PDA

View Full Version : Was AC1 really THAT good?



protesthishero
06-12-2011, 01:42 AM
I see different people on this forum everyday starting topics on how much AC2 and ACB sucked when compared to AC1. While I don't necessarily disagree with all their points, is this really the case? While everybody seems to be focusing on the negatives of the latest installments, let's take a look at some of the features that made AC1 stink :

1. The fact that you had to press A(prayer posture)/walk slowly all the time when you were not on the rooftops. And you could blend in only with the silly prophet dudes, who are stationary for most of the time/ walk around in circles without any purpose. I mean, how silly does Altair look when he walks alone at an ultra-slow speed with his hands shaped together like a praying mantis. He looks more like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons than an assassin. Wouldn't the guards get a better look at him if he walks around like a friggin' turtle?
Talk about ******ed AI..

2. The lifelessness of pretty much every supposed living thing in the game, including the protagonist. Crowds are just THERE. Although the characters with actual dialogue provide some philosophical views and whatnot, most of the time you're just too distracted to actually listen, 'cause their mannerisms are extremely dull. You end up just zoning out into empty space during the dialogues. The characters have absolutely nothing human about them. No quirks, no interesting traits that stand out and most importantly...absolutely no sense of humour. Stuff that would make anybody go, "Are these guys for real!?"
3. Lack of fluidity in almost every aspect of the game : The story - Is there one?
Combat - Funny how everyone thinks the combat from AC1 is outstanding. All you have to do is block and counter. And it's not difficult at all, just frustrating and sluggish.
Stealth - Is there actually stealth in this game? The only stealthy moves in the whole game are assassinations-from-behind and kills made with throwing knives. Meanwhile, the first war machine mission from ACB serves as the perfect stealth mission. Haters gon' hate.
4. The length of the game. This is probably one of the shortest games ever made in the nexgen era. And don't even get me started on the lack of progression and the repetitiveness. What you do in the very first assassination is the exact same thing you do for the rest of the game.
5. Contrary to what everyone says, the game isn't immersive at all. Every five minutes you will find yourself saying, "Hmmm...I'm playing a video game" because everything about the game is so detached and dull.
Don't get me wrong, I liked playing AC1..once. The only parts of the game that were redeemable during my subsequent playthroughs were the music, graphics and ambience, which were undoubtedly stellar (probably the best in the series).
In conclusion, I think Ubi did a great job with the latest games. You actually feel like a part of something adventurous and grand, rather than *yawn* just playing a video game. I actually am in favor of a more cinematic experience even if it includes some amount of scripting because the gameplay just becomes that much more fluid. Revelations is shaping up to be great and I'm all for people having opinions and all but lately it has just become a case of the "Yeah dude, I like their first album but now they've sold out and they suck" bandwagon.
Like the AC series teaches us - Be a blade in the crowd....Don't be a part of it.

eagleforlife1
06-12-2011, 01:57 AM
Every single mission was the same. I completed it but havn't been able to pick it up again since. I liked the environment/atmosphere but a bit of variety would have been nice. Also, I'm a perfectionist and have to 100% games. This one once I completed the main story didn't want to go back to it. My favourite so far has been AC2.

However, there were parts of it that I preferred over subsequent releases. I preferred the fact that there was no economy system. We work in the shadows to serve the light (not walking up to shopkeepers in broad dayllight covered in heavy armour and weaponry). I also like the fact that there were no factions, no renovations and no secret locations. It put more emphasis on being hidden and being an assassin. Using the rooftops to your advantage. The difficulty level was also higher. Also the pre-assassination cinematics were pretty cool.

Noble6
06-12-2011, 02:22 AM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
Every single mission was the same. I completed it but havn't been able to pick it up again since. I liked the environment/atmosphere but a bit of variety would have been nice. Also, I'm a perfectionist and have to 100% games. This one once I completed the main story didn't want to go back to it. My favourite so far has been AC2.
My thoughts exactly. Ac1 was also more challenging but I still like AC2 more.

masterfenix2009
06-12-2011, 03:27 AM
The only things that AC1 had better,and I mean ONLY, was the investigations and less scripted assassinations.

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 03:33 AM
1 - It's up to u to be ******ed and use the blend to go thought guards... i scale builds, i kill them if they are 2, i provoke them and run away...
You had endless choses better than that to do anything... Ubisoft only added it to blend with the monks and to make childs be able to do the game...

2 - Well, i don't know you, but when i'm working i won't be telling jokes, etc, etc... and even less if i'm working for something secret (CIA?)... do you think they are telling jokes and talking about their dates when talking about a secret mission? i don't think so... Also, it's up to you to make altair go to a place where the dialogue is not being human-like
3 - The Story: Are you serious? LOOOL did you even pay attention to every ialogue? did you know why the guys were actually your targets BESIDE they being templars?
The combat: Once again, block + counter is the slower way to combat in Ac1... you can strike and counter, also you can chose use short blade to be faster and to throw knifes when guards are away, and THE MOST IMPORTANT TO ME: You could assassinate guards taunting or coughing in middle of a combat! Like you are fighting with a sword, u see a guard tauting you, instead of strike him with a sword (u would need 3 hits to kill him) u just press Hidden Blade button and assassinate him WHILE STILL WITH THE SWORD ON UR RIGHT HAND! Do you really think Ac2/B combat was better?
Stealth: I think stealth got better in Ac2 and Brotherhood but now i will ask you one thing: What was faster in Ac1? be stealthy or agresive?
Now think about that at Ac2 and AcB http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
If you had skill agresive ways would be faster but only if you had SKILL... now being agresive is always faster even if you are a ******ed kid with 4 years old -.-
4 - Maybe it was short cuz u didn't all the investigations? I didn't got bored of them cuz they gave me important intel :x
5 - ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME? I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT! Do you think the ****ing unrealistic combat of Ac2 or AcB makes you inmerse more into the Ac universe? I think you should go to a psychologist o.o

I took many times the good and bad things of each game. AcB got more good things than Ac1 but the good things of Ac1 was what made me love this franchise... if altair gameplay was like AcB gameplay i would never had bought Ac2 or AcB :X

ShaneO7K
06-12-2011, 03:38 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
The only things that AC1 had better,and I mean ONLY, was the investigations and less scripted assassinations. Agreed.

I've lost count of how many times I played AC1 and those are things I like, but they don't really take that long to do. And the combat gets to the point where it is just boring and eventually gets repetitive and the templar guards you find randomly get annoyingly easy after a while.

Before I thought it would be good if they made the AC games like the first, but now they just need to find the perfect mix of what the games have done so far.

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 03:48 AM
Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
The only things that AC1 had better,and I mean ONLY, was the investigations and less scripted assassinations. Agreed.

I've lost count of how many times I played AC1 and those are things I like, but they don't really take that long to do. And the combat gets to the point where it is just boring and eventually gets repetitive and the templar guards you find randomly get annoyingly easy after a while.

Before I thought it would be good if they made the AC games like the first, but now they just need to find the perfect mix of what the games have done so far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you find combat templars easy than you are a skilled player... Take advantage of it, ask for a harder game and test your skills, master them and than ask for even harder game...

Also, try to make your combat look realistic (in Ac1 ofc, in ac2 and brotherhood it's imposible)

phil.llllll
06-12-2011, 04:11 AM
Originally posted by protesthishero:

1. The fact that you had to press A(prayer posture)/walk slowly all the time when you were not on the rooftops. And you could blend in only with the silly prophet dudes, who are stationary for most of the time/ walk around in circles without any purpose. I mean, how silly does Altair look when he walks alone at an ultra-slow speed with his hands shaped together like a praying mantis. He looks more like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons than an assassin. Wouldn't the guards get a better look at him if he walks around like a friggin' turtle?
Talk about ******ed AI..

You missed the point. He's dressed not too much unlike the monks in the game so when he goes into the middle of group, he's much less conspicuous than he would be out in the open.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
2. The lifelessness of pretty much every supposed living thing in the game, including the protagonist. Crowds are just THERE. Although the characters with actual dialogue provide some philosophical views and whatnot, most of the time you're just too distracted to actually listen, 'cause their mannerisms are extremely dull. You end up just zoning out into empty space during the dialogues. The characters have absolutely nothing human about them. No quirks, no interesting traits that stand out and most importantly...absolutely no sense of humour. Stuff that would make anybody go, "Are these guys for real!?"

Speak for yourself. I never had trouble paying attention to the characters and most of the characters had a level of depth that most other games couldn't touch. And no sense of humor... really? Are you serious? This isn't a comedy game and the tasks they were sent to do weren't really laugh worthy.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
3. Lack of fluidity in almost every aspect of the game : The story - Is there one?

We've found your problem! You either have serious comprehension problems or you're just really dumb.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
Combat - Funny how everyone thinks the combat from AC1 is outstanding. All you have to do is block and counter. And it's not difficult at all, just frustrating and sluggish.

It's the most difficult out of the three that's for sure and the combat is easily the most balanced.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
Stealth - Is there actually stealth in this game? The only stealthy moves in the whole game are assassinations-from-behind and kills made with throwing knives. Meanwhile, the first war machine mission from ACB serves as the perfect stealth mission. Haters gon' hate.

The whole point of stealth in AC is remaining undetected by using the skills given (e.g. not playing the game like GTA with swords, and using the social aspects and free running skills to remain unseen) but still there's always the chance to mess up.

It was never "there's absolutely no stealth in any AC games past 1" it's that there's too many artificial restrictions. Instead of opening the game up further from the first, they've added more barriers.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
4. The length of the game. This is probably one of the shortest games ever made in the nexgen era. And don't even get me started on the lack of progression and the repetitiveness. What you do in the very first assassination is the exact same thing you do for the rest of the game.

No it's not. You've said so many untrue things about the game, I have to wonder if you even played it? And every game is repetitive to an extent. The main thing in AC were the assassinations and planning aspects. While the investigations mostly stayed the same, the information gathered was always new as were the layouts and configurations of each assassination.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
5. Contrary to what everyone says, the game isn't immersive at all. Every five minutes you will find yourself saying, "Hmmm...I'm playing a video game" because everything about the game is so detached and dull.

Well there's no doubt you couldn't get immersed in it considering you show a complete lack of understanding about any aspect of the game.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
In conclusion, I think Ubi did a great job with the latest games. You actually feel like a part of something adventurous and grand, rather than *yawn* just playing a video game.

Again you only speak for yourself. I felt AC1 was far more alive than the rest of the series.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
Like the AC series teaches us - Be a blade in the crowd....Don't be a part of it.

Well isn't that exactly what you're trying to preach? If you don't like others suggestions that's fine but don't start threads whining about how people have a different take on the series than you do.

Keksus
06-12-2011, 04:40 AM
The thing is: AC1 is the best ASSASSINS Creed game. AC2 and AC:B are good sword fighting games, but they suck as ASSASSINS Creed games.

eagleforlife1
06-12-2011, 05:12 AM
He's allowed an opinion people without having to get abused for it. He's not exactly advocating the Holocaust or anything.

ace3001
06-12-2011, 05:25 AM
When AC2 first came out, everyone was all over it, saying that it greatly improved AC. And I still agree with that. And now suddenly everyone's saying OMG AC1 AC1 AC1. You people seem to forget that the main purpose of playing a game is having fun. The first time you play through AC (I believe the best way to measure a game's quality is by seeing how much fun it is during one playthrough), it's a terrible mess in terms of gameplay.
The story is amazing, the atmosphere is amazing, and the graphics are amazing, everything, even the enemy AI was better, yes. But when you consider the mission structure, it was a horrible mess. Once again, the main assassinations were awesome, but the investigations were terrible. I mean, stuff like eavesdropping were laughable. For all you "challenge-oriented" people, where's the challenge in that? None of the investigations were ever challenging.
These people that say AC1 is the best have forgotten that AC is about giving the player the freedom. In AC2/B, you can choose whether to be stealthy or to go like a human tank. (Not counting the 100% synch objectives, for which I agree with most that say that they take away the player's freedom) Instead, you want the game to force stealth on the player.
You'll say that some parts force the human tank mode on the player, to that I say, don't forget the tedious last bits of AC1.
Good day to everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 05:44 AM
Originally posted by kolitha.kuruppu:
When AC2 first came out, everyone was all over it, saying that it greatly improved AC. And I still agree with that. And now suddenly everyone's saying OMG AC1 AC1 AC1. You people seem to forget that the main purpose of playing a game is having fun. The first time you play through AC (I believe the best way to measure a game's quality is by seeing how much fun it is during one playthrough), it's a terrible mess in terms of gameplay.
The story is amazing, the atmosphere is amazing, and the graphics are amazing, everything, even the enemy AI was better, yes. But when you consider the mission structure, it was a horrible mess. Once again, the main assassinations were awesome, but the investigations were terrible. I mean, stuff like eavesdropping were laughable. For all you "challenge-oriented" people, where's the challenge in that? None of the investigations were ever challenging.
These people that say AC1 is the best have forgotten that AC is about giving the player the freedom. In AC2/B, you can choose whether to be stealthy or to go like a human tank. (Not counting the 100% synch objectives, for which I agree with most that say that they take away the player's freedom) Instead, you want the game to force stealth on the player.
You'll say that some parts force the human tank mode on the player, to that I say, don't forget the tedious last bits of AC1.
Good day to everyone. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I don't want a game that force stealthy, i want a game that reward stealthy ways for noobs and agresive ways for skilled ppl...

Also, Ac1 the only Assassin's Creed game as stated before... Ac2 and Brotherhood are just Sword-Fight games :X

I think many improvements in Ac2 was good but the things they removed from Ac1 to Ac2 was my favorite things and that's why i flame Ac2... i hope dev team archive to get a perfect game while in altair memories http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

crash3
06-12-2011, 05:45 AM
if you combined the offensive combat of ACB ad the agressive AI of guards more moreskills/abilities from AC1 then the combat would be pretty good

get rid of 100% sync, let us approach missions how we want

a good feature from AC1 was the large hostile patrols that made your bleeper thing go red and they attacked you on sight. they need to bring in larger guard patrols who are more aggressive, also the random one guard patrols that were everywhere in the AC1 cities were good as you had to be stealthier

Ass4ssin8me
06-12-2011, 05:49 AM
Originally posted by protesthishero:
I see different people on this forum everyday starting topics on how much AC2 and ACB sucked when compared to AC1. While I don't necessarily disagree with all their points, is this really the case? While everybody seems to be focusing on the negatives of the latest installments, let's take a look at some of the features that made AC1 stink :

1. The fact that you had to press A(prayer posture)/walk slowly all the time when you were not on the rooftops. And you could blend in only with the silly prophet dudes, who are stationary for most of the time/ walk around in circles without any purpose. I mean, how silly does Altair look when he walks alone at an ultra-slow speed with his hands shaped together like a praying mantis. He looks more like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons than an assassin. Wouldn't the guards get a better look at him if he walks around like a friggin' turtle?
Talk about ******ed AI..

2. The lifelessness of pretty much every supposed living thing in the game, including the protagonist. Crowds are just THERE. Although the characters with actual dialogue provide some philosophical views and whatnot, most of the time you're just too distracted to actually listen, 'cause their mannerisms are extremely dull. You end up just zoning out into empty space during the dialogues. The characters have absolutely nothing human about them. No quirks, no interesting traits that stand out and most importantly...absolutely no sense of humour. Stuff that would make anybody go, "Are these guys for real!?"
3. Lack of fluidity in almost every aspect of the game : The story - Is there one?
Combat - Funny how everyone thinks the combat from AC1 is outstanding. All you have to do is block and counter. And it's not difficult at all, just frustrating and sluggish.
Stealth - Is there actually stealth in this game? The only stealthy moves in the whole game are assassinations-from-behind and kills made with throwing knives. Meanwhile, the first war machine mission from ACB serves as the perfect stealth mission. Haters gon' hate.
4. The length of the game. This is probably one of the shortest games ever made in the nexgen era. And don't even get me started on the lack of progression and the repetitiveness. What you do in the very first assassination is the exact same thing you do for the rest of the game.
5. Contrary to what everyone says, the game isn't immersive at all. Every five minutes you will find yourself saying, "Hmmm...I'm playing a video game" because everything about the game is so detached and dull.
Don't get me wrong, I liked playing AC1..once. The only parts of the game that were redeemable during my subsequent playthroughs were the music, graphics and ambience, which were undoubtedly stellar (probably the best in the series).
In conclusion, I think Ubi did a great job with the latest games. You actually feel like a part of something adventurous and grand, rather than *yawn* just playing a video game. I actually am in favor of a more cinematic experience even if it includes some amount of scripting because the gameplay just becomes that much more fluid. Revelations is shaping up to be great and I'm all for people having opinions and all but lately it has just become a case of the "Yeah dude, I like their first album but now they've sold out and they suck" bandwagon.
Like the AC series teaches us - Be a blade in the crowd....Don't be a part of it.

1. I agree, however it never bothered me.

2. Cause guards mindlessly walking around (until a bar fills) and then all of a sudden chasing you is life-like... In AC 1 they got suspicous, changed their stance for battle etc.

3. Please don't tell me you thought there was no story.. The story has gotten worse and worse as the AC story has progressed! In AC:B it was ZOMG TEMPLARS = BAD KEEEL THEM!

