PDA

View Full Version : Assassin's Creed Revelations is underrated. Good work on a fantastic experience, Ubi.



TheDman22
04-29-2012, 07:03 PM
I'm tired of AC being overlooked recently!

The sound design, character design, environments and combat are all fantastic, but it's too easy for people to say
"uh oh yearly realease must be awful."

I'm sitting here doing my work, listening to the soundtrack of AC:R and well, i had to get that off my chest.

Now i don't use these forums so if this is off topic or whatever, don't flame, just let the mods lock.

-Cheers,

The Dutchman22

pacmanate
04-29-2012, 07:16 PM
Thank you for taking your time to post. We here at the Official Ubisoft Forums welcome people who can put across their ideas without causing arguments. We are also proud to say that you, Dutchman22, have also written your opening post with good use of the English language. Thank you for visiting the forums!

gamertam
04-29-2012, 07:39 PM
Hi OP. Yea-like i had stated in one of my past post. I think AC Revelations was a good game. However, i didn't think it measured(enjoyable) up to previous installments. Oooh, i don't know--like AC2 and Brotherhood. It felt like i'm playing as a tourist. The environment was unfamiliar than i used to. The characters were much closer to the Prince of Persia games. Yes, i did played The Forgotten Sands of PoP. I bought it b/c you get can Ezio's skin. The clothing look all vibrant and colorful which is a good, but at the same time. The eyes have a hard time figuring who is which. The soundtracks was great especially the AC Revelations theme and The Road to Masysaf. The hook blade is a creative idea i think. The overall game as a whole was solid, the multi-player wasn't as addicting as Brotherhood's.

It wasn't all bad as people think. That's just my opinion. Others have different views, but hey...

Acrimonious_Nin
04-29-2012, 07:40 PM
I like chocolate :D


It was a great game. My mind was blown it was actually an awesome game :D.

TheHumanTowel
04-29-2012, 07:50 PM
I've been pretty hard on ACR in the past but I've been giving it another playthrough and it's definitely a better game than I gave it credit for. I didn't level up my assassins much or buy up shops which is probably why the experience felt so thin but this time around I can see it's still got a lot of side-quests to offer. I do think the story is the weakest in the series but it's still nice to get some closure for Ezio and Altair. All in all, a great entry in a great series.

SquarePolo27
04-29-2012, 09:54 PM
The multiplayer was a great improvement. The single player was...Okay. I just didn't feel attached to the city or any of the characters in the city and the story was slow to follow, but hey, that's just my opinion. Welcome to the forums :)

Timeaus
04-29-2012, 10:16 PM
Overall I thought ACR was great, although the story isn't quite as good as ACB or AC2. Nonetheless I really enjoy the game.

BBALive
04-29-2012, 10:38 PM
Rehash.

Acrimonious_Nin
04-29-2012, 10:41 PM
Rehash.

No.

playassassins1
04-29-2012, 10:49 PM
ACR is a great game, i still don't think why people thought the game sucked. I also don't get why people said that there weren't any revelations.

The story was cool, but like some people said, was a bit slow. some gameplay elements were kind of awkward to use, like the Bombs and the slow-motion kills. The game wasn't as good as AC II, because they had AC III in development. And they have put allot more time and effort in AC III, which is why ACB and ACR weren't as amazing as AC II.

iSoTryHard
04-29-2012, 11:17 PM
i dont know why it was underratted by critics sure it wasnt the best ac but i liked it if a game has done that then it has done its job because revelations was certainly up there

D.I.D.
04-30-2012, 12:53 PM
ACR is a great game, i still don't think why people thought the game sucked. I also don't get why people said that there weren't any revelations.

The story was cool, but like some people said, was a bit slow. some gameplay elements were kind of awkward to use, like the Bombs and the slow-motion kills. The game wasn't as good as AC II, because they had AC III in development. And they have put allot more time and effort in AC III, which is why ACB and ACR weren't as amazing as AC II.

