PDA

View Full Version : Here an article I agree with



Fairus60
12-17-2010, 09:05 AM
found this a few minutes ago, and I completely agree with it. But thats just my opinion, tell me what you thinkThe Hashashin Simulator it could have been (http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/MatthewLoPresti/20101217/6470/Assassins_Creed_The_Failed_Hashshashin_Simulator_a nd_its_Aftermath.php)

Long live Altair!! (Sorry Im an Altair fanboy) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Coolgerb
12-17-2010, 09:41 AM
I don't completely agree with it, and am still of the opinion AC2 and Brotherhood are major improvements...

However, I do hope they will make the assassination missions feel a lot more important again, not to mention involve the arch enemy a lot more. Cesare felt like just another guy I had to assassinate, nothing else. I felt no connection with him or any of the other big targets at all (of which there were only, what, 4 or so?).

itsamea-mario
12-17-2010, 10:06 AM
this is definately one of the reasons AC1 has the better concept.
AC2 has a pretty dull, and fairly common plot, your family died take revenge.
AC1, had character, being an assassin was his life he cared for little else, obviously this came across as him being a boring person, b ut he was just cool collected, didn't go shouting his name after killing someone, he didn't dress all fancy, he dressed simply in a white robe.
blending made more sense, helping priests would mean they'd allow you to walk with them making you less noticeable, since you dressed similar.
as that article said, the cities you visited had a hostitlity, and yet a beuty that AC2/B never acheived.
also a greater sense of mystery, we don't see the piece of eden in action until the last mission, and its quite shock, to see something like that blended (quite well) with the sense of realism that the game holds.

With AC2 they certainly moved more towards the fast paced action scene as opposed to AC1's sense of mystery where you didn't just kill your targets, you researched them, learned the best way to do it, and then finally execute the mission.

Inorganic9_2
12-17-2010, 11:47 AM
I've often thought similar. But, to be honest, I really enjoy ACII and Brotherhood. Ezio is a great character. The story is interesting. I like the fact that Ezio starts out as brash and kills for revenge, but by the end, he kills "for a higher purpose" (sorry Lucrezia for stealing your line haha)

But I do think races are and delivering letters are kind of pointless and I would like more emphasis to be put on to the assassination target. More planning would be good too.

I also agree that Cesare didn't feel like a nemesis, just another guy to kill.

ZCherub
12-17-2010, 12:42 PM
I actually enjoyed that read. I'm not sure I'd have been as hard on ACII & B, though. AC focuses on a character who was born into an order that enjoyed relative prominence. By Ezio's Rome, said order operates much more "in the shadows" (I.e. - not having a ginormous castle as their HQ).

Rather than being born into the order, ACII Tells the story of Ezio discovering the order existed in the first place, & joining said order. He grows into his role as an assassin & then grows further into his role as a leader that grows/rebuilds said order which has been considerably weakened since the passing of Altier's leadership. It's different, but still a well done story.

dchil279
12-17-2010, 04:16 PM
Originally posted by Coolgerb:
I don't completely agree with it, and am still of the opinion AC2 and Brotherhood are major improvements...

However, I do hope they will make the assassination missions feel a lot more important again, not to mention involve the arch enemy a lot more. Cesare felt like just another guy I had to assassinate, nothing else. I felt no connection with him or any of the other big targets at all (of which there were only, what, 4 or so?).
Exactly. You didn't even know the banker's name until like the last missions in sequence 4, you only killed the french guy to help Bartolomeo, and You didn't even kill Michelletto....

itsamea-mario
12-17-2010, 04:23 PM
Well, obviously AC2 is more 'fun' in the brash action sense, but AC1 was better in the, i don't know a word for what i mean si i'll say 'branier'
though we don't know most of the targets, the investigations, allow us to see why we are killing them, as opposed to someone just telling us to do it because they are a bad guy.

and the tension and emotion between the protagonist and antagonist, was much better in AC1 since here we have the man who was a father figure to altiar, betraying him under the influence of the mysterious device.
where as AC2 is just this guy ordered the death of your family, he's real important, and oh yeah he's a templar.
then it wen't all star wars and explained itself, which was just silly.

StrokeMyBeagle
12-17-2010, 04:30 PM
I too agree with almost all of what he said, great read!

sandmanssorrow
12-17-2010, 04:40 PM
This happens a lot when something new and fresh emerges in the landscape, the 'first one' is the holy artifact and those that come after pale in comparison.
The writer of the article said AC1 failed to be what it was supposed to be and that AC2 and ACB failed two fold because they departed even further from the original vision.
I disagree, failure is not a word that has any place being associated with any of these games. AC1 WAS excellent and immersive and an experience that can't be recreated simply due to the fact that we already experienced it for the 'first' time. A sad truth is that the first time for a lot of things will always be remembered the most fondly. AC2 and ACB both have a more transparent storyline but the heart of all three of these games is the gameplay and every one of them has excelled and succeeded.
Maybe the franchise was intended to be a Hashhashin simulator at the outset but I would bet money that above that it's primary objective was to be a thrilling, immersive, unique AND profitable enterprise and that, it has been every step of the way.
Change is the natural order of things, to oppose it is to oppose life itself.

Fairus60
12-18-2010, 06:58 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
this is definately one of the reasons AC1 has the better concept.
AC2 has a pretty dull, and fairly common plot, your family died take revenge.
AC1, had character, being an assassin was his life he cared for little else, obviously this came across as him being a boring person, b ut he was just cool collected, didn't go shouting his name after killing someone, he didn't dress all fancy, he dressed simply in a white robe.
blending made more sense, helping priests would mean they'd allow you to walk with them making you less noticeable, since you dressed similar.
as that article said, the cities you visited had a hostitlity, and yet a beuty that AC2/B never acheived.
also a greater sense of mystery, we don't see the piece of eden in action until the last mission, and its quite shock, to see something like that blended (quite well) with the sense of realism that the game holds.

With AC2 they certainly moved more towards the fast paced action scene as opposed to AC1's sense of mystery where you didn't just kill your targets, you researched them, learned the best way to do it, and then finally execute the mission.
I couldnt agree more with you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ThaWhistle
12-18-2010, 11:36 PM
the atmosphere of AC was alot more epic than AC2, I haven't played brotherhood yet cuz it isnt out for PC.

in AC2, you could be crafty. but you pretty much never needed to be since dying in combat required either severe ******ation or extreme drunkeness. I dont even know how many times I died in combat without being utterly smashed, the medicine just made it impossible. but in the original, dying actually happened. alot.

AC2 really needed all the side stuff with the pieces of eden, the glyphs, the codex pages and etc because quite frankly, the plot was a bit thin. in the original there was more of a purpose, whereas AC2 it was something of a generic revenge story. The pazzi conspiracy was a goldmine historically speaking, but im suprised they didn't really go into more depth historically like they did with the original. the pazzi's crusading shenanigans could have been mentioned. that being the first person over the walls of jerusalem during hte first crusade was Pazzo Pazzi.

Although, this seems to be the problem with all sequels in trilogies. the second one is just a set up for the third. or in this case the second and a half and then maybe the third. AC2 was awesome, the only thing that annoyed me was the tombs and the combat becoming mostly just time consuming.