AC 2 was good until the end. The vault was too sci-fi.

And AC 1 ( yay ) Was a story of betrayal, and the fading faith that came from AltaÔr! Often it had you ( and him ) wondering if the Assassins were really the good guys, or the bad guys. Was it their job to kill? Were they killing the right people, and for the right reasons? How can you not see a good story?!!?!?!???

Combat - its possible to die. 'nuff said.

Stealth - ... Don't get me started on stealth. You can'tt possibly say the new installments had more stealth...

4. The first Assassination is the same as the rest... What!? Did you even play AC? In the first on you watch an arms dealer kill a man before, sneaking up and killing him. Then in the next one, you walk into a slavers trap, and chase him down. How are they the same?

5. Who says, "I must be playing a Video Game" whether it is immersive or not? And how is it "de-tatched"? I found it immersive, but either way this isn't a RPG.

I'm all for hating those on the bandwagon, but are we sure you are not just a fanboy?

CrazyShrapnel
06-12-2011, 05:53 AM
10 minute chases... I miss those. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Guards give up too easily now in my opinion. It doesn't even matter that they search hiding places since I've usually escaped before I even reach one.

Although atleast AC2 and ACB didn't freeze on me nearly as much... When I played AC1 on PS3 I actually had to Google how to stop it freezing every time I entered Damascus. It froze another 8 times throughout my playthrough. I've never had a game freeze up as much as AC1. Did anyone else experience this?

Super_Sausage
06-12-2011, 06:04 AM
It's true that many aspects, such as social stealth, have been improved, but fans prefer AC1 because it was actually a bit challenging, stealth was encouraged and guards were more suspicious - guards with swords out attacked you quickly and Templars attacked as soon as they saw you. It had a much more assassiny feel.
And as for the story - it was fantastic. The characters were all true to themselves and they were assassins, of course they weren't laughing and joking, they had serious work to do. And it was truly about the creed - AltaÔr betrays the creed so he is demoted to a novice and afterwards he follows the creed.
Yeah ok maybe the mechanics weren't as good as they new games but that's because it's the oldest one. The fighting was much better - only a small group of guards could be killed on first counter attack - and the overall feel was much truer to the Assassin's Creed.

ShaneO7K
06-12-2011, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by assassino151:
The only things that AC1 had better,and I mean ONLY, was the investigations and less scripted assassinations. Agreed.

I've lost count of how many times I played AC1 and those are things I like, but they don't really take that long to do. And the combat gets to the point where it is just boring and eventually gets repetitive and the templar guards you find randomly get annoyingly easy after a while.

Before I thought it would be good if they made the AC games like the first, but now they just need to find the perfect mix of what the games have done so far. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you find combat templars easy than you are a skilled player... Take advantage of it, ask for a harder game and test your skills, master them and than ask for even harder game...

Also, try to make your combat look realistic (in Ac1 ofc, in ac2 and brotherhood it's imposible) </div></BLOCKQUOTE> One of the things I loved in AC1 were that the guards never really give up, where as in AC2 and ACB they will all scatter if you kill the leader. To be honest I don't really like how the guards are classed in AC2 and ACB, where you have one that is fast, a strong one and a regular one. I'd much rather have it like AC1 where they were pretty much all equal and were great to fight when they were in numbers, and of course the special templar guards should be hard because of course being a templar should show something of them being skilled and being the assassin's true enemy should at least mean they will be a challenge.

I kind of hope they bring the guards from AC1 back and have the limited templar guards that you find scatted throughout the cities.

Something I think we should be more concerned about is how Desmonds combat will be like in AC3, It being his likely final chapter should definetly point towards more Desmond dedicated sequences which would involve combat. To keep the realistic feel they won't be able to have the sword fights. But sword fights is one of the main elements in the AC series, so Ubisoft would have to figure out a way they could make Desmonds combat more believable while still staying true to AC.

AMuppetMatt
06-12-2011, 06:33 AM
If you redid AC1 on the new game engine with the ability to blend with normal crowds you would have the best AC game without any shadow of a doubt. I've long maintained the only thing Ubi needed to do was add more mission variation with the ability to be more notorious and hide in crowds and it would have been the perfect game. They messed up the notoriety system, too easy to get out and why it increases when no-one sees you do a high profile kill I'll never know. The missions have become linear and something you HAVE to do, AND you don't learn anything about your target from them. Heck you could even say there are no missions anymore. The only thing they got right was the ability to hide in crowds.

1. Yes, that was stupid. But like I've mentioned above, that's one of the only thing they needed to change.

2. That's down to it being an experiment with an older gaming engine. And at least in AC1 they run when there's a fight and someone dies instead of just standing there like a bunch of zombies or even ignoring it. Which one has the more lifeless crowds again?

3. When you're setting a story up it's always going to lack a certain dynamic. And anyway, it had mystery about it throughout, instead of in the newer ones where all you have is 16 scattered throughout. Almost as an afterthought infact, as if they wrote the outline for the story and then realised how boring it was without that mystery element.

4. Just as long as Brotherhood. And again, older gaming engine.

5. Fair enough, that's just you. I was equally immersed in all 3 games until you got a friggin gun. And then the ability to kill about 40 guards in 60 seconds.


I admit that AC1's replay value is low due to it's repetativeness... but you've gotta admit, all the reasons why it was a bad game was easily fixable and understandable due to the older gaming engine. Everything that's wrong with Brotherhood certainly isn't as easy to rectify...

PhiIs1618033
06-12-2011, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by protesthishero:
I see different people on this forum everyday starting topics on how much AC2 and ACB sucked when compared to AC1. While I don't necessarily disagree with all their points, is this really the case? While everybody seems to be focusing on the negatives of the latest installments, let's take a look at some of the features that made AC1 stink :
AC1 doesn't stink and never has.



1. The fact that you had to press A(prayer posture)/walk slowly all the time when you were not on the rooftops. And you could blend in only with the silly prophet dudes, who are stationary for most of the time/ walk around in circles without any purpose. I mean, how silly does Altair look when he walks alone at an ultra-slow speed with his hands shaped together like a praying mantis. He looks more like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons than an assassin. Wouldn't the guards get a better look at him if he walks around like a friggin' turtle?
Talk about ******ed AI..
The blend mechanic is a bit crude. In general, guards will pay less attention to someone who appears to be praying, seems fairly logical to me. However, it's enough to pass by informed guards completely, very closely.
You almost don't need it anyway.



2. The lifelessness of pretty much every supposed living thing in the game, including the protagonist. Crowds are just THERE. Although the characters with actual dialogue provide some philosophical views and whatnot, most of the time you're just too distracted to actually listen, 'cause their mannerisms are extremely dull. You end up just zoning out into empty space during the dialogues. The characters have absolutely nothing human about them. No quirks, no interesting traits that stand out and most importantly...absolutely no sense of humour. Stuff that would make anybody go, "Are these guys for real!?"
Every character had traits. Remember Abu'l Nuqoud? You probably don't. It's the fat merchant guy. He disliked the people because, even though they'd come to his parties, they didn't like him because he was (probably) gay. Majd Addin (the one with the podium) wanted power, enjoyed the cheer of the crowd. All of the enemies had their personalities.
Malik has humour. "Rest, prepare, cry in the corner. Do whatever it is before a mission." or as AltaÔr says: "Talal is dead." "Oh, I know, I know. In fact, ALL THE CITY KNOWS!" Might not be your type of humour, though.
And as I'm not a *******, I didn't zone out at all. The only problem was the noise around me when I was trying to follow the dialogue.



3. Lack of fluidity in almost every aspect of the game : The story - Is there one?
Combat - Funny how everyone thinks the combat from AC1 is outstanding. All you have to do is block and counter. And it's not difficult at all, just frustrating and sluggish.
Stealth - Is there actually stealth in this game? The only stealthy moves in the whole game are assassinations-from-behind and kills made with throwing knives. Meanwhile, the first war machine mission from ACB serves as the perfect stealth mission. Haters gon' hate.
Yeah, there's a story. If you just wouldn't have zoned out during those dialogues, you could have followed. It's a great piece of work, with all these philosophical things.



4. The length of the game. This is probably one of the shortest games ever made in the nexgen era. And don't even get me started on the lack of progression and the repetitiveness. What you do in the very first assassination is the exact same thing you do for the rest of the game.
No. See 5.



5. Contrary to what everyone says, the game isn't immersive at all. Every five minutes you will find yourself saying, "Hmmm...I'm playing a video game" because everything about the game is so detached and dull.
Shut down the HUD, learn to find investigations by searching instead of using markers on the map. Don't run like a madman, play like an assassin. Voila, the game just got a lot longer (since it actually takes time to find investigations). Also, it heightens immersion. For me, AC2 and especially AC:B are not immersive at all. I just can't force myself to walk across the streets.



Don't get me wrong, I liked playing AC1..once. The only parts of the game that were redeemable during my subsequent playthroughs were the music, graphics and ambience, which were undoubtedly stellar (probably the best in the series).
In conclusion, I think Ubi did a great job with the latest games. You actually feel like a part of something adventurous and grand, rather than *yawn* just playing a video game. I actually am in favor of a more cinematic experience even if it includes some amount of scripting because the gameplay just becomes that much more fluid.
AC:B, not at all. The real world parts are great and the multiplayer is really nice, but that's about it. I'm not really in favour of a cinematic experience, at least not for AC. I really liked L.A. Noire, which is about as cinematic as games can get. For me, cinematics break the immersion and the gameplay grinds to a screeching halt since I'm not in control anymore.



Revelations is shaping up to be great and I'm all for people having opinions and all but lately it has just become a case of the "Yeah dude, I like their first album but now they've sold out and they suck" bandwagon.
I honestly feel that this is the case. The story goes that the UBI management told the devs to change from AC1 mission-structure to a more GTA-style mission structure, as well as removing the investigations and so on. I don't know how much of that is true, but it seems fairly logical to me. It's still a company, you know.


Like the AC series teaches us - Be a blade in the crowd....Don't be a part of it.
Only problem is that we get these all-out fights, continuously. Or Splinter Cell-stealth. So much for being a blade in the crowd. :P (only assassination where you could do that in Brotherhood was the Banker)

cless711
06-12-2011, 06:47 AM
Not everything of AC1 was great, but things like combat and the assassinations were done great, at least in my opinion. And for combat you don't need to just guard and counter. I admit when I first played the game i had to do that but when I got used to the combat system i beat the game aggressively and defensively. So in any AC game you can really just guard and counter, but if you want to enjoy the combat you should try everything the game lets you use in combat, not only counters, even in the fight with Robert in AC1 you can beat it by being aggressive if your careful

protesthishero
06-12-2011, 07:02 AM
Wow! I express my opinion honestly (not 100% accurately) and I get personally attacked. And for that guy who constantly ordered me to "speak for yourself", I WAS speaking for myself. Did I ever mention that what I discussed was popular opinion at any point? No. This is just what I felt when I played the game. I also started with AC1 just like you guys and I think it got considerably better along the way. I just felt that AC2 and ACB were unfairly maligned by some of the people on the forum and I was merely pointing out that AC1 had it's flaws too but I'm not personally calling anybody out, jeez! So I'll reiterate : These are all just my opinions. Feel free to rip them apart, but is there really any necessity to call a person "dumb" over his opinion? "Boo! He has an opinion that conflicts with the majority. He's dumb and has no comprehension skills whatsoever!" Gimme a break. I like AC1 and I don't disregard the fact that it started the whole series and redefined tradional action/adventure gameplay, but I'm also glad that it has progressed from being a claustrophobic game about the Hashashin into an amazing sci-fi/stealth/adventure/action game with rich characters and a story that keeps you guessing. That is all. Bring on the haterade.

cless711
06-12-2011, 07:11 AM
I do agree that AC2 and AC:B were great in their own ways as well. When I first played AC1 and moved on to AC2, that is when i really got into this franchise.

PhiIs1618033
06-12-2011, 07:27 AM
Originally posted by protesthishero:
Wow! I express my opinion honestly (not 100% accurately) and I get personally attacked. And for that guy who constantly ordered me to "speak for yourself", I WAS speaking for myself. Did I ever mention that what I discussed was popular opinion at any point? No. This is just what I felt when I played the game. I also started with AC1 just like you guys and I think it got considerably better along the way. I just felt that AC2 and ACB were unfairly maligned by some of the people on the forum and I was merely pointing out that AC1 had it's flaws too but I'm not personally calling anybody out, jeez! So I'll reiterate : These are all just my opinions. Feel free to rip them apart, but is there really any necessity to call a person "dumb" over his opinion? "Boo! He has an opinion that conflicts with the majority. He's dumb and has no comprehension skills whatsoever!" Gimme a break. I like AC1 and I don't disregard the fact that it started the whole series and redefined tradional action/adventure gameplay, but I'm also glad that it has progressed from being a claustrophobic game about the Hashashin into an amazing sci-fi/stealth/adventure/action game with rich characters and a story that keeps you guessing. That is all. Bring on the haterade.
It's good that you have your own opinions, it really is. I just heavily disagree with some of them, to the point where I think it's stupid to hold any other opinion than my own. Just what I think, my opinion. Sorry if I insulted you.

I loved the whole claustrophobic Hashashin concept. :P

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by cless711:
I do agree that AC2 and AC:B were great in their own ways as well. When I first played AC1 and moved on to AC2, that is when i really got into this franchise.

Well, the story of Ac2 made me get into the franchise but the gameplay of Ac1 was much better and that's what i'm missing... when i'm talking about the gameplay i talk about missions too...

k20ml
06-12-2011, 07:57 AM
GROUP HUG OVER THE WEB!!

Anyway. I see what people want. I hear their cries. I hear their plea. I feel their agony and pain. I see the borderline between the perfect balance of an exceptional assassin game and an exceptional cinematic driven game. Unfortunately the wall has not been toppled to the ground yet. It still stands as the monument of division among AC Players around the world...

In Lamen's terms...

-There should be a difficulty setting where general gameplay varies in each level. Programmers would have to omit some harder enemy programs on easy levels and progressively incorporate harder mechanics on harder levels. That means, it is not only the life and damage of both enemy party and protagonists are changing in each level, rather the gameplay, the program and mechanics change as well.

Social stealth would be as easy as AC 2 and B on easy levels. Normal would be the social stealth in AC(your argument is invalid, AC had a harder social stealth than AC 2 and B). Hard modes would have my new idea for social stealth...

Here it is...

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/foru...024/m/6321034039/p/2 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/5251069024/m/6321034039/p/2)

Difficulty setting should be implemented so as to create the perfect balance of thought and fun.

Windrius
06-12-2011, 08:12 AM
Originally posted by Ass4ssin8me:

1. I agree, however it never bothered me.

2. Cause guards mindlessly walking around (until a bar fills) and then all of a sudden chasing you is life-like... In AC 1 they got suspicous, changed their stance for battle etc.

3. Please don't tell me you thought there was no story.. The story has gotten worse and worse as the AC story has progressed! In AC:B it was ZOMG TEMPLARS = BAD KEEEL THEM!

AC 2 was good until the end. The vault was too sci-fi.

And AC 1 ( yay ) Was a story of betrayal, and the fading faith that came from AltaÔr! Often it had you ( and him ) wondering if the Assassins were really the good guys, or the bad guys. Was it their job to kill? Were they killing the right people, and for the right reasons? How can you not see a good story?!!?!?!???

Combat - its possible to die. 'nuff said.

Stealth - ... Don't get me started on stealth. You can'tt possibly say the new installments had more stealth...

4. The first Assassination is the same as the rest... What!? Did you even play AC? In the first on you watch an arms dealer kill a man before, sneaking up and killing him. Then in the next one, you walk into a slavers trap, and chase him down. How are they the same?

5. Who says, "I must be playing a Video Game" whether it is immersive or not? And how is it "de-tatched"? I found it immersive, but either way this isn't a RPG.

I'm all for hating those on the bandwagon, but are we sure you are not just a fanboy?

I 100% agree with everything you said!
The story got suckier with every new game released. AC1 was like BEST GAME EVAR! AC2 Meh. Still good. AC:B What the fudge?!
In AC1 it was really atleast possible to die, where in AC2 and AC:B it becomes very easy and you can even take potions AND in AC:B, you can kill thousands of people without even losing a single health square...

DavisP92
06-12-2011, 09:09 AM
i really donít see ppl saying that AC1 was a better game altogether. I see people saying that the combat, and the stealth and the assassinations were more enjoyable and i think that way as well. however AC2 has the best story, and the animations in ACB are better, people usually are referring to AC1 so that ubisoft will try to make a worthy successor to it (adding more stealth and less scripted assassinations).

freeze131
06-12-2011, 09:26 AM
you'd be kidding yourself if you're saying the assassinations weren't repetitive.
It was basically 1.Gather intel 2. Kill. 3. Repeat 9 times 4. Profit!!!
Every time I finished a mission and went to the next assassination, I just thought "Wow, I have to do that damn assassination again." And if you're saying the combat was harder, I remember killing over 100 guards in one spot, just by counter attacking.

Yes, by far Assassin's Creed 1 has the best story. Ezio's practically Batman, and really, there's a bigger conspiracy? Who would've guessed.