I was hoping for more of Turkey in the game, but it was pretty light on the local culture. I didn't get a sense of Constantinople's position in the world as the centre of the world's trading economy. In reality this was arguably the most important city in the world, but in ACR it felt like just another place.

The gameplay was weak. Missions that go on forever with little input from the player ("follow the chest", for example), missions with no difficulty (almost all of them), tasks which were just dull and insulting (locating and digging up the hidden books, the strategy-free but.ton mash that was Den Defence), dolled-up movie scenes which cared more about their looks than my input (Forum of the Ox, Greek fire ship escape, parachute-on-a-rope assassinations and QTEs in the final mission, etc). Bombs with huge neon circles to show where the bomb would hit and where it would bounce.

Absurd notoriety response (opening a shop brings more attention than killing a dozen guards in front of witnesses?), and the irritating grind of herald-bribery to keep the level down.

The game started three times (Desmond on the island, Ezio in Masyaf, Ezio in Constantinople), and none of the openings felt like they really established the game or gave it some kind of grip.

Most of the story had nothing to do with Ezio, and there wasn't enough effort made to show why Ezio should care until the game was almost over. The local circu.mstances in Constantinople were fine. The assassins got along okay with half of the 'enemy', they were out and proud letting everyone know where their ziplines and HQ were, and even told Ezio that their only real use for him was as a recruitment officer.

Game was too short, and didn't establish yardsticks to let you know how the game was progressing. With better writing, characters could have warned you that such-and-such an event is closing in, therefore you'd better work on finding weapons/earning money/completing recruitment or whatever. It was all a bit scattered, and once you hit the beginning of that last stage you were on a train you couldn't get off - every mission was going to come in order and that was that.

Game lacked tension in story and gameplay. No missions set up to inspire those pit-of-the-stomach acrophobic reactions, no tension in the story, no tension in difficulty, very little opportunity to use tactical path-finding to feel a sense of intellectual victory over the missions' circu.mstances. The bombs, recruits and ridiculous selection of sure-fire weaponry and armour meant that there was little challenge. You could select a different guaranteed kill method, but it was ultimately an interchangable menu of trouble-free success. And some say that Ezio's a badass, so it justifies all this? Shame it didn't make me feel any excitement, then.

BBALive
04-30-2012, 01:05 PM
No.

It's not a debatable topic.

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 01:13 PM
I like ACR.
The story was OK, but I wish it focused more on Ezio finding Altair's library, when it was announced Ezio was finding Altair's library, I thought Ezio would be exploring Masyaf, Acre and Damascus, the we find out about Constantinople, I thought it would be an extra city (a la Forli) that could be free roamed, but only had a few missions.
The story has some pointless missions, like the Romani mission, it seemed like I was doing things for them even though I could already hire them, and why does Ezio and the main templar (Ahmet? Ahmed?) seem like they were just room mates that don't agree, they seemed just too friendly, I just wanted more Ezio looking for Altair's library, less pointless missions (like the flower mission for Sofia).
Gameplay was meh.
I liked the Hookplay, I hated the Janissaries.
Onto the Desmond.
I enjoyed the First Person Sequences, but I also wished they were 3rd person missions like the trailer showed, or we relive them the way we relive Ezio & Altair, imagine Young Desmond, running away, and playing that, or playing the part where he's training, but what they did was fine, I also wish Desmond had more things to do on animus island, it seemed pointless, and I thought it would be better with Desmond doing stuff on it.
That's it, It's not bad, but it's not great.
AC1 - 6/10
AC2 - 8/10
ACB - 6/10
ACR - 5/10

UrDeviant1
04-30-2012, 01:22 PM
The gameplay and aesthetics of ACR are superior to any other AC, but the story was lacking and there was less content In terms of side quests. To give It a 5/10 though OriginalMiles? wtf, that's just pathetic.

