influence in Rome while he was gone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think you misunderstood me. I meant that people still refer to Cesare as being alive and being in Rome (strangers, heralds, guards) and most sidequests still think he is alive, despite completing the main story and Cesare and the rest of the Borgia being dead / gone from Rome.

It is glitched, or at least lazyness on the developers part in which they couldn't add an alternate code / a stop on all Borgia-related conversation after he is dead.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by dewgel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dewgel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I liked the ACB side missions. They actually had part in the story. All of the missions are focused on removing the Borgia control over Rome step by step.

They're a tad glitched though, I mean, after you kill Cesare, they still mention Cesare and such as if he hasn't even left Rome yet </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's not glitched. They happened before you kill Cesare. They were part of the whole "rebuilding Rome" theme and it was Ezio's intention to take away Cesare's influence in Rome while he was gone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, I think you misunderstood me. I meant that people still refer to Cesare as being alive and being in Rome (strangers, heralds, guards) and most sidequests still think he is alive, despite completing the main story and Cesare and the rest of the Borgia being dead / gone from Rome.

It is glitched, or at least lazyness on the developers part in which they couldn't add an alternate code / a stop on all Borgia-related conversation after he is dead. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, the guards still referring to Cesare being alive might be glitched, but the references in the sidequests are supposed to be there, because the sidequests are memories from before killing Cesare.

Serrachio
10-02-2011, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
I liked the ACB side missions. They actually had part in the story. All of the missions are focused on removing the Borgia control over Rome step by step.

That is true, but there was so many missions with that as an underlying goal to them, that it seemed to get quite stale as a reason.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by Serrachio:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I liked the ACB side missions. They actually had part in the story. All of the missions are focused on removing the Borgia control over Rome step by step.

That is true, but there was so many missions with that as an underlying goal to them, that it seemed to get quite stale as a reason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's true. I wouldn't have minded a few "pointless" sidequests that didn't involve gambling.

Sarari
10-02-2011, 03:35 PM
My favorite game beating was AC1, even though it left a mystery at the end. But that's what I like.

AC2's ending was really really good. I loved it, but once I was done, I felt sorta depressed lol because I looked back at the story and I was like "damn, this is so sad." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . lol also that we couldn't replay missions.

To be honest, ACB was an uncalled for game to make. It might have had improved everything, but so many things about it was wrong.

iNt0xiCaT3dSainT
10-02-2011, 03:56 PM
I'm an AC fan and always will be and love all AC games non the less. But ACB was really.. i dont know how to put this but it was plain and boring. I liked it but after beating the game i noticed that the game was much shorter then AC2 and the game was very plain. I mean if they were going to make a sequel they should of put some more effort into it. So far my favorite would be AC2 but i believe ACR is going to be taking that spot.

lukaszep
10-02-2011, 03:57 PM
I did my best to pace myself with AC:B, and spent about two days worth of 3 hour sessions doing side missions etc. and it still took me a week + to finish it. I don't think we need to worry, as long as it's not shorter than AC:B.

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 05:36 PM
ACB was the best game in pretty much everything. The only thing that isn't as good as AC2 is the story, but AC1 had the worse story in the series IMO.

I really don't understand the hatred for ACB...

I mean, I think the games just got better and better with each release. AC1 < AC2 < ACB

And ACR looks like it's going to top all the previous ones.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
ACB was the best game in pretty much everything. The only thing that isn't as good as AC2 is the story, but AC1 had the worse story in the series IMO.

I really don't understand the hatred for ACB...

I mean, I think the games just got better and better with each release. AC1 < AC2 < ACB

And ACR looks like it's going to top all the previous ones.
I feel much the same way, though I do feel more that AC1 = AC2 = ACB rather than each being better than the last. I guess not everyone agrees with us :/

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 05:48 PM
Meh, it's okay. I just don't like it when people *cough* sarari *cough* come and say stuff like "To be honest, ACB was an uncalled for game to make. It might have had improved everything, but so many things about it was wrong."

It boils rage inside me for some unknown reason. >.<

EzioAssassin51
10-02-2011, 05:52 PM
I find it irritating some of the 'AC Fans' are so willing to just knock Brotherhood aside.