With Desmond, I do not like his story either. It's basically kidnapped because you hold some top secret information by bad guys who control everything in secret and realise you have to stop some future catastrophe and the bad guys have no idea how big it is. People are saying they love Desmond's story, I just think it's a little shallow.
I do praise the story elements of the animus however.

DavisP92
06-12-2011, 09:32 AM
@freeze131, just so u know, assassinations does not mean gather intel. it means killing the guy and escaping. so yea iím not kidding when i say the assassinations are better in AC1, seeing how u could do what u wanted more.

Idk if ur saying AC1 or AC2 has a better story, iím gonna assumer u mean 2.

And yea Desmondís story is kinda weak but i think theyíre going to try to develop him a lot in ACR, showing his background.

LaCava1
06-12-2011, 09:39 AM
The reasons I liked Assassin's Creed 1 just a bit more than 2 are:
1. Altair. He is, and always will be (to me), the better Assassin.
2. Tougher enemies. Self Explanatory.
3. Probably the most important-It felt a LOT more like you were in an actual memory, like a simulation. It warned you if you were being seen where Altair hadn't been seen. There isn't a health bar and medicine, where you can heal yourself. There is the synchronization bar, so you stay in sync with Altair.

BK-110
06-12-2011, 09:41 AM
I think the features that most people seem to miss are the freedom of the assassinations as well as the fact that you investigate targets and hear about weak spots and opportunities. That, and the fact that the game is much more focused on actual assassinations.

Another thing is the AI, which is quite a bit more difficult than in the other installments. That, and moves which guards in newer games lack, makes for some tougher enemies, both during combat and during chases.

Personally, I also prefer the combat system. It is quite a bit more challenging, at least if you don't constantly rely on counters. If you use a sword and play aggressively, using timed and heavy attacks, countering only when you're attacked, it can actually get quite challenging, depending on opponents. Combine that with some of the other weapons and mechanics of newer games and the difficult AI of later enemies in AC1, and the combat system would be quite a bit more rewarding.

This is in stark contrast to AC2, where offensive moves where quite useless and ACB, where they're too effective and easy to use.

Last, but not least, there's the atmosphere, which feels quite a bit more mysterious.

Well, many of these are just my opinions, but I've heard quite a few people mention similar things.

kriegerdesgottes
06-12-2011, 09:49 AM
When AC1 first came out it was the first great game for the new generation of consoles and I was lured in by the CG trailer and then the developer diaries telling me that they had recreated jerusalem and acre the way they were at the time. That is HUGE all in itself plus you are this killer ninja-type assassin. The cities were beautiful and the game was like nothing before. I loved the free-running and climbing and killing more than anything so I never became bored with the game especially collecting those flags. I didn't care that the missions were all the same. It did get repetitive at times but who cares it was an awesome game anyway. I remember being disappointed by the sci-fi aspect of it but now I wouldn't want it any other way.

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by BK-110:
I think the features that most people seem to miss are the freedom of the assassinations as well as the fact that you investigate targets and hear about weak spots and opportunities. That, and the fact that the game is much more focused on actual assassinations.

Another thing is the AI, which is quite a bit more difficult than in the other installments. That, and moves which guards in newer games lack, makes for some tougher enemies, both during combat and during chases.

Personally, I also prefer the combat system. It is quite a bit more challenging, at least if you don't constantly rely on counters. If you use a sword and play aggressively, using timed and heavy attacks, countering only when you're attacked, it can actually get quite challenging, depending on opponents. Combine that with some of the other weapons and mechanics of newer games and the difficult AI of later enemies in AC1, and the combat system would be quite a bit more rewarding.

This is in stark contrast to AC2, where offensive moves where quite useless and ACB, where they're too effective and easy to use.

Last, but not least, there's the atmosphere, which feels quite a bit more mysterious.

Well, many of these are just my opinions, but I've heard quite a few people mention similar things.

I would only say to remove hidden blade after they do what u said xD

phil.llllll
06-12-2011, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by protesthishero:
Wow! I express my opinion honestly (not 100% accurately) and I get personally attacked. And for that guy who constantly ordered me to "speak for yourself", I WAS speaking for myself. Did I ever mention that what I discussed was popular opinion at any point? No.

You specifically said "you", as in making a claim for others. But point taken.


Originally posted by protesthishero:
This is just what I felt when I played the game. I also started with AC1 just like you guys and I think it got considerably better along the way. I just felt that AC2 and ACB were unfairly maligned by some of the people on the forum and I was merely pointing out that AC1 had it's flaws too but I'm not personally calling anybody out, jeez! So I'll reiterate : These are all just my opinions. Feel free to rip them apart, but is there really any necessity to call a person "dumb" over his opinion? "Boo! He has an opinion that conflicts with the majority. He's dumb and has no comprehension skills whatsoever!" Gimme a break. I like AC1 and I don't disregard the fact that it started the whole series and redefined tradional action/adventure gameplay, but I'm also glad that it has progressed from being a claustrophobic game about the Hashashin into an amazing sci-fi/stealth/adventure/action game with rich characters and a story that keeps you guessing. That is all. Bring on the haterade.

I'm sorry I said dumb but what did you expect? You asked if AC1 had a story, and really there's no other way that could come across without being regarded as such.

Also, I wasn't so much as knocking your opinion as much as I was your blantant falsehoods about AC1, and what seemed like an open dislike for others that express their opinion on the matter.

BingChandler
06-12-2011, 10:16 AM
In my opinion, Assassin's Creed is still the best in the series. I know that's quite a statement considering AC2 expanded on nearly all the ideas present in the original and was met with much higher praise, but for my money AC1 is still king.

To be sure, AC1 is a deeply flawed game. Many of the sidequests were unbelievably repetitive, the unskippable cutscenes preceding every memory were unimaginably boring after the first viewing, and the enemy AI was just not refined at all. Many of these issues were addressed in AC2, and by extension AC:B; and yet AC1 still holds that special place in my heart.

I believe it is an aesthetic difference, an almost intangible feeling of being involved in AC1 that was lost somewhat in AC2, and then buried in AC:B. AC1 just feels so much more personal; the killings feel like they carry weight, combat carries the risk of defeat (although the counter-kill is still OP), and the game doesn't hold your hand the entire time making sure you don't screw up. Pick a fight with a gang of Templars? You might have to run. Fall fifty feet onto solid rock? You're dead. Run out of throwing knives? You have to work for more.

It's hard to explain, but when I play AC1 I feel like I'm playing as Altair, a medieval assassin. I'm not constantly being harassed to purchase upgrades; I don't have to upgrade my villa or hideout. It's just the story and me. Pure Assassin's Creed at its finest. Genre-defining in every single way, I still view AC1 as a masterpiece, all of its flaws notwithstanding.

Donít get me wrong, I still love AC2 and even that red-haired stepchild AC:B. But everything in those games feels so by the numbers, so many boxes to be checked. Killing is trivially easy, and at times the Creed is largely forgotten (just look at how the Creed is explained in AC1 vs. AC2). I feel detached from Ezio, not nearly as involved as I was with Altair. It just feels like an everymanís game, whereas AC1 is surely an acquired taste. AC1ís diehard embrace of its story and theme just wins out, IMHO, over AC2ís more general approach. And thatís even considering features I really enjoy about the two latest games, such as the Subject 16 memories and the Price of Persia-esque temples.

At the end of the day, maybe Iím a tad bit biased towards AC1ís setting. What can I say? Having done my research on the Hashashiyyin (one of the books (http://amzn.to/l68pAo) I used for my thesis, if youíre interested) and being obsessed with the Crusades, I feel strongly drawn towards AC1 (speaking Arabic helps too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). But that bias aside, AC1 just feels like Assassinís Creed should, at least to me. AC2 improved upon the formula to be sure, but some of that magic was lost with Ezio and the Renaissance. So yes, I believe AC1 really was that good.

BK-110
06-12-2011, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
I would only say to remove hidden blade after they do what u said xD

Why would you remove the hidden blade? I cannot see what that has to do with it.

I do have what I would feel would be an improvement to the hidden blade: Remove the ability to guard with the hidden blade. Sure that technically downgrades the weapon, but it makes it more challenging to use and differentiates it from other weapons. You could still counter, dodge, and attack. Seeing as it is an agile weapon, the main means of avoiding an attack should be dodging it completely, instead relying on movement.

Just an idea...

phil.llllll
06-12-2011, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by BingChandler:
I believe it is an aesthetic difference, an almost intangible feeling of being involved in AC1 that was lost somewhat in AC2, and then buried in AC:B. AC1 just feels so much more personal; the killings feel like they carry weight, combat carries the risk of defeat (although the counter-kill is still OP), and the game doesn't hold your hand the entire time making sure you don't screw up. Pick a fight with a gang of Templars? You might have to run. Fall fifty feet onto solid rock? You're dead. Run out of throwing knives? You have to work for more.

It's hard to explain, but when I play AC1 I feel like I'm playing as Altair, a medieval assassin. I'm not constantly being harassed to purchase upgrades; I don't have to upgrade my villa or hideout. It's just the story and me. Pure Assassin's Creed at its finest. Genre-defining in every single way, I still view AC1 as a masterpiece, all of its flaws notwithstanding.

Donít get me wrong, I still love AC2 and even that red-haired stepchild AC:B. But everything in those games feels so by the numbers, so many boxes to be checked. Killing is trivially easy, and at times the Creed is largely forgotten (just look at how the Creed is explained in AC1 vs. AC2). I feel detached from Ezio, not nearly as involved as I was with Altair. It just feels like an everymanís game, whereas AC1 is surely an acquired taste. AC1ís diehard embrace of its story and theme just wins out, IMHO, over AC2ís more general approach. And thatís even considering features I really enjoy about the two latest games, such as the Subject 16 memories and the Price of Persia-esque temples.

At the end of the day, maybe Iím a tad bit biased towards AC1ís setting. What can I say? Having done my research on the Hashashiyyin (one of the books (http://amzn.to/l68pAo) I used for my thesis, if youíre interested) and being obsessed with the Crusades, I feel strongly drawn towards AC1 (speaking Arabic helps too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif). But that bias aside, AC1 just feels like Assassinís Creed should, at least to me. AC2 improved upon the formula to be sure, but some of that magic was lost with Ezio and the Renaissance. So yes, I believe AC1 really was that good.

While it's a bit more than just aesthetics for me (I thought the overall direction was great, just not very well executed), I completely agree. Well said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh and if you're interested in the assassins, and a lot of the philosophy behind AC1, and want to see where AC1 took its roots, check out Alamut (it's a novel but the backdrop is historically based similar to the all the AC games).

tjbyrum1
06-12-2011, 11:00 AM
Assassin's Creed I was more a prototype. It was hyped up to be very good, but didn't quite reach its expectations.

Instead of looking at why Assassin's Creed I sucked, let's look at why people prefer it over the newer installments (which might help you realize what they mean):

1. Open-Ended Missions - In AC 1, missions were based on collecting intel for a target, and then planning your OWN assassination, and then going through with the assassination. The mission was VERY open-ended, allowing the player to do whatever he pleased to assassinate the target.The side-missions allowed the player to learn about the target, and they affected the last mission. In all, it wasn't 'scripted' as much as the later installments are. Players enjoyed this aspect.

2. Difficulty - AC 1 is by far the hardest AC there is to date. Back then it focused on Counters, yes, but the more advanced players used combo attacks to quickly take them out. People like you probably sit there for four minutes waiting for an attacker, then countered him - which takes WAY to long. The actual way was to ENGAGE, ATTACK, ATTACK, COUNTER, ATTACK, ATTACK, BREAK GUARD, ATTACK, COUNTER.... etc - which makes combat go smoother and much more faster, and more better. Not to mention the Hidden Blade was a 'Powerful Weapon', but hard to use - whereas now it can kill anyone and everyone and is easy to use as compared to AC 1.

3. Altair - This one is obvious.

PhiIs1618033
06-12-2011, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by freeze131:
you'd be kidding yourself if you're saying the assassinations weren't repetitive.
It was basically 1.Gather intel 2. Kill. 3. Repeat 9 times 4. Profit!!!
1. You forgot a step.
2. They weren't. Each assassination had its own location and all had different types of guards around, different ways of entry, different ways of exit, different amounts of civilians, etc. etc.
Looking upon it as you do, every game that doesn't have a bazillion mission types is repetitive.
I'm sure 'This is the only level' is no game for you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BK-110
06-12-2011, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by tjbyrum1:
Back then it focused on Counters, yes, but the more advanced players used combo attacks to quickly take them out.

If you ask me, AC2 was much more focused on counters. In AC2 offensive attacks with any weapon were rather ineffective. As you say, AC1 had some great mechanics for fluid and fast combat; sadly, most people never took advantage of it and felt that it was redundant, because they only every countered.

KZarr
06-12-2011, 12:23 PM
AC1 was really that good because of:
1. Characters with real human traits.
2. Freedom in assassinations.
3. Altair.

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by BK-110:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
I would only say to remove hidden blade after they do what u said xD

Why would you remove the hidden blade? I cannot see what that has to do with it.

I do have what I would feel would be an improvement to the hidden blade: Remove the ability to guard with the hidden blade. Sure that technically downgrades the weapon, but it makes it more challenging to use and differentiates it from other weapons. You could still counter, dodge, and attack. Seeing as it is an agile weapon, the main means of avoiding an attack should be dodging it completely, instead relying on movement.

Just an idea... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wanted to say remove it as meele weapon...

Why?
Cuz sometimes guards are tauting me or coughing and i want to kill them with one hit, with sword and short blade it's imposible and now in Ac2/B it's also imposible... Removing the hidden blade as meele weapon would make this feature back.
I'm replaying the game and i'm getting a lot of fun assassinating guards with hidden blade while with the short blade in my hand *.* (also it's quite hard).


Originally posted by BK-110:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tjbyrum1:
Back then it focused on Counters, yes, but the more advanced players used combo attacks to quickly take them out.

If you ask me, AC2 was much more focused on counters. In AC2 offensive attacks with any weapon were rather ineffective. As you say, AC1 had some great mechanics for fluid and fast combat; sadly, most people never took advantage of it and felt that it was redundant, because they only every countered. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are full right... Only counter-attack is the slowest way to finish a combat in Ac1 and i would say the less effective...

DavidPV86
06-12-2011, 12:51 PM
It is interesting, here in this forum like 80% of the people worship AC1(sign me up) , but outside ot if, I have read A LOT of times that the game is repetitive, same kinds of mission AGAIN AND AGAIN, its almost zero replay value, a "crime" on a Sandbox, about how BORING those unskippable cutscenes are and the list goes on and on.

So I came up with the conclussion that DIE HARD fans are the ones who held AC1 at the highest level, whereas the "rest" of the gaming community who is somehow interest on the franchise prefers the other two.

BingChandler
06-12-2011, 01:01 PM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:

While it's a bit more than just aesthetics for me (I thought the overall direction was great, just not very well executed), I completely agree. Well said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh and if you're interested in the assassins, and a lot of the philosophy behind AC1, and want to see where AC1 took its roots, check out Alamut (it's a novel but the backdrop is historically based similar to the all the AC games).

Thanks so much for agreeing, good to know others feel the same. As for Alamut, I have used the book for excerpts before, but never read it cover to cover. With your suggestion perhaps that will change.

Rea1SamF1sher
06-12-2011, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by DavidPV86:
It is interesting, here in this forum like 80% of the people worship AC1(sign me up) , but outside ot if, I have read A LOT of times that the game is repetitive, same kinds of mission AGAIN AND AGAIN, its almost zero replay value, a "crime" on a Sandbox, about how BORING those unskippable cutscenes are and the list goes on and on.

So I came up with the conclussion that DIE HARD fans are the ones who held AC1 at the highest level, whereas the "rest" of the gaming community who is somehow interest on the franchise prefers the other two.
Another thing is that maybe AC2 and ACB have more variation but feel just as repetive after a short time like AC1 because the games are easy to and there aren't any challenges. You can do a lot of different types of combat attacks and missions but it won't help at all when it's all easy to play. This will make the game just as repetive as in AC1 the missions are.

And AC1 isn't really that challenging in my opinion too, which added to the fact the game being repetive because of lack of variation. But it's at least more difficult then AC2 and ACB. I would consider the difficulty in AC1 as Normal, in AC2 Rocky and in ACB Very Easy. There wasn't any game in the AC series where I would say it's hard.

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 01:47 PM
Originally posted by DavidPV86:
It is interesting, here in this forum like 80% of the people worship AC1(sign me up) , but outside ot if, I have read A LOT of times that the game is repetitive, same kinds of mission AGAIN AND AGAIN, its almost zero replay value, a "crime" on a Sandbox, about how BORING those unskippable cutscenes are and the list goes on and on.

So I came up with the conclussion that DIE HARD fans are the ones who held AC1 at the highest level, whereas the "rest" of the gaming community who is somehow interest on the franchise prefers the other two.

Unskippable cutscenes boring? They are not players for Ac... they should play inFamous or Prototype LOL....