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 01:27 PM
The gameplay and aesthetics of ACR are superior to any other AC, but the story was lacking and there was less content In terms of side quests. To give It a 5/10 though OriginalMiles? wtf, that's just pathetic.
It just didn't excite me as much as the others, it's only a little under AC1 and ACB, do you want to know why the others got the rating they have?

UrDeviant1
04-30-2012, 01:30 PM
It just didn't excite me as much as the others, it's only a little under AC1 and ACB, do you want to know why the others got the rating they have?

Well you've gave AC1 & ACB both a 6/10, so I'm guessing that they didn't excite you either? Which makes me wonder why you're part of a forum where you found the games to be poor (judging by the scores you gave).

notafanboy
04-30-2012, 01:50 PM
ACR was a good game, nothing more, nohing less.

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 01:59 PM
Well you've gave AC1 & ACB both a 6/10, so I'm guessing that they didn't excite you either? Which makes me wonder why you're part of a forum where you found the games to be poor (judging by the scores you gave).
AC1 got a 6 because while I enjoyed the game (story included), I didn't enjoy the stealth, I try to be stealthy and kill my target, and they find me, I also got it after I got AC2, so knowing what AC2 before the first one, I kind of ruined it for myself, so it did excite me, but playing AC2 before it made it harder for me to play right, so it's not the games fault, if I hadn't played AC2 before this, it would be 7/10 at least.
ACB got 6 because of the renovating, while I liked it in AC2, I didn't like the idea of repairing an entire city like Rome, but it wasn't too bad, so excluding that it would also be 8 like AC2, but the rest of my problems with it are just little things like buying a crossbow, I think it should have either not have been in there, or given by a character, excluding that it would be a 7/10, both of the problems excluded would make it 8/10.
I don't think the games are poor, AC is my favourite game series, it's gameplay through me at first, but over time, I got used to it and it became my favourite series, story is amazing, gameplay is great, ACR would be a 7 if it wasn't for the pointless parts (I forgot to mention renovating in ACR, there was not even an explaination for it in ACR) and the problems I mentioned, so all problems aside, these are the scores.

AC1 - 7/10
AC2 - 8/10
ACB - 8/10
ACR - 7/10
What would you rate each game?

D.I.D.
04-30-2012, 02:01 PM
Well you've gave AC1 & ACB both a 6/10, so I'm guessing that they didn't excite you either? Which makes me wonder why you're part of a forum where you found the games to be poor (judging by the scores you gave).

To a lot of people, 5/10 means just that: bang in the middle, an average game, whose good points don't outnumber its bad points and vice versa.

We live in strange times where people get angry about a game getting 7/10 on a review site, as though 7/10 means bad and only 8/10 and above is acceptable. Ratings would make more sense if the standard was 5/10 and the better-than-average experiences were 6/10 and above.

UrDeviant1
04-30-2012, 02:59 PM
I rate the games from when I first played them. I think It's unfair, for example, to play AC2 and then go back and rate AC1 based on what experience I got from Its sequel.

Down points for AC1:
1.When doing certain Investigation missions, you had to take out 3 targets (while remaining undetected) but If you fail the first time, you had to kill like 10 guards whose bodies would remain In the streets for a while, and you would have to wait for them to disappear because yet more guards would come and call you out.
2.The whole thing could become repetitive at times. Visit the bureau, do 3 Investigations, visit bureau, go kill your target, visit the bureau. It was still hella fun at the time though, I was besotted with the game, never played anything like It. But given those 2 points, I would rate the game 8/10.

Down points for AC2: This Is hard because It's probably my favourite In the series, and I remember when first playing the game, I was blown away.
1. I never liked the 'messenger' missions or the 'beat up' missions. They really made me think wtf? I'm a badass killing machine, but I'm going around delivering letters for peasants? and beating up cheating husbands? :l just no.
2. You could hire thieves and courtesans, even before doing the missions for their guild. It just seemed strange and ruined the Immersion for me.
Given that these are not exactly major points, and the rest of the game was awesomesauce, I'd rate It a 9/10.