If you bothered to be a proper fan you'd think 'hey, Brotherhood was great because it actually had a good storyline with Ezio, though shorter than AC2, but it's still longer than AC1, and it gave us more depth in both Ezio and Desmond.'

Saying the game is uncalled for is uncalled for. It is perfectly necessary so we could get more depth on Ezio and Desmond which led into this game coming up (ACR)

Without Brotherhood, we would need to have all of those modern sequences in ACR, which would make it feel rushed and we'd have people complaining that the Juno temple felt like an end rather than a middle and people would complain that they feel like a lot of Ezio's life is missing, since he's suddenly 50.

Brotherhood was very important for Ezio's storyline too, if you don't think the whole story was in depth, think of the... long run i guess. Ezio freed Rome from the Templars and started up the brotherhood. Also, it led to him becoming a master assassin/leader, which is clearly important for ACR.



But Back on topic,

Since, I admit, ACR looks to be a lot more in-depth than ACB (I still stand by my belief that ACB has a great storyline) so I'm going to put money on around 20 hours, like AC2, if not, more. I believe ACB was said to have 15 hours by the devs.



EDIT:


Originally posted by Jexx21:
Meh, it's okay. I just don't like it when people *cough* sarari *cough* come and say stuff like "To be honest, ACB was an uncalled for game to make. It might have had improved everything, but so many things about it was wrong."

It boils rage inside me for some unknown reason. >.<

Me too! It's funny how he says it was uncalled for, then mentions it improved everything which just makes it called for. If it hadn't improved everything, we wouldn't have improvements of those improvements in ACR...

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 05:56 PM
I believe the 15 hours count was for just playing through the main sequences and some of the side missions without worrying about 100% synch.

Because it did take 40 hours for me to finish my game of ACB to a level I really liked. Still, I'm stuck on 99.5% sync still because of that stupid Tank mission. I mean, hell, I have all the stuff that doesn't even count to synchronization completed, and I have almost all Gold scores on the VR training challenges.

But I haven't been playing the MP that much, I think I'm only Level 14 in the MP..

Animuses
10-02-2011, 07:22 PM
Even though I think Brotherhood is not on par with the other games, I still think it was a good game. Yeah, it had it's problems and it could get very annoying, but it's still a fun game. I think it deserves a lot of the criticism it gets, but I don't think it deserves hatred or for it to be called uncalled for.

naran6142
10-02-2011, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
I believe the 15 hours count was for just playing through the main sequences and some of the side missions without worrying about 100% synch.

Because it did take 40 hours for me to finish my game of ACB to a level I really liked. Still, I'm stuck on 99.5% sync still because of that stupid Tank mission. I mean, hell, I have all the stuff that doesn't even count to synchronization completed, and I have almost all Gold scores on the VR training challenges.

But I haven't been playing the MP that much, I think I'm only Level 14 in the MP..

the tank mission took me a few tries, but i got use to it and its not actually that bad

first of all take ur time
and im guessing the part of most trouble for you is the part with the 2 tanks right. you should try to make sure that you circle the 2 tanks at the same time with out changing direction, if you change direction you'll almost certainly get hit.

dunno if that help any http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

as for the hate on ACB, i dont get it either. i can kinda get why people didn't like the story, but its the one with the most replay value IMO.
faster combat
more side missions
vr training
MP
full sync (with some didnt like i no)
and more stuff

ACB had a whole bunch of stuff to keep us entertained for hours, i just dont get the hate

NoirEvil
10-02-2011, 08:07 PM
ACB was the best in terms of everything............almost. The story was quite good, because it was just a continuation of Ezio's story and still had the same kind of feel to it, if a little less comedic. And the side missions and Borgia towers did keep fun for quite a bit, even if most were really easy.

But for the people saying that brotherhood made the combat faster and better than ever....no...That is the major gameplay failure in the game. You don't try and make a game more fast paced by making the combat: Button mash at one enemy and then make every hit a kill after their death. It is a major design flaw, doesn't feel assassin's creedy and was one of the main reasons they couldn't of incorporated what I always wanted in the game.. A VR arena mode where you had to kill the most people you could before dying. It's hard to incorporate a mode like that when it's almost impossible to die.
I'm not saying that they should take out aspects of killchains entirely, but they should definitely think about making it less op.