There are 3 or 4 types of gamers respect to Ac:

Fans: those who understand the potential of the original idea of the game and that want it being devloped

Action gamers: Gamers that want action in videogames (those who made ubisoft take the wrong direction in Ac2/B)

Fanboys: Those who will alway play the game even if the gameplay is just the biggest piece of **** ever scene (those who only want to see the story)

Haters: Any1? xD

Here in the forum you can find Fans (those complaining about Ac2/B), Action gamers (those saying that Ac1 was ****) and Fanboys (those that loved both Ac1, Ac2 and Brotherhood)...

Out of the forum you will almost only see Action gamers and Haters...

Ulicies
06-12-2011, 03:20 PM
I loved the first Assassin's Creed. Stealth was completely inferior to running aggressively through the city, but the combat was really engaging. When a big pack of guards cornered me, I actually felt concerned for my well-fare. The combat required a lot more skill and timing than AC2's constant X mashing.

The investigations were redundant, because they never changed throughout the game, but I prefer the method of investigating over the GTA style of "Go to X destination; cue cut-scene."

Speaking of cut scenes, I'm kind of on the fence on this. On one hand, I liked being in control during the dialogue situations in AC1; they made me feel like I was actually the character, rather than just watching. In AC2, the cut scenes sort of detached me from the situation. It was a great story, but I felt like I was watching from across the screen, rather than experiencing it first-hand.

On the other hand, when you remain in control during the dialogue situations, what actually happens remains a lot more static, as you were only able to do a slow crawl during such a scene. Then again, I can't really remember any cut scenes from AC2 that spanned across multiple rooms and places at once.

What I do clearly remember, though, is that AC1's facial animations were much better than AC2's. The girl just looks plain ugly compared to how she looked in AC1.

cless711
06-12-2011, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DavidPV86:
It is interesting, here in this forum like 80% of the people worship AC1(sign me up) , but outside ot if, I have read A LOT of times that the game is repetitive, same kinds of mission AGAIN AND AGAIN, its almost zero replay value, a "crime" on a Sandbox, about how BORING those unskippable cutscenes are and the list goes on and on.

So I came up with the conclussion that DIE HARD fans are the ones who held AC1 at the highest level, whereas the "rest" of the gaming community who is somehow interest on the franchise prefers the other two.

Unskippable cutscenes boring? They are not players for Ac... they should play inFamous or Prototype LOL....

There are 3 or 4 types of gamers respect to Ac:

Fans: those who understand the potential of the original idea of the game and that want it being devloped

Action gamers: Gamers that want action in videogames (those who made ubisoft take the wrong direction in Ac2/B)

Fanboys: Those who will alway play the game even if the gameplay is just the biggest piece of **** ever scene (those who only want to see the story)

Haters: Any1? xD

Here in the forum you can find Fans (those complaining about Ac2/B), Action gamers (those saying that Ac1 was ****) and Fanboys (those that loved both Ac1, Ac2 and Brotherhood)...

Out of the forum you will almost only see Action gamers and Haters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

XD I guess that makes me a fanboy.

iN3krO
06-12-2011, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by cless711:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DavidPV86:
It is interesting, here in this forum like 80% of the people worship AC1(sign me up) , but outside ot if, I have read A LOT of times that the game is repetitive, same kinds of mission AGAIN AND AGAIN, its almost zero replay value, a "crime" on a Sandbox, about how BORING those unskippable cutscenes are and the list goes on and on.

So I came up with the conclussion that DIE HARD fans are the ones who held AC1 at the highest level, whereas the "rest" of the gaming community who is somehow interest on the franchise prefers the other two.

Unskippable cutscenes boring? They are not players for Ac... they should play inFamous or Prototype LOL....

There are 3 or 4 types of gamers respect to Ac:

Fans: those who understand the potential of the original idea of the game and that want it being devloped

Action gamers: Gamers that want action in videogames (those who made ubisoft take the wrong direction in Ac2/B)

Fanboys: Those who will alway play the game even if the gameplay is just the biggest piece of **** ever scene (those who only want to see the story)

Haters: Any1? xD

Here in the forum you can find Fans (those complaining about Ac2/B), Action gamers (those saying that Ac1 was ****) and Fanboys (those that loved both Ac1, Ac2 and Brotherhood)...

Out of the forum you will almost only see Action gamers and Haters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

XD I guess that makes me a fanboy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it deppends, do you think that ubisoft ****ed up ac2/B in something ac1 wasn't ****ed up?

I loved Ac2 and Brotherhood but i think that if the ubisoft had followed their original idea Ac2 and Brotherhood would had been much better... that makes me a Fan, i saw the full potential of Ac1 and i can imagine the new generation of gaming that ubisoft was talking about (but only did one game of that new generation)

cless711
06-12-2011, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cless711:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DavidPV86:
It is interesting, here in this forum like 80% of the people worship AC1(sign me up) , but outside ot if, I have read A LOT of times that the game is repetitive, same kinds of mission AGAIN AND AGAIN, its almost zero replay value, a "crime" on a Sandbox, about how BORING those unskippable cutscenes are and the list goes on and on.

So I came up with the conclussion that DIE HARD fans are the ones who held AC1 at the highest level, whereas the "rest" of the gaming community who is somehow interest on the franchise prefers the other two.

Unskippable cutscenes boring? They are not players for Ac... they should play inFamous or Prototype LOL....

There are 3 or 4 types of gamers respect to Ac:

Fans: those who understand the potential of the original idea of the game and that want it being devloped

Action gamers: Gamers that want action in videogames (those who made ubisoft take the wrong direction in Ac2/B)

Fanboys: Those who will alway play the game even if the gameplay is just the biggest piece of **** ever scene (those who only want to see the story)

Haters: Any1? xD

Here in the forum you can find Fans (those complaining about Ac2/B), Action gamers (those saying that Ac1 was ****) and Fanboys (those that loved both Ac1, Ac2 and Brotherhood)...

Out of the forum you will almost only see Action gamers and Haters... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

XD I guess that makes me a fanboy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

it deppends, do you think that ubisoft ****ed up ac2/B in something ac1 wasn't ****ed up?

I loved Ac2 and Brotherhood but i think that if the ubisoft had followed their original idea Ac2 and Brotherhood would had been much better... that makes me a Fan, i saw the full potential of Ac1 and i can imagine the new generation of gaming that ubisoft was talking about (but only did one game of that new generation) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I loved all the games but i do agree that there is a lot of room for improvement gameplay wise. Like when I kill a massive amount of enemies and win the battle I would like that great feeling of accomplishment like after you go through many many men to get to Robert in AC1. And also i would like the longer conversations after you assassinate someone and they tell you why and what they were doing.

DavidPV86
06-12-2011, 06:16 PM
i would like the longer conversations after you assassinate someone and they tell you why and what they were doing.

Even though I really like that part, on second thoughts it does not make any sense chating with your "sorrounded by guards" target uh? haha

El_Sjietah
06-12-2011, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by DavidPV86:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> i would like the longer conversations after you assassinate someone and they tell you why and what they were doing.

Even though I really like that part, on second thoughts it does not make any sense chating with your "sorrounded by guards" target uh? haha </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It still beats offing whoever you're told to without ever knowing their side of the story.

Highwayman48
06-12-2011, 07:09 PM
I agree that AC1 wasn't the best of the series, and you're right on what you said. I still enjoyed it though. My favorite was AC2, because it had the best part of Ezio's life in it. It was all immediately relevant to what happened at the beginning.

Vey03
06-12-2011, 11:47 PM
This will be the shortest answer i've ever written.

Q - "Was AC1 really that good?"
A - Yes.

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

Nope, can't help myself, i'll expand a bit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In my opinion, it really only had one flaw. And that's the repetative missons. That's it.
Now if you ask me, wanting to change only one thing in a game is an awesome achievement by the people making it!

Because there's far more i'd change in every AC game since.

And the No1 thing, as i've always said, is the core stealth system.
It's really interesting, go to Gametrailers, where it show you all the AC games available.
http://www.gametrailers.com/se...hp?s=assassins+creed (http://www.gametrailers.com/search.php?s=assassins+creed)
Check out the 'genres'.
AC1 was 'action/adventure/stealth'.
Everything since is either 'action/adventure' or 'action'.
Progress? Me thinks not. Me thinks it's gone the wrong way. Me want stealth. Me want to sneek around and be un-noticed.

In AC1, Altair gets told off that the whole city knows about his assassination. He gets told he should do it better, quieter. That he is not to be seen.
In ACB we still hear 'we work in the dark to serve the light'. Meaning, we work in secret, quietly.
And yet what are we doing? Forced to do by scripted assassination sequences? We run around like idiots, killing everyone in sight, and leaving a trail of bodies, bombs and destruction.
I can only imagin Altair would turn in his grave (if he were a real person).

Whats the hardest thing you had to do in an AC game?
Apart from the Da Vinci tank, which isn't hard, just frustrating, all mine came from AC1.
Anyone remember the fight with Robert De Sable and his guards? Wowee, that took some practice! And skill and time.
Yeah, they came at you one at a time, but they were tough buggers to kill!

And you couldn't just run into a fight with a million guards, then realise you've stuffed it, and run away and jump into some hay!
You had to think. If you got yourself into a stupid fight (when you shuold have known better), you weren't going anywhere. That was your penalty for being lazy and silly.

Now, it just seems like a free-for-all.

I love AC. I've loved every game. I love the detail. I love the history, the accuracy of the buildings, the whole idea of the series.
I just wish it had stayed true to itself. To the core principles we were shown in AC1. And what we are still being told today, yet doing the exact opposite of.

edzilla_551
06-13-2011, 12:53 AM
according to the critics around the web here is the average scores seen on metacritic-

PS3 versions-
assassins creed- 81/100
assassins creed 2-91/100
assassins creed brotherhood-90/100

xbox 360 versions-
assassins creed- 81/100
assassins creed 2-90/100
assassins creed brotherhood-89/100

so if we look at it this way, critics are saying the 2 latest games of series is better which is why it scored a higher percentage compared to the first assassins creed, ubisoft sees this as an indication that they are bringing out a better game, which also can make them confused about which feedback to listen to especially when the second game scored a very high score, i believe that ubisoft need to listen to both sides, the critics and the gamers, stealth and combat need to be improved and the assassinations also need to feel more engaging, personally thats the one thing i missed in ac1, there might be a chance to see these improvements implemented into ACR because we will play as altair again, and lets just say that altair and ezio are very different in terms of how they get their job done.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

shobhit7777777
06-13-2011, 01:37 AM
Assassin's Creed 2, in terms of core gameplay mechanics, was sheer perfection. It was what the first game should have been. It had a functioning social stealth mechanic with crowd blending, crowd manipulation, body carrying, luring guards etc. It had a combat system that made you feel like a highly trained Assassin and allowed the player to engage in combat and play more aggressively.

Now, where it falters is the WAY the mission design in presented. It misses out on that ILLUSION OF FREEDOM we had in AC1..as we INVESTIGATED our target and then EXPLORED the environment to find a way to complete that objective according to out preferred playstyle.

The act of investigating the targets location, gathering info on the location of the guards and then planning your strategy to strike was the ESSENCE of AC1. This actually allowed us to believe that we are a lone 'Blade in the crowd'. It emphasized the covert nature of the Assassin's. In that sense AC1 was excellent...but FLAWED in execution. The quests did become repetitive and the whole gameplay loop began to stale and lacked imagination. After a few assassination the investigation became shallow and it was the same process over and over again...and the info collected due to these investigations was damn near useless.

What AC2/ACB/ACR should have done was to re-introduce that CORE ESSENCE OF PLAYING LIKE AN ASSASSIN.
The Assassinations should have been less scripted...Just give us a name and then we engage our thieves, mercenaries, courtesans on investigation missions...give us a choice between target locations, giving us information on key aspects like "The Target has been spotted at the Count's party....they seem like good friends" and then we could have followed the count to get to the target etc. The investigation should have been beefed up....and the stealth mechanics should have included crouching, disguises/weapon and armour changing to not attract attention.
The Simple mechanic of removing armour/weapons so as to NOT attract attention has been neglected. I conducted a poll and this feature was the most wanted one...and there were over 40 votes.

The thing is that AC is losing that FEELING of CONDUCTING AN ASSASSINATION.

ACB, IMO was an amazing game...the Brotherhood was a fantastic addition..sending Assassins out on contracts, using them to assassinate targets or as backup, Rebuilding the three factions and using them to gain intelligence, the Borgia towers actually made sense and their destruction actually felt like a strategic objective to regain Rome, the premise of waging a covert war to free Rome of the Borgia's was FANTASTIC. Yet there were HARDLY ANY ASSASSINATIONS that affected the main plot. We could not gather ANY intelligence or plan a way to strike the Borgia's apart from the usual scripted missions.
Yeah I agree that scripted missions were a requirement for plot progression but it still felt lacking.
Instead we got "Exotic Gameplay"....BULL-****ING-****. It was perhaps the cheapest and the most unimaginative way to add gameplay. Simple on the rails missions which TBH were cheesy and a complete waste of time.

In short, The later games have progressively gotten better and deeper...in both Gameplay and Narrative..but they are losing a sense of REALISM...the FANTASY OF BEING AN ASSASSIN, FIRST AND FOREMOST. Ezio is a grand master now....I hope there are more STRATEGIC ASSASSINATIONS in ACR where he has to use the Brotherhood and take out those targets. He is the planner...the player is the planner.

Also, I see a LOT of the people here complaining about Combat and the game allowing a action approach and "the game not punishing the players"....You ALL sound like TEMPLARS. Why dictate HOW ANY player plays the game?? I hate this "Forced Approach". IMO the game mechanics in AC2 and ACB allow players to play their OWN way. Stealth or Combat (even a mixture) The FREEDOM of playing your own way is absolutely IMPERATIVE in AC.

Sure the AC combat was realistic, tough and Hardcore...I loved it. But the Combat system in AC2 allows the players who like to engage the enemy play and have fun instead of being punishingly difficult.....it also allows me to feel like a Badass http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif....which is always a good thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EmmaBemma
06-13-2011, 01:58 AM
Whilst there are aspects of AC1 that I think were better IMO the overall package was poorer than AC2 and AC:B.

The cities were not as detailed or life-like, and Altair, I'm sorry guys, was just bland. He seemed very much like a mere shell to insert Desmond into, whereas with Ezio you actually feel as if you're experiencing someone else's life. The voice-acting was not up to par either.

Although the assassinations were more challenging and fun, the gameplay was very repetitive. The variety that AC2 brings was welcome.

But I do want to return to the more stealth-orientated missions rather than the brazen, unbalanced combat of the recent games.

twangling
06-13-2011, 04:46 AM
Originally posted by BingChandler:
To be sure, AC1 is a deeply flawed game. Many of the sidequests were unbelievably repetitive, the unskippable cutscenes preceding every memory were unimaginably boring after the first viewing, and the enemy AI was just not refined at all. Many of these issues were addressed in AC2, and by extension AC:B; and yet AC1 still holds that special place in my heart.

I believe it is an aesthetic difference, an almost intangible feeling of being involved in AC1 that was lost somewhat in AC2, and then buried in AC:B. AC1 just feels so much more personal; the killings feel like they carry weight, combat carries the risk of defeat (although the counter-kill is still OP), and the game doesn't hold your hand the entire time making sure you don't screw up. Pick a fight with a gang of Templars? You might have to run. Fall fifty feet onto solid rock? You're dead. Run out of throwing knives? You have to work for more.

It's hard to explain, but when I play AC1 I feel like I'm playing as Altair, a medieval assassin. I'm not constantly being harassed to purchase upgrades; I don't have to upgrade my villa or hideout. It's just the story and me. Pure Assassin's Creed at its finest. Genre-defining in every single way, I still view AC1 as a masterpiece, all of its flaws notwithstanding.

Donít get me wrong, I still love AC2 and even that red-haired stepchild AC:B. But everything in those games feels so by the numbers, so many boxes to be checked. Killing is trivially easy, and at times the Creed is largely forgotten (just look at how the Creed is explained in AC1 vs. AC2). I feel detached from Ezio, not nearly as involved as I was with Altair. It just feels like an everymanís game, whereas AC1 is surely an acquired taste. AC1ís diehard embrace of its story and theme just wins out, IMHO, over AC2ís more general approach. And thatís even considering features I really enjoy about the two latest games, such as the Subject 16 memories and the Price of Persia-esque temples.
AGREED WITH YOUR EVERY SINGLE WORD except perhaps the PoP-esque tombs part. Greatly put! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
So shall we say AC1 is the more "cultish" of the series? With fans fewer in number but more ardent in their appreciation, whereas AC2/ACB appeal to a larger number of people yet not all of them love these installments for their uniqueness? For me, AC1 is the prime example of a simple but elegant game, appropriately focused and quite immersive. The later two are stuffed over the top with irrelevant side-quests (that's not called "add variations" in my dictionary), but the main assassinations and the "bad guys" are simply not as memorable.



Originally posted by EmmaBemma:
The cities were not as detailed or life-like, and Altair, I'm sorry guys, was just bland. He seemed very much like a mere shell to insert Desmond into, whereas with Ezio you actually feel as if you're experiencing someone else's life. The voice-acting was not up to par either.