Down points for ACB:
1. Compared to Florence and Venice, Rome just seemed dank and dirty (not real easy on the eyes). I never felt attached to the city like I did previously, It was quite forgettable and lacking excitement and colour.
2. The combat became way too easy. I could dispose of 20 guards with such ease It's ridiculous.
3. I hate being able to ride a horse through a city, knocking everyone on their arse without much repercussion.
I'd rate the game 8/10

Down points for ACR:
1. Nowhere near enough side quests.
2. Renovations were unconvincing and just tacked on, without a real explanation as to why we could do so, or even why Ezio would want to rebuild Constantinople :confused: .
3.Den defense Is too far removed from my expectations of what an AC should be, and It failed.
I'd rate the game 8/10.

The positives outweigh the negatives by a long way, which Is why I think any of these games deserve no less than 8/10. Just my opinion though :) I respect yours too.

OriginalMiles
04-30-2012, 03:02 PM
I rate the games from when I first played them. I think It's unfair, for example, to play AC2 and then go back and rate AC1 based on what experience I got from Its sequel.

Down points for AC1:
1.When doing certain Investigation missions, you had to take out 3 targets (while remaining undetected) but If you fail the first time, you had to kill like 10 guards whose bodies would remain In the streets for a while, and you would have to wait for them to disappear because yet more guards would come and call you out.
2.The whole thing could become repetitive at times. Visit the bureau, do 3 Investigations, visit bureau, go kill your target, visit the bureau. It was still hella fun at the time though, I was besotted with the game, never played anything like It. But given those 2 points, I would rate the game 8/10.

Down points for AC2: This Is hard because It's probably my favourite In the series, and I remember when first playing the game, I was blown away.
1. I never liked the 'messenger' missions or the 'beat up' missions. They really made me think wtf? I'm a badass killing machine, but I'm going around delivering letters for peasants? and beating up cheating husbands? :l just no.
2. You could hire thieves and courtesans, even before doing the missions for their guild. It just seemed strange and ruined the Immersion for me.
Given that these are not exactly major points, and the rest of the game was awesomesauce, I'd rate It a 9/10.

Down points for ACB:
1. Compared to Florence and Venice, Rome just seemed dank and dirty (not real easy on the eyes). I never felt attached to the city like I did previously, It was quite forgettable and lacking excitement and colour.
2. The combat became way too easy. I could dispose of 20 guards with such ease It's ridiculous.
3. I hate being able to ride a horse through a city, knocking everyone on their arse without much repercussion.
I'd rate the game 8/10

Down points for ACR:
1. Nowhere near enough side quests.
2. Renovations were unconvincing and just tacked on, without a real explanation as to why we could do so, or even why Ezio would want to rebuild Constantinople :confused: .
3.Den defense Is too far removed from my expectations of what an AC should be, and It failed.
I'd rate the game 8/10.

The positives outweigh the negatives by a long way, which Is why I think any of these games deserve no less than 8/10. Just my opinion though :) I respect yours too.
Those are some very good points, and from what you said, your ratings make sense. :)
Also, when I played AC1 for the first time, It was a month after I first played AC2, just clearing something up.

Dieinthedark
04-30-2012, 09:56 PM
ACR remains a great game in my book simply because the story in Sequence 7-9, plus the music, atmosphere/tension everything, pulled together in a beyond words amazing way.

rain89c
04-30-2012, 10:01 PM
Revelations was just more of the same thing recycled over and over for the past 3-4 games, they did a good move by completely revamping AC3 to start fresh.

rileypoole1234
04-30-2012, 10:11 PM
I basically agree with everything UrDeviant1 said, besides the fact that I would give AC2 a 10/10 not 9/10.