Also I think I saw someone on this forum before say that AC1's combat was really slow paced. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 08:38 PM
AC1's combat WAS really slow-paced. Sure, it's fun to kill a ton of people, but it's actually kind of boring while doing it.

ACB's combat was the best in the series, because even though it was admittedly easier than AC1's it wasn't as slow and tedious. It also was much more fun, the animations were better, and was smoother.

Animuses
10-02-2011, 08:41 PM
The guards were annoying though.

E-Zekiel
10-02-2011, 08:51 PM
For me, AC1 was about 40 hours. AC2 was I think around 70. And AC:B was around 33.

I do all the side stuff, though, I don't just blow through one mission line like my life depends on it. I actually kind of play the game, so to speak.

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 08:53 PM
I do too E, and I got 30 hours on AC1, and about 40 on both AC2 and ACB.

NoirEvil
10-02-2011, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
AC1's combat WAS really slow-paced. Sure, it's fun to kill a ton of people, but it's actually kind of boring while doing it.

ACB's combat was the best in the series, because even though it was admittedly easier than AC1's it wasn't as slow and tedious. It also was much more fun, the animations were better, and was smoother.
AC1's combat is not slow paced... unless you think that 2 hits to 4 hits to kill a guard is slow paced.
The reason most people think AC1 is slow paced is because they don't know how to do combo kills. Instead of button mashing just press the attack button each time your sword hits them and he will finish them off in a couple hits. Also people don't realise you can assassinate any guards that taunt, shout for help, cower or fall on the ground mid fight. Plus counters almost always kill normal guards and if they don't you can just switch to hidden blade and take them out. Plus being able to break defense and throw knives is way better incorporated in AC1 than in brotherhood.

Also, the kill animations are better and more fluid in ac1 fyi.
I do admit the enemies could have been more aggressive though and that's one of the many things from brotherhood that should be kept in future games.

Toxotes47
10-02-2011, 11:52 PM
For me ACB didn't had the charm and depth in story that AC2 had. Also for some reason I never liked Rome as much as I loved Venice and Florence.

But it doesn't deserve to be hated as it improves on a lot of things from AC2 like war machines, assassin recruits, borgia towers (I don't know about others, but I loved those) and small things like horse to horse assassinations, parachutes. Infact I am now replaying AC2 after ACB and each time I fall from a considerable height, my hand automatically goes to take out the chute and then I say 'oh damn' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

That being said, for me ACB is my least fav of the series but I don't hate it. I just think AC 1&2 set very high standards.

But ACR is gonna be huge and will top all the three games I think.. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


ps- Hello everyone http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EzioAssassin51
10-03-2011, 04:16 AM
I love how this thread has turned into a 'which is the better game' war listing the pros and cons of Brotherhood which then led to comparisons to the previous games -_-

itsamea-mario
10-03-2011, 04:21 AM
AC1 combat can actually be really quick and much better than AC2's if you do it right, combos counters and heavy strikes make it quite fun.

NoirEvil
10-03-2011, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by EzioAssassin51:
I love how this thread has turned into a 'which is the better game' war listing the pros and cons of Brotherhood which then led to comparisons to the previous games -_-
lol......yeah.....
In relevance to the actual thread... I hope it is long..

And @Mario Yeah, exactly. I had actually forgot about being able to do heavy and light attacks in AC1.../facepalm.
I'm still not sure why they took that feature out, it added a lot more to the variety and freedom of the gameplay.
I have a feeling they took a lot of working combat features out in AC2 to make it simpler and more accessible to casual/new players.

LightRey
10-03-2011, 04:40 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
AC1 combat can actually be really quick and much better than AC2's if you do it right, combos counters and heavy strikes make it quite fun.
Well I wouldn't call it better, but yeah it's a lot quicker if you know how to play the game.\


...damnit I lost the game.

NoirEvil
10-03-2011, 04:51 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
AC1 combat can actually be really quick and much better than AC2's if you do it right, combos counters and heavy strikes make it quite fun.
Well I wouldn't call it better, but yeah it's a lot quicker if you know how to play the game.\


...damnit I lost the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
... That must have been like a month I just went without losing the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/bigtears.gif