Although the assassinations were more challenging and fun, the gameplay was very repetitive. The variety that AC2 brings was welcome.
Oh please, not again. Altair's character was built like that for a reason. And for me Ezio is too stereotypical and superhuman to be related to.

GeneralTrumbo
06-13-2011, 07:34 AM
Originally posted by Ass4ssin8me:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by protesthishero:
I see different people on this forum everyday starting topics on how much AC2 and ACB sucked when compared to AC1. While I don't necessarily disagree with all their points, is this really the case? While everybody seems to be focusing on the negatives of the latest installments, let's take a look at some of the features that made AC1 stink :

1. The fact that you had to press A(prayer posture)/walk slowly all the time when you were not on the rooftops. And you could blend in only with the silly prophet dudes, who are stationary for most of the time/ walk around in circles without any purpose. I mean, how silly does Altair look when he walks alone at an ultra-slow speed with his hands shaped together like a praying mantis. He looks more like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons than an assassin. Wouldn't the guards get a better look at him if he walks around like a friggin' turtle?
Talk about ******ed AI..

2. The lifelessness of pretty much every supposed living thing in the game, including the protagonist. Crowds are just THERE. Although the characters with actual dialogue provide some philosophical views and whatnot, most of the time you're just too distracted to actually listen, 'cause their mannerisms are extremely dull. You end up just zoning out into empty space during the dialogues. The characters have absolutely nothing human about them. No quirks, no interesting traits that stand out and most importantly...absolutely no sense of humour. Stuff that would make anybody go, "Are these guys for real!?"
3. Lack of fluidity in almost every aspect of the game : The story - Is there one?
Combat - Funny how everyone thinks the combat from AC1 is outstanding. All you have to do is block and counter. And it's not difficult at all, just frustrating and sluggish.
Stealth - Is there actually stealth in this game? The only stealthy moves in the whole game are assassinations-from-behind and kills made with throwing knives. Meanwhile, the first war machine mission from ACB serves as the perfect stealth mission. Haters gon' hate.
4. The length of the game. This is probably one of the shortest games ever made in the nexgen era. And don't even get me started on the lack of progression and the repetitiveness. What you do in the very first assassination is the exact same thing you do for the rest of the game.
5. Contrary to what everyone says, the game isn't immersive at all. Every five minutes you will find yourself saying, "Hmmm...I'm playing a video game" because everything about the game is so detached and dull.
Don't get me wrong, I liked playing AC1..once. The only parts of the game that were redeemable during my subsequent playthroughs were the music, graphics and ambience, which were undoubtedly stellar (probably the best in the series).
In conclusion, I think Ubi did a great job with the latest games. You actually feel like a part of something adventurous and grand, rather than *yawn* just playing a video game. I actually am in favor of a more cinematic experience even if it includes some amount of scripting because the gameplay just becomes that much more fluid. Revelations is shaping up to be great and I'm all for people having opinions and all but lately it has just become a case of the "Yeah dude, I like their first album but now they've sold out and they suck" bandwagon.
Like the AC series teaches us - Be a blade in the crowd....Don't be a part of it.

1. I agree, however it never bothered me.

2. Cause guards mindlessly walking around (until a bar fills) and then all of a sudden chasing you is life-like... In AC 1 they got suspicous, changed their stance for battle etc.

3. Please don't tell me you thought there was no story.. The story has gotten worse and worse as the AC story has progressed! In AC:B it was ZOMG TEMPLARS = BAD KEEEL THEM!

AC 2 was good until the end. The vault was too sci-fi.

And AC 1 ( yay ) Was a story of betrayal, and the fading faith that came from AltaÔr! Often it had you ( and him ) wondering if the Assassins were really the good guys, or the bad guys. Was it their job to kill? Were they killing the right people, and for the right reasons? How can you not see a good story?!!?!?!???

Combat - its possible to die. 'nuff said.

Stealth - ... Don't get me started on stealth. You can'tt possibly say the new installments had more stealth...

4. The first Assassination is the same as the rest... What!? Did you even play AC? In the first on you watch an arms dealer kill a man before, sneaking up and killing him. Then in the next one, you walk into a slavers trap, and chase him down. How are they the same?

5. Who says, "I must be playing a Video Game" whether it is immersive or not? And how is it "de-tatched"? I found it immersive, but either way this isn't a RPG.

I'm all for hating those on the bandwagon, but are we sure you are not just a fanboy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ezio's story may seemingly have gotten a bit bland, but as for Desmond's side of the story, I think things have gotten very interesting. I am VERY curious to see what is going on with Desmond in Revelations.

iN3krO
06-13-2011, 08:03 AM
Originally posted by shobhit7777777:
It had a combat system that made you feel like a highly trained Assassin and allowed the player to engage in combat and play more aggressively.

I play Ac1 agresively, but i'm skilled. First time i played AC i tried to be stealthy cuz i coudln't combat those ****ing noobs guards... now i just can rip off templars without problems ...

In AC2 you feel like a highly trained assassin but ezio was not an highly trained assassin... he was a noble that didn't ever knew how to use his hands to fight (federico says that finally ezio learnt to fight with hands) and is less skilled than altair (the guards are too ******ed and we can't really compare ezio to altair)...

An highly trained assassin (like altair) would be stealthy cuz being agresive is the worst way to acomplish a mission without problems... a fight could be the end of a life, a life made to serve the assassins... in Ac1 you felt like that, in Ac2 you felt like a god...

Think better before post such a stupid phrase -.-''


Originally posted by edzilla_551:
according to the critics around the web here is the average scores seen on metacritic-

PS3 versions-
assassins creed- 81/100
assassins creed 2-91/100
assassins creed brotherhood-90/100

xbox 360 versions-
assassins creed- 81/100
assassins creed 2-90/100
assassins creed brotherhood-89/100

so if we look at it this way, critics are saying the 2 latest games of series is better which is why it scored a higher percentage compared to the first assassins creed, ubisoft sees this as an indication that they are bringing out a better game, which also can make them confused about which feedback to listen to especially when the second game scored a very high score, i believe that ubisoft need to listen to both sides, the critics and the gamers, stealth and combat need to be improved and the assassinations also need to feel more engaging, personally thats the one thing i missed in ac1, there might be a chance to see these improvements implemented into ACR because we will play as altair again, and lets just say that altair and ezio are very different in terms of how they get their job done.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I doubt those guys are comparing the games to the promise of ubisoft.. They are comparing them to games like GTA IV.

Assassin's creed was promised to be the start of a new generation of gaming. Assassin's Creed 1 was the start of a new generation of gaming... Sadly cuz of those ****ing reviewers, now we got another ****ing game focused on action more than otherthing... I'm tired to be a god (niko never died in those wars looooool)... either did Mason from call of duty...

Assassin's Creed 1 made me felt like a real assassin, fearing the combats, being wise, investigating, chosing better ways, improvising when failing...

Assassin's Creed 2 and Brotherhood didn't gave me that feel -.-''

k20ml
06-13-2011, 08:31 AM
Originally posted by edzilla_551:
according to the critics around the web here is the average scores seen on metacritic-

PS3 versions-
assassins creed- 81/100
assassins creed 2-91/100
assassins creed brotherhood-90/100

xbox 360 versions-
assassins creed- 81/100
assassins creed 2-90/100
assassins creed brotherhood-89/100

so if we look at it this way, critics are saying the 2 latest games of series is better which is why it scored a higher percentage compared to the first assassins creed, ubisoft sees this as an indication that they are bringing out a better game, which also can make them confused about which feedback to listen to especially when the second game scored a very high score, i believe that ubisoft need to listen to both sides, the critics and the gamers, stealth and combat need to be improved and the assassinations also need to feel more engaging, personally thats the one thing i missed in ac1, there might be a chance to see these improvements implemented into ACR because we will play as altair again, and lets just say that altair and ezio are very different in terms of how they get their job done.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Scores are just insignificant numbers that measure only the surface of the game. There is more in the game that the developers stood for and knew people would enjoy, more in the game that is outstanding, that is substantial for the most part. Critics can provide little help now for the franchise knowing that AC is one of the biggest out there.

If the developers were trying to please the critics by creating a sandbox, open world game similar to GTA only it is set in ancient times with a twist of modernity, then they have successfully done so in AC 2. Now that AC grew larger than expected, it should provide its fans its original promises with creative and engaging, well, everything.

iN3krO
06-13-2011, 12:33 PM
Ac2 and AcB are just unrealistic... ezio has his knife belt always filled up as the bolts things...

Altair's belt changes if you throw knifes away... i don't mean if you can carry 20 knifes there are 20 knifes in the belt... i mean if u can carry 20 knifes and you throw one u will have 19 knifes and 1 emmpty place (unlike ac2/B)

shobhit7777777
06-14-2011, 12:33 AM
@Daniel-Gervide

Ac2 and AcB are just unrealistic... ezio has his knife belt always filled up as the bolts things...

Altair's belt changes if you throw knifes away... i don't mean if you can carry 20 knifes there are 20 knifes in the belt... i mean if u can carry 20 knifes and you throw one u will have 19 knifes and 1 emmpty place (unlike ac2/B)
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
You remind me of Dwight from 'The Office' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

protesthishero
06-14-2011, 05:11 AM
^
Haha, indeed. The subject matter of every single one of his posts is how AC1 is better than the other games and they're not even put forth in a sensible way like the other AC1 fans. It's always like " AC1 good! other games baaad! If you not concur, me call you out! Hulk smash!" Even in discussions where it's not relevant at all. It's almost like he just reads what the other AC1 fans constantly say and just relays them (in his own special way) in an effort to fit in or sound cool. So daniel_gerbil or whatever your name is buddy, it's not cool anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

kosmoscreed
06-14-2011, 05:36 AM
For me it was a master piece at that time, and I remark at that time because if you try to review the game after playing ACII, obviously there are a lot of things that the team could have done better.

AC1 it's like an infant, it's not perfect but the essence of what makes the AC series so great, it's there, and I enjoyed it every minute.

Lifeless in some cases, repetitive most of the time, yes, but I enjoyed AC1 for what it is, the skin of a juice apple.

samward
06-14-2011, 06:21 AM
Ok so this topic has over run far too many threads hahahha. I understand that if you don't like something then you have to voice it or it will never get changed.... but.... the onslaught seem a bit much.

It just seems to me if the fighting/ weapons/ health...or any other issues I have not mentioned, are bothering people this much, why not get together an official petition and submit it directly to Ubi? While everyone has the right to express themselves on here,there is nothing... or very little anyone can do...

If something has been official submitted to Ubi and it has not changed, well the I would say cross your fingers for ACR or just accept that Ubi is not interested in taking the game in that direction. I don't say that to be mean...just saying that maybe it is time to take a new approach or just focus on the stuff you like.

Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE AC1 but I also LOVE AC2/ ACB and I am bloody well excited for ACR. I just think just because we have seen new weapons introduced does not mean that aspects of the fighting or health system have not changed for the better. Lets wait for ACR to actually come out rather then assume the worst...

Sackprince
06-14-2011, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by samward:
Ok so this topic has over run far too many threads hahahha. I understand that if you don't like something then you have to voice it or it will never get changed.... but.... the onslaught seem a bit much.

It just seems to me if the fighting/ weapons/ health...or any other issues I have not mentioned, are bothering people this much, why not get together an official petition and submit it directly to Ubi? While everyone has the right to express themselves on here,there is nothing... or very little anyone can do...

If something has been official submitted to Ubi and it has not changed, well the I would say cross your fingers for ACR or just accept that Ubi is not interested in taking the game in that direction. I don't say that to be mean...just saying that maybe it is time to take a new approach or just focus on the stuff you like.

Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE AC1 but I also LOVE AC2/ ACB and I am bloody well excited for ACR. I just think just because we have seen new weapons introduced does not mean that aspects of the fighting or health system have not changed for the better. Lets wait for ACR to actually come out rather then assume the worst...

i agree. It probably will not change much in revelantions (because its a spinoff) but maybe in AC3 it will. And if you really dont like how the gameplay is in AC:R than dont buy revelantions and wait for AC3 and look how that works out

iN3krO
06-14-2011, 06:55 AM
Originally posted by protesthishero:
^
Haha, indeed. The subject matter of every single one of his posts is how AC1 is better than the other games and they're not even put forth in a sensible way like the other AC1 fans. It's always like " AC1 good! other games baaad! If you not concur, me call you out! Hulk smash!" Even in discussions where it's not relevant at all. It's almost like he just reads what the other AC1 fans constantly say and just relays them (in his own special way) in an effort to fit in or sound cool. So daniel_gerbil or whatever your name is buddy, it's not cool anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I never said Ac2/B were bad.. i just think the most important things from Ac1 have been forgoten there... I've never said everything add was bad, i pointed only those things that made those games worst than Ac1... i admit that Ac1 wasn't that good, but for me it's better than Ac2/b...

If i don't stop repeating Ac1 was better than Ac2/B (which in fact it was), ubisoft and everyone here won't notice it and the game will become at each release worst and worst... i just don't understand how many ppl prefer AcB rather than Ac1 (i do understand the preference of ac2 over than ac1).

shobhit7777777
06-14-2011, 06:56 AM
@Protesthishero

^
Haha, indeed. The subject matter of every single one of his posts is how AC1 is better than the other games and they're not even put forth in a sensible way like the other AC1 fans. It's always like " AC1 good! other games baaad! If you not concur, me call you out! Hulk smash!" Even in discussions where it's not relevant at all. It's almost like he just reads what the other AC1 fans constantly say and just relays them (in his own special way) in an effort to fit in or sound cool. So daniel_gerbil or whatever your name is buddy, it's not cool anymore

LOL http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I noticed XD!

I remember a scene in the Office where Dwight goes 'Hulk Smash' on someone for not watching Battlestar Gallactica http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif....at least Dwight is funny and likeable http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On Topic:

Each iteration has it's positives and negatives....it is simply a matter of time when the devs reach a perfect balance...hopefully with AC3 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

samward
06-14-2011, 07:06 AM
Originally posted by Sackprince:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by samward:
Ok so this topic has over run far too many threads hahahha. I understand that if you don't like something then you have to voice it or it will never get changed.... but.... the onslaught seem a bit much.

It just seems to me if the fighting/ weapons/ health...or any other issues I have not mentioned, are bothering people this much, why not get together an official petition and submit it directly to Ubi? While everyone has the right to express themselves on here,there is nothing... or very little anyone can do...

If something has been official submitted to Ubi and it has not changed, well the I would say cross your fingers for ACR or just accept that Ubi is not interested in taking the game in that direction. I don't say that to be mean...just saying that maybe it is time to take a new approach or just focus on the stuff you like.

Now don't get me wrong, I LOVE AC1 but I also LOVE AC2/ ACB and I am bloody well excited for ACR. I just think just because we have seen new weapons introduced does not mean that aspects of the fighting or health system have not changed for the better. Lets wait for ACR to actually come out rather then assume the worst...

i agree. It probably will not change much in revelantions (because its a spinoff) but maybe in AC3 it will. And if you really dont like how the gameplay is in AC:R than dont buy revelantions and wait for AC3 and look how that works out </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, I am so excited for all the new cool stuff and the progression of the story...it seems sad to to spend so much time going over all the negative stuff when there is much more great stuff about the games. November can not come soon enough http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Avva Mapia
06-14-2011, 07:56 AM
I understand why people would prefer ac2 over ac1 (especially if ac2 is the first installment they played in the series), and I think we can all agree on the flaws of AC1.

But people do have a point when they claim AC1 was the best so far.

In my opinion, it's like this:
AC1 is about an assassin, called Altair, while AC2 and ACB (and probably ACR) are about Ezio, who happens to be an assassin, and a Renessaince Rambo.

The series just got off the original track a bit to satisfy a greater public.

Despite all this, and all the debates going on which game was best, I think we can all agree here it's still an awesome franchise. Otherwise we woudn't be on this forum.

k20ml
06-14-2011, 08:11 AM
^ I so agree with you. Though My first game on the AC franchise was AC 2. AC was the best so far. You made me lol. Renaissance Rambo. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ILLusioNaire
06-14-2011, 09:54 AM
AC1 was awesome. Here's why:

1. Being the first of the series it contained the essence of Assassin's Creed. It focused on the "art of the kill", which is to say the preparation of the kill. I liked and enjoyed the prep that it took in AC1 to carry out the assassinations. It made them feel more epic and realistic, whereas in AC2 assassinations took less preperation, less personal involvment in discovering the whereabouts, strengths, and weaknesses of your target. Most of the information was given to you rather than it requiring you to search for it.

That's what I think I most liked from AC1. We weren't much dependant on anyone to find our targets. It was all us-all our work.

2. The atmosphere was superior to that of the ACII and ACB atmospheres. I really felt connected to the universe in which I played and felt like I was actually there in a way. There was something about the conversations as well that set the mood. Talks with Al Mualim and others were enjoyable because they revealed the philosophy and inner-thinkings of the assassin. This made you want to act more like an assassin. When I played AC1 I followed the creed much more closely. It became more than just a game in a way. That's how real the atmosphere was to me.

In a much more general sense, the crusading period was a great and interesting time to play in. I was filled with intrigue while climbing the ancient cities of Jerusalem and Damascus, even wonder. All the cities seemed to emit a certain vibe that connected you with the digital world. This captivated me. The only city in ACII that even remotely made me feel that connected to the playing-field was Venice.