SaintPerkele
04-30-2012, 11:46 PM
Hm, why not compare (turned out to be a bit longer than I expected though):

AC1:
Positive:
-Gameplay: Back then, extremely innovative gameplay, the first of its kind, yet also classy in other terms
-Atmosphere: Incredible atmosphere, probably better than most of the other AC games due to perfect music, background sounds, a huge variety of NPC models as well as different guards for different assassination targets and so on. Also, I loved the somewhat 'spooky' atmosphere now and then.
-Story: Something fresh and new, a nice mix between sci-fi and conspiracy plots as well as historically accurate medieval stuff. AC1 was probably one of the historically most accurate ones actually. And the ending of AC1.. fantastic.
-World: The cities were lovely, differed a lot in design and atmosphere and the kingdom was something I missed in the other installments.
-Graphics: Back then, these were actually fantastic. Although there were some things that were still sort of wrong as well as for some reason a huge gap in terms of graphics between different settings (Acre was quite **** compared to Damascus for example), but maybe that's just me.
-Equipment/Gadgets: I enjoyed having only a sword, a short sword, my hidden blade and throwing knives, the equipment became way too much in the later installments. Also, I actually used them all. Just things like air assassinations and so on were something I really missed.
Negative:
-Mission design: While I really, really enjoyed researching about your assassination targets, that could've been done much better so the research would have actually helped you and researching more than it is required would make the mission easier. The side missions were boring and repetitive, although sometimes challenging. All in all, the game was still quite easy (which is sad, considering that it's the hardest one in the entire series); while I understand that some people enjoy that, I would’ve at least wished for a hard mode. Collecting flags was utterly pointless. Also, the game was quite short.

All in all, a promising first part of a great series. Probably a good 7.5-8/10. It’s a shame that so many people keep forgetting about AC1 or didn’t even play it.

AC2:
-Gameplay: Still really good, but remained pretty much the same. Added some nice things though (swimming for example). The new “stealing” move however was unneeded. That was way better in AC1.
-Story: After AC1, I expected a lot and I got what I was hoping for. Even though I preferred AC1’s plot twist to AC2’s, there were still some great things in there. The Desmond storyline progressed nicely too and some things (like TWCB and Adam and Eve) made me go “WTF”, but in a good way.
-World: Considering that I’ve been to all cities of AC2 (well, except for Forlė), I absolutely loved them. At first, I was quite shocked by the idea of switching to another time, but after I got used to it, it was just fantastic. The cities were great and with the smaller ones, there were some nice additions that sort of replaced the Kingdom.
-Equipment/Gadgets: Although they are still good, they were just on the edge of being simply too much in AC2. The courtesans, mercenaries and thieves were usually not needed (except for missions that were designed just for them). Smoke bombs were fun, the poison blade too. The hidden gun was a great addition the way it was in AC2 (the later one was way overpowered).
-Mission design: Much, much better compared to the one of AC1, although I missed researching about my targets. However, there was more variety, a huge load of side missions and a long main story. But the ending fight just sucked compared to the one from AC1.
Negative:
-Atmosphere: I’m sure a lot of people won’t agree. Yes, the cities themselves were nice, the new interactions of NPCs, the gondolas and so on – great. But the life in the cities.. was dull. People were just a mass, looked quite similar often and remained almost absolutely silent.
-Graphics: Don’t get me wrong, the graphics were fine. But all in all, the ones of AC1 just looked better, which is kind of sad.

All in all, a great successor, although with some flaws. Still a huge upgrade: 8,5-9/10.

ACB:
Positive:
-Multiplayer: Some people didn’t like it, but it was something new and I enjoyed it.
-Mission design: Some really great new ideas for mission design, enjoyed them quite a lot, although some things were just badly forced into the game (Templar agents for example). The secret locations felt much nicer than in AC2 too. Also, still a lot of side missions, but a rather short main quest.
-Atmosphere: ACB was an upgrade compared to AC2. The new NPC interactions were quite nice, there was just much more going on. On the other hand, most of the NPC models were just copied from AC2, there was even one with Rebecca’s hair, ugh. And when people with no shoes began carrying canes because I upgraded the district... just what.
-Graphics: Nice little upgrades that made a huge difference.
Oh, I loved modern day Monteriggioni.
Negative:
-Story: Say what you want. All in all, the story was dull compared to the first two games. Pretty much nothing happened, you were basically just trying to kill Cesare and renovating Rome. The Desmond storyline was somewhat boring, but the ending was great.
-Gameplay: Almost the same as before, and the new things weren’t too great (renovating, urgh). Chain kills were so boring and made everything so easy..
-Equpiment/Gadgets: Way too much. Crossbow and Recruits were fun, sure. But they made everything so easy that you pretty much didn’t have to do anything on your own. And then the poison darts.. War machines were kind of weird, but nice to use.
-World: I thought that one huge city would be nice. Turns out, it’s just a small city surrounded by a lot of countryside, some copy/paste Roman ruins and a couple of nice buildings.

All in all, you could feel that it was sort of rushed. I almost had the feeling, that Brotherhood was originally intended to be a MP game only. Still, for the short amount of time a good game, but the weakest one in my opinion: 7/10.

ACR:
Positive:
-Atmosphere: Probably as good as the one of AC1 if not better. The NPC interactions were great, actually had some background sounds. The crowd felt vivid. Only thing I really disliked: There were two types of hair for women and probably 1-2 faces. In case of men it was quite similar. No age differences, no, everyone looked the same.
-Story: Better than the one of ACB for sure. For the first time after AC1, the Templars were not just a bunch of guys who were evil for no apparent reason; you could actually understand them and their views, something that was heavily supported by the multiplayer). Also, nice plot twist. But historically accurate.. no. The bunch of Byantines still hanging around in Constantinople for no reason, nah, bad move.
-Multiplayer: Even better than the one from Brotherhood. However, only a few new maps, sometimes rather badly designed. And all the old maps.. NO. Still no. I play Brotherhood for these. The story and customization part were especially nice.
-World: ACR got it right when it comes to designing one city, unlike Brotherhood. Still, it could have been bigger and a bit more diverse. Cappadocia was a nice change.
-Mission design: Hm, positve or negative? There were some boring and bad missions and some really good ones. Due to the Master Assassin missions however, the positive sides overweigh. But please no more missions were we just have to run forward, basically. Way too little side missions however..
-Graphics: The best ones so far, no discussion about that. Although somewhat grainy, if you know what I mean.
Negative:
-Equipment/Gadgets: In ACR, they were just getting ridiculous, sorry. Recruits, okay. But a bomb that can easily dispatch every single guards? Nope. Not again, please.
-Gameplay: All in all, like the previous games, only worse in some parts. The renovation did not make any sense whatsoever, for example. Den Defence is depending on you I guess, I liked it, but I don't need it again.

All in all, ACR got rid of some flaws of the previous games, but created new ones too. A fair 7.5/10.

Sorry, that was quite long. We'll see how AC3 will be compared to this.

rain89c
05-01-2012, 12:34 AM
AC2 atmosphere was the worst, it didn't feel right. Animations became choppy and less fluid than AC1 (which had amazing animations).
Graphics were dumbed down compared to AC1.

The only thing AC2 had/have going is the game-play and good story progression.

De Filosoof
05-01-2012, 01:00 AM
AC 1 : 9

- Refreshing, original game
- The modern day stuff was a pleasant surprice
- great atmosphere
- Awesome cliffhanger ending with all the symbols
- The soundtrack was great
- I think i'm one of the few people that actually didn't mind the repetitive mission structure because it was something new for me.
I hear no one complain when they have to shoot people in the head with call of duty multiplayer over and over again. I really don't get it.
- Killing templars....awesome.
- Brutal dagger move.

AC 2: 9;5 Best game of all in my opinion.