3. Characters. Ones like Malik, Al Mualim, Robert de Sable, the Rafiqs, Vidic, and even Altair, all served to bolster the strength of the rich atmosphere. These characters were, in my opinion, just far more interesting than the ones from ACII and ACB, ones like La Volpe, Mario, the rest of the Renaissance assassins and especially the main bad guys. I will say though that Leonardo was amongst my favorite characters in ACII, and the AC universe for that matter. However, the characters in general from ACII just don't compare with the ones from AC1. Al Mualim was a perfect villain, hidden in the shadows even while in plain sight. And Malik and Altair are great together, whether arguing or not. Vidic's talks also made things more interesting in the present-day. And I found my incarceration as Desmond was far more interesting than my freedom with the Assassins in ACII.

And lastly, the journey that transformed Altair from a selfish, prideful, gloating, know-it-all, to a more humble, respecting, and subservient assassin was awesome. A lot of people talk about how Ezio's character changed far more than Altair's, which I wouldn't say is entirely wrong, however, I think they fail to see that Altair went through much more character development than they chose to see.

I could go on, but to sum it all up, it is mainly the essence, atmosphere, and characters overall that make AC1 stand out as it does. The story is also interesting as well, although, I didn't care to elaborate my opinion on it as I did my other points. I would also like to say that it is really the small things about AC1 that make it awesome as well. I liked the overall style of the animus in AC1 better than ACII. The voice, the icons, everything.

So, that kind of sums it all up.

iN3krO
06-14-2011, 10:20 AM
^ Agree with everything

I would only had 1 thing over that.
I don't know if this is athmosfere related or just a realistic point.
The combat was much harder than ac2/B (it wasn't hard but comparing to ac2/B it was a pain), it made me feel the fear that altair had for life, it made me understand why assassins go thought the shadow, it made me understand better why altair used to prepare more the assassinations...

I remember after the 4th assasination, altair got to the bureau and it converstaion with the rafiq was wonderfull... Altair told the rafiq that he was feeling something and rafiq told him to not reject those feels of simpaty and other things to his enimies, he also said that those feels is what makes altair a true man. In Ac2 i don't remember ezio got those feels for any of the targets, plus, when he kills the little pazzi (don't remember the name -.-) he start kicking him in the ground o.o (plus, ezio didn't understand at all the intention of the templars (beside the intention of rodrigo which others templars didn't knew about).

Good post ILLusioNaire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ShaneO7K
06-14-2011, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
^ Agree with everything

I would only had 1 thing over that.
I don't know if this is athmosfere related or just a realistic point.
The combat was much harder than ac2/B (it wasn't hard but comparing to ac2/B it was a pain), it made me feel the fear that altair had for life, it made me understand why assassins go thought the shadow, it made me understand better why altair used to prepare more the assassinations...

I remember after the 4th assasination, altair got to the bureau and it converstaion with the rafiq was wonderfull... Altair told the rafiq that he was feeling something and rafiq told him to not reject those feels of simpaty and other things to his enimies, he also said that those feels is what makes altair a true man. In Ac2 i don't remember ezio got those feels for any of the targets, plus, when he kills the little pazzi (don't remember the name -.-) he start kicking him in the ground o.o (plus, ezio didn't understand at all the intention of the templars (beside the intention of rodrigo which others templars didn't knew about).

Good post ILLusioNaire http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Ezio wasn't an assassin until near the end of AC2. So this wasn't something he really had to do, it was more like he stumbled across the templars during his vengence for the execution of his family.

iN3krO
06-14-2011, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
Ezio wasn't an assassin until near the end of AC2. So this wasn't something he really had to do, it was more like he stumbled across the templars during his vengence for the execution of his family.

well, i would like to know the intention of my enemies in top before start killing them for revenge...

Plus, not being an assassin isn't reason for don't have anything beside hate to his enemies, look uberto, if you read the letter you got after killing him, you will understand him better but Ezio's actions doesn't seem to be the actions of someone that did read it and all the other letters lefts... I would prefer some kind of conversentions after killing the guys where they say +/- what you see in the letter instead of havint to read that letters :X

Also, why does ezio trust in everyone that stands in his front? If an unkown guy talks to me in the street and says my name i would start running away :P

ShaneO7K
06-14-2011, 11:46 AM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
Ezio wasn't an assassin until near the end of AC2. So this wasn't something he really had to do, it was more like he stumbled across the templars during his vengence for the execution of his family.

well, i would like to know the intention of my enemies in top before start killing them for revenge...

Plus, not being an assassin isn't reason for don't have anything beside hate to his enemies, look uberto, if you read the letter you got after killing him, you will understand him better but Ezio's actions doesn't seem to be the actions of someone that did read it and all the other letters lefts... I would prefer some kind of conversentions after killing the guys where they say +/- what you see in the letter instead of havint to read that letters :X

Also, why does ezio trust in everyone that stands in his front? If an unkown guy talks to me in the street and says my name i would start running away :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Apart from it helping the story in AC1, it doesn't make much sense to stab someone in the neck and then stop for conversation while you are surrounded by their guards who seem to be very nice people to not interupt the conversation.

iN3krO
06-14-2011, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dead_gunner187:
Ezio wasn't an assassin until near the end of AC2. So this wasn't something he really had to do, it was more like he stumbled across the templars during his vengence for the execution of his family.

well, i would like to know the intention of my enemies in top before start killing them for revenge...

Plus, not being an assassin isn't reason for don't have anything beside hate to his enemies, look uberto, if you read the letter you got after killing him, you will understand him better but Ezio's actions doesn't seem to be the actions of someone that did read it and all the other letters lefts... I would prefer some kind of conversentions after killing the guys where they say +/- what you see in the letter instead of havint to read that letters :X

Also, why does ezio trust in everyone that stands in his front? If an unkown guy talks to me in the street and says my name i would start running away :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Apart from it helping the story in AC1, it doesn't make much sense to stab someone in the neck and then stop for conversation while you are surrounded by their guards who seem to be very nice people to not interupt the conversation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

when i killed the first guy (garnier i believe) i thought the same but than, i've enjoyed so much those conversentions that i didn't really care about that. If we have unrealistic combat in Ac2/B why wouldn't we have guys speaking after being stabbed in the neck? Or maybe, it would be nice if we transfer their souls to our sword? (LOOOOOL) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Anaklusmos1995
06-14-2011, 12:04 PM
I liked the way you would learn your target's weaknesess and get maps of the place where you intended to assassinate your target, back in AC 1, but I also do like the other games. There is only one flaw that i found in AC Brotherhood, that I really hope won't come in AC Revelations: the camera moves for itself. Seriously, in AC 2, when you lotted a target, collected some treasure from boxes or even free-runned around, you could move the camera freely. That doesn't happen in ACB and, as a result, the camera trembles a lot, specially when you try to do sharp turns..... It is horrible, specially when you're trying to free-run through some ruins and columns

iN3krO
06-14-2011, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by Anaklusmos1995:
I liked the way you would learn your target's weaknesess and get maps of the place where you intended to assassinate your target, back in AC 1, but I also do like the other games. There is only one flaw that i found in AC Brotherhood, that I really hope won't come in AC Revelations: the camera moves for itself. Seriously, in AC 2, when you lotted a target, collected some treasure from boxes or even free-runned around, you could move the camera freely. That doesn't happen in ACB and, as a result, the camera trembles a lot, specially when you try to do sharp turns..... It is horrible, specially when you're trying to free-run through some ruins and columns

This topoc is to discuss how good was ac1.... but i must disagree with you saying that AcB only had that flaw :S

Mic_92
06-14-2011, 12:38 PM
It is almost universally seen as a bad game from what I've seen in other sites.
Sure it introduced the gameplay mechanics and had a great story but overall it really was a bad, poorly executed game.

However there's no point in even stating that opinion because fanboys here will tear you apart.

They prefer doing the same "investigations" over and over again then chose from two to three ways kill a target and cry on this site about how much the next games suck.

inb4madpeople.

El_Sjietah
06-14-2011, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by Mic_92:
It is almost universally seen as a bad game from what I've seen in other sites.
Sure it introduced the gameplay mechanics and had a great story but overall it really was a bad, poorly executed game.

However there's no point in even stating that opinion because fanboys here will tear you apart.

They prefer doing the same "investigations" over and over again then chose from two to three ways kill a target and cry on this site about how much the next games suck.

inb4madpeople.
Might want to read the thread before posting in it.

Most of the complaints have been about the combat getting progressively easier and the focus on absurd action sequences. Many of us "fanboys" even admit that the repetitiveness was indeed boring.

The main issue is that AC1 was about assassins and every game after that has been about super heroes.

iN3krO
06-14-2011, 12:45 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 Mic_92:
It is almost universally seen as a bad game from what I've seen in other sites.
Sure it introduced the gameplay mechanics and had a great story but overall it really was a bad, poorly executed game.

However there's no point in even stating that opinion because fanboys here will tear you apart.

They prefer doing the same "investigations" over and over again then chose from two to three ways kill a target and cry on this site about how much the next games suck.

inb4madpeople.
Might want to read the thread before posting in it.

Most of the complaints have been about the combat getting progressively easier and the focus on absurd action sequences. Many of us "fanboys" even admit that the repetitiveness was indeed boring.

The main issue is that AC1 was about assassins and every game after that has been about super heroes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep... someone told us to check gametrailers description of the genre of the games:

Ac1: Adventure, Action, Stleaht
Ac2: Adventure, Action
AcB: Action

What will be AcR about? Modern Warfare? Those explosions in the trailer looks so (and ezio shoting without using the right hand on the hidden pistol -.-'')

EmmaBemma
06-14-2011, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by twangling:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EmmaBemma:
The cities were not as detailed or life-like, and Altair, I'm sorry guys, was just bland. He seemed very much like a mere shell to insert Desmond into, whereas with Ezio you actually feel as if you're experiencing someone else's life. The voice-acting was not up to par either.

Although the assassinations were more challenging and fun, the gameplay was very repetitive. The variety that AC2 brings was welcome.
Oh please, not again. Altair's character was built like that for a reason. And for me Ezio is too stereotypical and superhuman to be related to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, this again. I'm sorry but I do not see a good reason for making such a boring, two-dimensional character other than poor characterization. I understand he is a born assassin and I don't expect him to start cracking jokes or charming every woman he meets like Ezio, but I would have appreciated some depth to Altair's backstory and personality. There were a few hints here or there but otherwise it was very lacking.

Ezio is hardly perfect but I feel that at least an effort was made to make the character interesting.

EDIT: I should probably mention that there are aspects of AC1 I wish they would return to.
* Investigating the target and planning the assassination; no being forced to do the mission in a specific way
* More focus on stealth as opposed to combat
* Smarter AI for guards... although, I don't think they should be as suspicious as they were in AC1
* Less weapons - or rather a limit on the amount of weapons/supplies that can be carried at any one time. In AC2 I feel like a magician pulling tricks out of a hat at times.
* On a similar point, less armour. Perhaps a trade off between speed/agility and high health i.e. you can wear that chunky metal armour and get max health but you'll have no hope in hell of sprinting over rooftops if you do

iN3krO
06-14-2011, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by EmmaBemma:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by twangling:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EmmaBemma:
The cities were not as detailed or life-like, and Altair, I'm sorry guys, was just bland. He seemed very much like a mere shell to insert Desmond into, whereas with Ezio you actually feel as if you're experiencing someone else's life. The voice-acting was not up to par either.

Although the assassinations were more challenging and fun, the gameplay was very repetitive. The variety that AC2 brings was welcome.
Oh please, not again. Altair's character was built like that for a reason. And for me Ezio is too stereotypical and superhuman to be related to. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, this again. I'm sorry but I do not see a good reason for making such a boring, two-dimensional character other than poor characterization. I understand he is a born assassin and I don't expect him to start cracking jokes or charming every woman he meets like Ezio, but I would have appreciated some depth to Altair's backstory and personality. There were a few hints here or there but otherwise it was very lacking.

Ezio is hardly perfect but I feel that at least an effort was made to make the character interesting. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't believe ezio is that perfect but these are just opinions...

EmmaBemma
06-14-2011, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by daniel_gervide:
Don't believe ezio is that perfect but these i just opinions...
Actually, I said he's hardly perfect. I don't think Ezio is perfect at all.

El_Sjietah
06-14-2011, 03:06 PM
Distant, calculating and pragmatic make a personallity just as much as any other traits. It's just a personallity that's harder to relate to for most people.

And the lack of background is what made his character. If Al Mualim had told Altair in one of their conversations that his father and mother did this and that, but were killed in a raid, after which Altair was taken in as an orphan, where, in training, it turned out he had a talent for being an assassin, which was the premise for the Master Assassin he eventually became, it would ruin the entire person.

Altair was designed to be the perfect assassin. Any emotional baggage would only detract from that.

twangling
06-14-2011, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by EmmaBemma:
Yes, this again. I'm sorry but I do not see a good reason for making such a boring, two-dimensional character other than poor characterization. I understand he is a born assassin and I don't expect him to start cracking jokes or charming every woman he meets like Ezio, but I would have appreciated some depth to Altair's backstory and personality. There were a few hints here or there but otherwise it was very lacking.

Well, since you want to dwell on the topic... I posted this about two years ago:

Originally posted by twangling:
A character may be presented with all sorts of details from background to relations and incentives, when you still feel him dead boring, as much as you may feel intrigued by a character with little personal information provided.

As for Altair, what is left unsaid or unexplained to me doesn't hurt in the least. I don't care if he kills Templars by some command or out of what the achievement implies as "personal vendetta". I don't care if he joined the brotherhood as a child to avenge something or simply to live on. I don't care I know nothing of the reason he's looking for Adha, but the fact that he is and that it's well known to one of his friends shows he does care, and does have a life outside killing per se. I don't need to be told whys or hows to think him an awesome character. And it's not like Altair doesn't have any character at all. This guy is intense and focused and driven, all out to whatever he's up to, to the extent of obstinacy; he's straightforward, honest, and never lied once to whomever he talked with; he's an introvert that thinks a lot as well as soundly.
And to this day, I still maintain the same opinion.

Simply put:
1) Backstory ? Character.
Yes a good backstory does help creating character, but that's about it. Backstory itself never automatically grants personality to someone. It's the reaction to events that defines who you are. Throughout AC1, Altair's reaction changes and matures. You see how his encounters with different people leave marks on him. But after all that Ezio has gone through, he still takes the same approach to things over and over ... and over again. No backstory can make up for that.

2) Being a dandy is NOT the only personality one can have.
Some people are simply more restrained than others. Some people simply adopts a no-nonsense attitude. Ezio, luckily, is not one of them. But you can't say if someone expresses their emotions more subtly they don't have emotions at all.

And when I say "not again", I mean not "Altair vs Ezio again". The problem here is "Assassin's Creed vs Ezio's Creed" to me. I want more about the Assassins, capitalized A and plural S. I don't want the retell of a not-so-original character's life in all sorts of relevant or irrelevant details. And though I don't actively hate Ezio, his personal side of life is already given too much to my likings. But that's just me.

dfle3
06-15-2011, 12:04 AM
Didn't read your post, but here's my take...AC1 sucked, big time. It was as dull as dishwater...actually, it made dishwater seem more appealing than champagne.

Being dull is very bad. Combined with being glitchy as Hell on PS3 made this game truly awful...no other game has frozen up on me so much ever. So, apart from the dull rage and the freeze rage, there was the "God...now I have to replay the entire thing again because my console froze" rage.

ACII is the best of the series.

ACB brings back many of the uber-suck elements of AC1.

Scores:

AC - 5/10 (very generous score)

ACII - 6.5/10

ACB - 1/10. That's because right now I think that beating the final boss is impossible...before this fight I would have scored the game 6/10. But 1/10 is fair because the game makers play dirty...they also force you to play the game their way, which sucks. I want the option to play it my way...now I'm stuck in a seemingly unwinnable fight to finish the game and no ability to just go back and explore the game and stat up...and no, restarting the game from scratch is not an option...why torture yourself?

DavidPV86
06-15-2011, 01:25 AM
Each AC had better reviews and more sales than its predecessor, for example, many of my friends say that even though they appreciated the setting on AC1( my favorite by the way), they were bored by the monotonous missions and its dialogues.

And I may not like 100% the new direction, +action and less stealth, but I have come to understand it.

edzilla_551
06-15-2011, 01:33 AM
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 Mic_92:
It is almost universally seen as a bad game from what I've seen in other sites.
Sure it introduced the gameplay mechanics and had a great story but overall it really was a bad, poorly executed game.

However there's no point in even stating that opinion because fanboys here will tear you apart.

They prefer doing the same "investigations" over and over again then chose from two to three ways kill a target and cry on this site about how much the next games suck.

inb4madpeople.
Might want to read the thread before posting in it.

Most of the complaints have been about the combat getting progressively easier and the focus on absurd action sequences. Many of us "fanboys" even admit that the repetitiveness was indeed boring.

The main issue is that AC1 was about assassins and every game after that has been about super heroes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

what the hell are you talking about, how is ezio a super hero give me 1 reason you think that lol

JGowan
06-15-2011, 02:10 AM
For me, AC1 was a bit of a let down as I began with AC2. I was already use to its way of doing things. What I felt mostly was the repetition made the game tedious. Also, the Map in general was a lot harder to understand as well as the lower right-hand compass. It was vastly improved in AC2 and ACB made it better still, with being able to zoom in so far that no icons ever overlapped any others (a pretty big problem in AC2.)

One aspect that I really didn't like (or understand) was why Altair had an American accent. Ezio was Italian. Why didn't Altair had a smooth Middle Eastern accent? I could totally see Naveen Andrews who played "Sayid" on the tv show "LOST" do a great job as Altair. It was just a detail that rubbed me the wrong way every time Altair spoke. I hope this detail is changed in ACR.

In general, even though I had played through AC2 and had done just about everything except all feather-finding, I found myself wondering what to do as AC1 (to me) was hard to follow in what to do next. I didn't find that at all a problem with AC2 and ACB. I'm not a n00b at gaming. Figuring out what the game wanted me to accomplish next sometime seemed harder than I think it should've.

Now, as has been mentioned, graphics, story, music and Altair's animation were incredible and made finishing the game a no-brainer. I finished and was glad I did. However, I'll say this. I've tried to play through it again and just got bored with it. The story is just so much more immersive with Ezio.

AC1 had its place. It is a fine game, but I find myself (when recommending the series) telling people to play AC2 and ACB first and then go back to AC1. I think that it's a really good game and encourage everyone to play it, but just not in cronilogical order.

wiccanlovely
06-15-2011, 05:16 AM
Originally posted by JGowan:
For me, AC1 was a bit of a let down as I began with AC2. I was already use to its way of doing things. What I felt mostly was the repetition made the game tedious. Also, the Map in general was a lot harder to understand as well as the lower right-hand compass. It was vastly improved in AC2 and ACB made it better still, with being able to zoom in so far that no icons ever overlapped any others (a pretty big problem in AC2.)

One aspect that I really didn't like (or understand) was why Altair had an American accent. Ezio was Italian. Why didn't Altair had a smooth Middle Eastern accent? I could totally see Naveen Andrews who played "Sayid" on the tv show "LOST" do a great job as Altair. It was just a detail that rubbed me the wrong way every time Altair spoke. I hope this detail is changed in ACR.

In general, even though I had played through AC2 and had done just about everything except all feather-finding, I found myself wondering what to do as AC1 (to me) was hard to follow in what to do next. I didn't find that at all a problem with AC2 and ACB. I'm not a n00b at gaming. Figuring out what the game wanted me to accomplish next sometime seemed harder than I think it should've.

Now, as has been mentioned, graphics, story, music and Altair's animation were incredible and made finishing the game a no-brainer. I finished and was glad I did. However, I'll say this. I've tried to play through it again and just got bored with it. The story is just so much more immersive with Ezio.

AC1 had its place. It is a fine game, but I find myself (when recommending the series) telling people to play AC2 and ACB first and then go back to AC1. I think that it's a really good game and encourage everyone to play it, but just not in chronological order.

See I agree with you completely, it was the same for me. I thought the plot for AC1 was brilliant as was the mood and environment and I actually loved a lot the side characters (I adore Malik, that one-armed badass) but for some reason I spent most of the time playing it running around confused and wanting to smack Altair across Syria. Not to mention I get hella motion sick from the camera screw worse in 1 then I did in the others. It made it hard for me to fully enjoy it.

El_Sjietah
06-15-2011, 06:23 AM
Originally posted by edzilla_551:
what the hell are you talking about, how is ezio a super hero give me 1 reason you think that lol

He's pretty much Renaissance Batman.

Gadgets?
Check!
Hand-to-hand expert?
Check!
Great physical strength?
Check!
Glider ability?
Check! (parachute)
Highly intelligent?
Check! (or at least he's supposed to be according to canon)
Son of a wealthy father?
Check!
Said father got killed, which made him vow revenge on who was responsible?
Check!
An inventor as a close friend?
Check!
Fights for good, even though some people don't understand or agree with his methods (mainly law enforcement)?
Check!
Ridiculous costume that's supposed to hide his identity?
Check!

Need I continue?

PhiIs1618033
06-15-2011, 06:33 AM
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 edzilla_551:
what the hell are you talking about, how is ezio a super hero give me 1 reason you think that lol

He's pretty much Renaissance Batman.

Gadgets?
Check!
Hand-to-hand expert?
Check!
Great physical strength?
Check!
Glider ability?
Check! (parachute)
Highly intelligent?
Check! (or at least he's supposed to be according to canon)
Son of a wealthy father?
Check!
An inventor as a close friend?
Check!
Fights for good, even though some people don't understand or agree with his methods (mainly law enforcement)?
Check!
Ridiculous costume that's supposed to hide his identity?
Check!

Need I continue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1

I thought AC1 the best of franchise, even though I started with AC2. I read about turning the GPS off and so I did. The result was astonishing.
Unless people were talking to me during the cutscenes, I always knew what to do and it was fairly obvious most of the time anyway. I absolutely loved the hell out of it, planning, executing and escaping. The holy trinity.
Sadly, AC2 (while good in its own right, like story and varied gameplay) dropped two out of three. Then along came AC:B, which pretty much dropped the executing part as well. Safe to say, AC:B is my least favourite. :P

iN3krO
06-15-2011, 07:02 AM
Originally posted by PhiIs1618033...:
<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 edzilla_551:
what the hell are you talking about, how is ezio a super hero give me 1 reason you think that lol

He's pretty much Renaissance Batman.

Gadgets?
Check!
Hand-to-hand expert?
Check!
Great physical strength?
Check!
Glider ability?
Check! (parachute)
Highly intelligent?
Check! (or at least he's supposed to be according to canon)
Son of a wealthy father?
Check!
An inventor as a close friend?
Check!
Fights for good, even though some people don't understand or agree with his methods (mainly law enforcement)?
Check!
Ridiculous costume that's supposed to hide his identity?
Check!

Need I continue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
+1

I thought AC1 the best of franchise, even though I started with AC2. I read about turning the GPS off and so I did. The result was astonishing.
Unless people were talking to me during the cutscenes, I always knew what to do and it was fairly obvious most of the time anyway. I absolutely loved the hell out of it, planning, executing and escaping. The holy trinity.
Sadly, AC2 (while good in its own right, like story and varied gameplay) dropped two out of three. Then along came AC:B, which pretty much dropped the executing part as well. Safe to say, AC:B is my least favourite. :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1 too

I had a friend that played Ac1 for a while (investigations only) and thought the game suck, i've introduced him into Ac2 he played 1 hour and liked it, than i had opened Ac1 and i've played for a while Ac1 and he just felt the gameplay wonderfull and start playing it.
Now he is fan of the series, he prefers Ac2 rather than Ac1 but he thinks AcB is not that good cuz it's much more distant from Ac1 than Ac2.

I can't recall for a favorite game, i found them all great, i just think that Ac1 was more likely an Assassin's Creed game rather than the others and that's why i defend Ac1 so much :X

machinista
06-15-2011, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by CrazyShrapnel:
10 minute chases... I miss those. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Guards give up too easily now in my opinion. It doesn't even matter that they search hiding places since I've usually escaped before I even reach one.

Although atleast AC2 and ACB didn't freeze on me nearly as much... When I played AC1 on PS3 I actually had to Google how to stop it freezing every time I entered Damascus. It froze another 8 times throughout my playthrough. I've never had a game freeze up as much as AC1. Did anyone else experience this?

AC1 froze on me frequently, but I assumed at the time that it happened because my computer couldn't handle the game. Huh, so the issue is with the game.

sassinscreed
06-18-2011, 02:08 PM
first time i played it i thought it was awesome

but now i played it again after finishing ac:2 and ac:b an found out that this game is really boooooooring

i'm glad that ac:2 is hundred times better

iN3krO
06-18-2011, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by machinista:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by CrazyShrapnel:
10 minute chases... I miss those. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif Guards give up too easily now in my opinion. It doesn't even matter that they search hiding places since I've usually escaped before I even reach one.

Although atleast AC2 and ACB didn't freeze on me nearly as much... When I played AC1 on PS3 I actually had to Google how to stop it freezing every time I entered Damascus. It froze another 8 times throughout my playthrough. I've never had a game freeze up as much as AC1. Did anyone else experience this?

AC1 froze on me frequently, but I assumed at the time that it happened because my computer couldn't handle the game. Huh, so the issue is with the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My pc can handle with the game perfectly..

Uroboro89
06-19-2011, 03:13 AM
No doubt AC:2 is the best of the series. The combat system is much improved from the first series. The plot was a huge step forward and initiate the ongoing discussions about the whole Assassin/Templar saga.

Brotherhood was bit boring. The enemies arent really related to the Templar order.

I hope we get solid villains from Revelations.

SAVMATIC
06-19-2011, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by protesthishero:
I see different people on this forum everyday starting topics on how much AC2 and ACB sucked when compared to AC1. While I don't necessarily disagree with all their points, is this really the case? While everybody seems to be focusing on the negatives of the latest installments, let's take a look at some of the features that made AC1 stink :

1. The fact that you had to press A(prayer posture)/walk slowly all the time when you were not on the rooftops. And you could blend in only with the silly prophet dudes, who are stationary for most of the time/ walk around in circles without any purpose. I mean, how silly does Altair look when he walks alone at an ultra-slow speed with his hands shaped together like a praying mantis. He looks more like Mr. Burns from the Simpsons than an assassin. Wouldn't the guards get a better look at him if he walks around like a friggin' turtle?
Talk about ******ed AI..

2. The lifelessness of pretty much every supposed living thing in the game, including the protagonist. Crowds are just THERE. Although the characters with actual dialogue provide some philosophical views and whatnot, most of the time you're just too distracted to actually listen, 'cause their mannerisms are extremely dull. You end up just zoning out into empty space during the dialogues. The characters have absolutely nothing human about them. No quirks, no interesting traits that stand out and most importantly...absolutely no sense of humour. Stuff that would make anybody go, "Are these guys for real!?"
3. Lack of fluidity in almost every aspect of the game : The story - Is there one?
Combat - Funny how everyone thinks the combat from AC1 is outstanding. All you have to do is block and counter. And it's not difficult at all, just frustrating and sluggish.
Stealth - Is there actually stealth in this game? The only stealthy moves in the whole game are assassinations-from-behind and kills made with throwing knives. Meanwhile, the first war machine mission from ACB serves as the perfect stealth mission. Haters gon' hate.
4. The length of the game. This is probably one of the shortest games ever made in the nexgen era. And don't even get me started on the lack of progression and the repetitiveness. What you do in the very first assassination is the exact same thing you do for the rest of the game.
5. Contrary to what everyone says, the game isn't immersive at all. Every five minutes you will find yourself saying, "Hmmm...I'm playing a video game" because everything about the game is so detached and dull.
Don't get me wrong, I liked playing AC1..once. The only parts of the game that were redeemable during my subsequent playthroughs were the music, graphics and ambience, which were undoubtedly stellar (probably the best in the series).
In conclusion, I think Ubi did a great job with the latest games. You actually feel like a part of something adventurous and grand, rather than *yawn* just playing a video game. I actually am in favor of a more cinematic experience even if it includes some amount of scripting because the gameplay just becomes that much more fluid. Revelations is shaping up to be great and I'm all for people having opinions and all but lately it has just become a case of the "Yeah dude, I like their first album but now they've sold out and they suck" bandwagon.
Like the AC series teaches us - Be a blade in the crowd....Don't be a part of it.
I agree. AC1 is mostly crap, that why they changed it so much in AC2, duh. Theres just a lot of losers on here that have an immature attachement to AC1 but I cant even play that ****

iN3krO
06-19-2011, 06:46 AM
@SAVMATIC did you ever understand the first game? it looks u didnt :S

For the others who says that Ac2 was the best game in the franchise, i won't agree neither disagree, i will only say 2 things:

While main character combat was improved (double hiden blade, poison, hand combos, steal weapon, gun) it was also downgraded (unrealistic meele attacks with hidden blade, short blade + throwing knife combo disappeard (even in brotherhood it's not as perfect as in ac1)).
Also the guards took a step ahead (archtype guards) but they also took a step backward (no more REALLY AI)

The story o ezio in Ac2 only had a problem for me: He trusted everyone who stoped in front of him, that's just, hmmm, STUPID?

@protesthishero Both ac1 and ac2 looked as real as each other... only that in ac1, everyone took his brotherhood more seriously unlike in ac2 that they were only guys seeking for power (in ac1 they want to get a better world but thought bad methods)

El_Sjietah
06-19-2011, 06:59 AM
Originally posted by SAVMATIC:
I agree. AC1 is mostly crap, that why they changed it so much in AC2, duh. Theres just a lot of losers on here that have an immature attachement to AC1 but I cant even play that ****
Yeh, I wish I was as mature as you.

oOAltairOo
06-19-2011, 09:22 AM
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 edzilla_551:
what the hell are you talking about, how is ezio a super hero give me 1 reason you think that lol

He's pretty much Renaissance Batman.

Gadgets?
Check!
Hand-to-hand expert?
Check!
Great physical strength?
Check!
Glider ability?
Check! (parachute)
Highly intelligent?
Check! (or at least he's supposed to be according to canon)
Son of a wealthy father?
Check!
Said father got killed, which made him vow revenge on who was responsible?
Check!
An inventor as a close friend?
Check!
Fights for good, even though some people don't understand or agree with his methods (mainly law enforcement)?
Check!
Ridiculous costume that's supposed to hide his identity?
Check!

Need I continue? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's ridiculous! But sadly, true.

I feel like AltaÔr was an attempt to create a unique character. Ezio is just clichť all over.

It's just like with the rest of the game.
Now they just serve us everything on a plate.

They make a really simple "revenge story".
They make a really easy combat system.
They make really un-challenging gameplay.

And they just keep making less and less interesting games.

Please prove me wrong with AC:R Ubisoft!

Sporkfighter
06-19-2011, 04:49 PM
AC1 set the stage for a new series and we really innovative but it was definitely not better that AC2 and Brotherhood. I actually just played through it again earlier this week and I did have fun and enjoyed the different cities and the fact that each one had unique citizens and stuff. But the game was extremely repetitive and all the people that whine and moan about not having the investigations are kind of dumb honestly becaues you have to investigate in AC2 and Brotherhood they just aren't called investigations missions, they happen through the story and you have to do them... more of them wouldn't be a bad thing but they didn't disappear.

Machiavelli331
06-19-2011, 05:07 PM
I like all the AC games from 1 to 3 ! :-) Can't wait for revelation to come out in November... :-)

JGowan
06-25-2011, 09:00 PM
One thing that bothers me about AC1 is that when you get to Memory Block #4, even though the map screen tells you to climb View points to sync to show you the 3/6 investigations that you must do in order to receive your instructions, you don't get them, no matter if you sync every single View point. This is confusing and caused me to wonder if I was doing something wrong. I shouldn't have to wonder if the game is just telling me the wrong them and continue to try and "figure it all out" -- if the instructions contradict what you're suppose to do, there's a problem. I finally broke down and went to the internet on this ( http://www.supercheats.com/gui...d/memoryblock4.shtml (http://www.supercheats.com/guides/assassins-creed/memoryblock4.shtml) ) -- I wasn't happy about this because I don't like the help. I do buy the Piggyback Guidebooks because they're so damn awesome but I only look at them afterwards or to see the awesome pictures. I didn't have an AC1 book, but the link was very helpful.

I am playing through AC1 right now to really solidify my thoughts on the game. I am having a great time and am glad that I kept it and never traded it in at some point like I do with other games from time to time.

Calvarok
06-25-2011, 10:39 PM
Ezio is far less cliche than Altair, actually.

Anyways, I've played through AC1 2.5 times, and I can say that it had great mechanics, although some were too under-developed, or didn't work right, great Assassination set ups, and all of that was held together by lazy game design. Guard AI was pretty terrible, investigations were the same menial tasks recycled, and you had to synch 30000 viewpoints to get them all.

The story was predictable, Al Mualim is the most obviously evil guy ever. Altair was melodramatic, and sounded the same when doing any melodramatic thing, no matter if it was killing a target, talking back to his master, or interrogating. He disobeyed the creed for literally no reason, and then he became loyal to Al Mualim to a fault, even with Al giving off intense evil vibes.

Altair is a good idea, but going through a whole game with the same moody assassin is really intolerable.

Ezio is a gentleman, intelligent, honorable, trained in an unorthodox manner, and thus often taking an unorthodox approach to things. He's a brutal fighter, but knows the value of flying under the radar. He respects people who have opinions, but not people who force those opinions on others.

I'm sure Altair is a much more rounded character than we saw of him in the game. The Codex from AC2 is proof of that. Revelations will shed some light on what he was really like. It's just that the story of AC1 called for him to basically be a blank slate with a blade. I don't think that's what he is.

Overall, AC1 did a lot of cool things, but assassinations or no, I was nowhere near as good as AC2, which consolidated a lot of gameplay systems, and held together the important parts of the story with a lot more than just investigations, synching, and flag collecting.

Animuses
06-25-2011, 10:59 PM
Assassin's Creed is a flawed and repetitive game... and I love it. I used to like it a lot more before Assassin's Creed II. AC2 ruined the game for me. It's too good of a game and all the flaws from AC have vanished in AC2... I guess I ended up talking about AC2 more. I do that.

xCr0wnedNorris
06-25-2011, 11:19 PM
AC1 is a great game.
AC2 is better story-wise and gameplay-wise.
ACB is better gameplay-wise but not as good story-wise.
Overall: They're all good.

itsamea-mario
06-26-2011, 01:45 AM
Hey great! We all have opinions, and we're all sticking to them.
Your not going to change anyones point of view so I don't know why your all trying.
This is the same tired argument again and again.
Personally I think AC1 is the truest to the original concept, and is an amazing game with an extraordinary feel. But AC2/B are still awesome game.

And I've stopped caring wether you agree with me or not.

Calvarok
06-26-2011, 01:57 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
Hey great! We all have opinions, and we're all sticking to them.
Your not going to change anyones point of view so I don't know why your all trying.
This is the same tired argument again and again.
Personally I think AC1 is the truest to the original concept, and is an amazing game with an extraordinary feel. But AC2/B are still awesome game.

And I've stopped caring wether you agree with me or not.
I agree. AC1 was truest to the concept of being an assassin. My problem is that the concept wasn't as interesting as it sounded. Being an assassin and doing nothing else, no real reason to interact with anything in the game save for killing it or stealing knives from it... that just doesn't work to make up an entire game. That's why I like the economy, I like finding Glyphs, I like the challenge room, I like mini-games, I like renovating cities, I like free-running puzzles. And I like being given tools which I can screw around with, rather than being punished by getting in a fight.
Now all we need is for Revelations to upgrade the quality of the core experience to account for all the new toys we've gotten and the toys they're giving us, and we'll have the best AC yet: one that has incredible variety. Altair may be a cool guy, but his game was just structured too rigidly.

Playing AC1 made me stop wondering about what it would be like to be a real assassin, because I knew it would be a dull routine, with no time for focus on anything else. Then I picked up AC2, and I met Ezio, who breaks all the rules and has FUN with being an unstoppable force, when he can. He's not what the original premise of an assassin was. He's all that and more. Maybe it's extremely unlikely someone like that would have ever existed. But if AC tries to be a totally realistic killer simulation, it will lose what I really love about it.

Nolrog
06-26-2011, 05:39 AM
To answer the subject heading, yes, AC1 was really that good.

With regards to AC vs AC2, they both have their strong points. AC2 has more varied missions, did a much better job of utilizing eagle vision and added some cool combat things (e.g., double hidden blade, a variety of weapons) and of course, gave you more things to do away from the main story (like fixing up the castle.)

AC on the other hand, did a much better job delivering the story. I had a much better idea of what was going on and why I was doing things, and why the templars are the "bad guys". AC2, I felt, didn't deliver the story well at all. For example, templars are there, but they don't set up the assassin's vs templars theme well at all. My father and brothers get killed, and that sends me on a quest of vengeance, which ends, about 2 minutes later when I kill the guy who killed my family. I know that was only the guy of the guy, but for me, it felt like the vengeance was done at that point.

Both very good games well worth the money they cost and time invested in them.

Inorganic9_2
06-26-2011, 05:48 AM
I was playing ACI yesterday and I must say the thing I miss most of all is the atmosphere. In ACI, the atmosphere was gritty and put you on edge a lot. In ACII/ACB, there's too much humour about (minstrels, heralds etc.) and makes it seem more...cartoonish? I can't really think of a good word to describe it. But in ACI, everything was grey and dangerous. Going to my assassination target felt like I was going into an exam; like I was going to be really tested on what I could do.

Of course, there were the investigations and the planning too, which is what I miss most, but that's been discussed to death, so I won't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Calvarok
06-26-2011, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
I was playing ACI yesterday and I must say the thing I miss most of all is the atmosphere. In ACI, the atmosphere was gritty and put you on edge a lot. In ACII/ACB, there's too much humour about (minstrels, heralds etc.) and makes it seem more...cartoonish? I can't really think of a good word to describe it. But in ACI, everything was grey and dangerous. Going to my assassination target felt like I was going into an exam; like I was going to be really tested on what I could do.

Of course, there were the investigations and the planning too, which is what I miss most, but that's been discussed to death, so I won't http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
AC1 was set during a bleak time and place.

AC2 was set in a hopeful time and place.

And quite honestly, I prefer killing guards in beautiful Firenze than in soggy, depressing, boring Acre.

There was really no incentive to explore in AC1. The opressiveness of the cities made me feel like I had no freedom to explore.

Main reason I didn't finish it on my first playthrough.

And when I did, I was extremely tired of all the dark grey nonsense. Ezio had a sense of humor, and actually had fun with his abilities.

And that's a really annoying thing about modern video-game protagonists: they have all these cool things, but they don't enjoy a second of having them.

Ezio is an amazing character just for actually being excited about getting a new weapon, or taking some time to get a girl.

He and his world feel a lot more real to me than perpetually depressing cities and a perpetually depressing home base and an obviously evil leader and evil guys the ALWAYS say they were working for the greater good, during the TWELVE MINUTE conversations you have with them. By the end of the game I just wanted Altair to stab Robert in the neck immediately. But no, Altair has no suspicion or logic to alert him to his master obviously being a psycho. He has to be told by a bald french guy.

AC2 had a much lighter tone, and was better for it. The entire world does not exist as terrible at all times. WW2 Germany was not terrible and depressing all of the time. Forcing depression on the player gives it less impact than if you give the player a lighthearted bantering platforming section (Desmond and Lucy) and then a gutwrenching shocking moment (Desmond and Lucy).

That had more impact on me than Sibrand telling me "Hey, guess what? I believe that what I'm doing is the best thing for the world! Who'd have thunk it?"

Serrachio
06-26-2011, 03:00 PM
Assassin's Creed as a series started out with dull grey and sandy colours (Acre and Damascus), and then went to a game with a vibrant setting (aside from Forli), before slowly draining those colours away (Rome), and as of now, to a dull brown city (Constantinople).

I want the games to be visually exciting like AC2, but it seems that it's disappearing for this cliche of gritty realism.

Also, I want the investigations of AC1 back, but I want them to be worth playing again. Most of the time they got repetitive, but the concept of researching your target was interesting, but now Ezio suddenly knows where his target would be after helping someone out.

I liked the side missions of the game, they were a nice distraction, but I hope that the new random events in Revelations aren't annoying as opposed to interesting.

Also, I think that the combat shouldn't be so easy. I liked the killstreaks in Brotherhood, but I felt that the guards were literally jumping onto the end of my sword. I'd like it if the guards were overly aggressive and tried attacking me in a counter, because then I'd need to be quick on my feet and try to counter them too.

And last of all, I want the new weapon that Ezio would receive at the Vlad the Impaler secret location to be a spear. We already had the Dagger of Brutus be the 'ultimate dagger', so I don't see why they should make it another dagger.

Inorganic9_2
06-26-2011, 03:24 PM
evil leader and evil guys the ALWAYS say they were working for the greater good


This is where ACII screwed up and where people always seem to get it wrong: the Templars are not evil. That was another thing that was so great about ACI. There was no line between good and evil. ACII tried to pick up on that suddenly with Desmonds "be with the good guys" comment and Shaun's reaction, then promptly forgot about it again.

Also, do you really think life was all flowers and happiness in the Renaissance? Perhaps if you were a noble....

Calvarok
06-26-2011, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> evil leader and evil guys the ALWAYS say they were working for the greater good


This is where ACII screwed up and where people always seem to get it wrong: the Templars are not evil. That was another thing that was so great about ACI. There was no line between good and evil. ACII tried to pick up on that suddenly with Desmonds "be with the good guys" comment and Shaun's reaction, then promptly forgot about it again.

Also, do you really think life was all flowers and happiness in the Renaissance? Perhaps if you were a noble.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said everything was flowers and happiness. It was just far less bleak than an endless was between two massive armies constantly screwing with the lives of everyone.

The evil guys in AC1 were evil. Yes, I know they might have had good intentions, but there's never been an evil person who didn't believe in what he was doing.

AC2 introduced us to a lot more people who were obviously scum, but it also showed us even more people who just wanted to further the Templar cause, and thought that it was a nessesary evil.
The reason they didn't harp on about it all the time in AC2 is because they spent an entire game focusing really deeply on that subject. They moved on to showing the conspiracy.

Also, to the post above that, Constantinople is the farthest thing away from a dull, brown city.

It's full of life, both of the plant and human variety, just look at the row of merchant stalls Ezio walks through in the demo! It's a dark, shady place, but it doesn't look depressing. It looks like a place you'd want to go! And then he walks out into the beautiful sunshine, and is surrounded by amazing structures, such as the lighthouse, and boats with many colored sails. It's a good blend between overtly cheery, and believable. I garuntee that Constantinople will make Florence seem dull to you.

Combat in brotherhood was on the threshold of awesome. If guards are made more aggressive, and they add meaningful tweaks and features to combat, it could be amazing. They're aiming for the level of involvement that we saw in the cinematic trailer: being amazing, yet having to work at it, and pay attention at all times or get an overhand smash to the forearm. : P

There's something about combat that they haven't shown us. Just go look at that slow motion acrobatic move that Ezio does when entering combat in the gameplay trailer!

masterfenix2009
06-26-2011, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> evil leader and evil guys the ALWAYS say they were working for the greater good


This is where ACII screwed up and where people always seem to get it wrong: the Templars are not evil. That was another thing that was so great about ACI. There was no line between good and evil. ACII tried to pick up on that suddenly with Desmonds "be with the good guys" comment and Shaun's reaction, then promptly forgot about it again.

Also, do you really think life was all flowers and happiness in the Renaissance? Perhaps if you were a noble.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said everything was flowers and happiness. It was just far less bleak than an endless was between two massive armies constantly screwing with the lives of everyone.

The evil guys in AC1 were evil. Yes, I know they might have had good intentions, but there's never been an evil person who didn't believe in what he was doing.

AC2 introduced us to a lot more people who were obviously scum, but it also showed us even more people who just wanted to further the Templar cause, and thought that it was a nessesary evil.
The reason they didn't harp on about it all the time in AC2 is because they spent an entire game focusing really deeply on that subject. They moved on to showing the conspiracy.

Also, to the post above that, Constantinople is the farthest thing away from a dull, brown city.

It's full of life, both of the plant and human variety, just look at the row of merchant stalls Ezio walks through in the demo! It's a dark, shady place, but it doesn't look depressing. It looks like a place you'd want to go! And then he walks out into the beautiful sunshine, and is surrounded by amazing structures, such as the lighthouse, and boats with many colored sails. It's a good blend between overtly cheery, and believable. I garuntee that Constantinople will make Florence seem dull to you.

Combat in brotherhood was on the threshold of awesome. If guards are made more aggressive, and they add meaningful tweaks and features to combat, it could be amazing. They're aiming for the level of involvement that we saw in the cinematic trailer: being amazing, yet having to work at it, and pay attention at all times or get an overhand smash to the forearm. : P

There's something about combat that they haven't shown us. Just go look at that slow motion acrobatic move that Ezio does when entering combat in the gameplay trailer! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That doesn't make sense. An evil person trying to help the world. No. If someone is trying to help someone, they are not evil. I do agree with you though, that they already made a whole game about it. No need to focus on it anymore.

Calvarok
06-26-2011, 04:37 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 Calvarok:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> evil leader and evil guys the ALWAYS say they were working for the greater good


This is where ACII screwed up and where people always seem to get it wrong: the Templars are not evil. That was another thing that was so great about ACI. There was no line between good and evil. ACII tried to pick up on that suddenly with Desmonds "be with the good guys" comment and Shaun's reaction, then promptly forgot about it again.

Also, do you really think life was all flowers and happiness in the Renaissance? Perhaps if you were a noble.... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never said everything was flowers and happiness. It was just far less bleak than an endless was between two massive armies constantly screwing with the lives of everyone.

The evil guys in AC1 were evil. Yes, I know they might have had good intentions, but there's never been an evil person who didn't believe in what he was doing.

AC2 introduced us to a lot more people who were obviously scum, but it also showed us even more people who just wanted to further the Templar cause, and thought that it was a nessesary evil.
The reason they didn't harp on about it all the time in AC2 is because they spent an entire game focusing really deeply on that subject. They moved on to showing the conspiracy.

Also, to the post above that, Constantinople is the farthest thing away from a dull, brown city.

It's full of life, both of the plant and human variety, just look at the row of merchant stalls Ezio walks through in the demo! It's a dark, shady place, but it doesn't look depressing. It looks like a place you'd want to go! And then he walks out into the beautiful sunshine, and is surrounded by amazing structures, such as the lighthouse, and boats with many colored sails. It's a good blend between overtly cheery, and believable. I garuntee that Constantinople will make Florence seem dull to you.

Combat in brotherhood was on the threshold of awesome. If guards are made more aggressive, and they add meaningful tweaks and features to combat, it could be amazing. They're aiming for the level of involvement that we saw in the cinematic trailer: being amazing, yet having to work at it, and pay attention at all times or get an overhand smash to the forearm. : P

There's something about combat that they haven't shown us. Just go look at that slow motion acrobatic move that Ezio does when entering combat in the gameplay trailer! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That doesn't make sense. An evil person trying to help the world. No. If someone is trying to help someone, they are not evil. I do agree with you though, that they already made a whole game about it. No need to focus on it anymore. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, but is that really true? Movies do this a lot: the villain is trying to save his wife, and to do so, he ends up killing or harming lots of people. Maybe you're right, and evil isn't a very good word to use, but what I really mean is a person that's going too far to do what they think is right. I just use Evil as shorthand for "We're going to have to kill this guy, because his goals interfere with the Assassin's".

masterfenix2009
06-26-2011, 04:46 PM
Well,IMO, evil is someone who
1: A person with disregard fr any human life
2:Who loves hurting innocent people
3: Who knows what they are doing is evil

albertwesker22
06-26-2011, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by assassino151:
Well,IMO, evil is someone who
1: A person with disregard fr any human life
2:Who loves hurting innocent people
3: Who knows what they are doing is evil

AC 1 Templars were radicals, but they were radicals for peace(I wouldn't call them evil) but the AC 2 Templars and beyond were bastards. I didn't feel sorry for any of them, they didn't have any redeeming features at all. I hope this isn't the case in Revalations.

itsamea-mario
06-27-2011, 12:59 AM
Not that I want to start arguing but some people have been saying that AC2 was better due to it's sense of humor and how ezio had more fin with his abilities. Ezio's primary purpose is to kill, taking the lives of other people, something they will never get back, these men may have families completely innocent families, destroyed because ezio killed the money maker. He should not have a sense of humor about this. Altair questioned this, he showed far more emotion when it came to murder than ezio, besides rage ofcourse.

Animuses
06-27-2011, 01:21 AM
Ezio started out for revenge but until Mario put into his head that he should not become like his enemies, he changed. Altair was the same way, except he was killing innocents and breaking the tenants. They both learned and they BOTH show emotion. Ezio always says how he doesn't want to kill but it's the only way.

About Ezio having a sense of humor... he obviously has one, but not towards the death of others.

And now about the Templars... both Ezio and Altair have stated that what they are doing are for the greater good but it's at too great a cost (not in the exact words though). You people are being so thick-headed and can't see the many similarities.
The Templars in each game are bad people but have the same goal as the Assassins (with the exception of Cesare, Madj Addin and a few others). As Al Mualim said, he has an issue with the means (yes he was an ex-Templar and power hungry, but he knew the creed).

ProletariatPleb
06-27-2011, 02:19 AM
To OP:
1.Don't Blend, you can become aggressive and pwn them all...the game never said you HAVE to be stealthy, also, you could find another way in.

2.Lifelessness? omfg r u kidding me? LOL There is some "life-like" feeling that's missing in AC2 and AC:B

3.There is lack of fluidity in AC2 and AC:B aswell..in combat, they hope to fix that in AC:R.
I'm sorry, if you just blocked and countered, and didn't do combos, I only countered if anyone attacked me, otherwise I always took the offensive:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7yC5WMz3rwE
AC2 combat has guards always blocking, then what's the difference between an assassin and a normal soldier? and AC:B I can keep killing guys as long as I can keep up the chain..which isn't a difficult task.

4.SHORT game? ........Bulletstorm?

5.It's very immersive, you just didn't like it, you're obviously comparing a 2010/2011 game and a 2007/2008 game...

Yes it had its flaws but without AC1...we wouldn't have AC2 and AC:B full of new features, new story, VAST improvements.

Nocturnal-Vault
06-27-2011, 05:37 AM
AC1 was (and still is) a top notch game.

Sure it was very repetitive on each memory block, yet it was exactly that same thing that made it feel quite realistic. It made you feel like an assassin.

The world art was gritty and dry and summed up the mood of the focused Altair. It was perfect for the game.

I also loved the difficulty. Hard enough to drive you to get better at the button timing.

sfin1994
06-27-2011, 06:37 AM
ac1 still has the 'OMG, LOL, didnt see that one coming' award if you ask me