- Ezio can swim, yay!
- Big improvement over the first game.
- 14 sequences
- Many and big cities.
- Venice was absolutely amazing.
- introduction of the glyph puzzles, i really, REALLY loved searching for them and finishing them.
- The adam & eve truth video.
- Amazing story.
- WTF ending.
- and many more....
-
ACB: 9

- Good story
- Nice fluid combat with killstreaks.
- More glyphs, Yay.
- Good cliffhanger ending.
- Entering the vatican...awesome.
- Learning about a corrupt family
- Killing the son of the pope.
- Romulus lairs
- Da vinci DLC

ACR: 7 Although the game had a nice atmosphere it also had many flaws.

- The game was too short, i believe sequence 2 and 3 were almost only tutorials and the last sequence was only walking.
- No sidequests
- Still walking on air when walking up the stairs? Really? It really showed with all the height differences in the city.
- No templar lairs/tombs with a story of their own. Took away some of the mysterious feeling.
- Too much over the top hollywood bullcrap.
- No more glyphs to search for and to crack your brains on :(.
- Desmond's journey was quite a fail although i loved the creative ideas behind it.
We only "learned" stuff about him we already knew.
- Den defense fail.
- Burning the underground city @ Cappadocia (can be included with hollywood bullcrap).

also many positive things like:

- Atmospheric and breathing city
- Awesome colors
- Nice soundtrack (as usual)
- Good ending + nice cinematic
- hookblade was fun

UrDeviant1
05-01-2012, 01:05 AM
I agree with all the positives thijs_bijlsma mentioned. It's good to talk about the positives also.

Josegtx13
05-01-2012, 02:26 AM
Yup, ACR was a good game. Not as great as the other AC games, probably because it's the shortest, but it was still good.

Calvarok
05-01-2012, 08:16 AM
I refuse to read any of the comments on this, because I'm sure that most of them will make me rage and I don't want to keep writing huge text blocks every time I come on here. I'm just going to say that I agree. It was a fantastic AC game, and I enjoyed the story and gameplay more than I enjoyed Brotherhood's.

De Filosoof
05-01-2012, 11:02 AM
I refuse to read any of the comments on this, because I'm sure that most of them will make me rage and I don't want to keep writing huge text blocks every time I come on here. I'm just going to say that I agree. It was a fantastic AC game, and I enjoyed the story and gameplay more than I enjoyed Brotherhood's.

Why rage? Everybody has their own experiences and opinions about the games right?

eagleforlife1
05-01-2012, 11:15 AM
Why rage? Everybody has their own experiences and opinions about the games right?

I agree. People confuse me. Why rage about a game?

egriffin09
05-01-2012, 04:22 PM
I felt AC:R was a little underrated. I enjoyed the story more than AC:B's story. I honestly think it was underrated because people were just tired of playing as Ezio and dragging his story out a bit, not to mention most people were just tired of the yearly release of the game-with the same assassin. Granted it was a shorter overall game than AC:B, I still enjoyed it more. Den Defense didn't bother me because I always keep my notoriety down by bribing heralds or killing officials. I think with the new assassin in AC III and new setting (the main reason I'm excited for AC III), the franchise will get back to feeling fresh to people. Which is why AC II was so great, it was a new assassin and setting, while AC:B and AC:R was just the same assassin in a different city. I think all the AC games are great in their own way, but's it's when the franchise changes the assassin is when everyone gets super excited. Think about it, no one has probably been this excited for an AC games since AC 2. why? Because it's a new assassin and setting.

D.I.D.
05-01-2012, 07:23 PM
I felt AC:R was a little underrated. I enjoyed the story more than AC:B's story. I honestly think it was underrated because people were just tired of playing as Ezio and dragging his story out a bit, not to mention most people were just tired of the yearly release of the game-with the same assassin.

That's not how I remember it at all. People were very excited for the game, and so were the press. Before ACR came out, Ezio had finally been established as one of those iconic game characters with broad name recognition, alongside the Nico Bellics, Gordon Freemans and Lara Crofts of other big-name titles.

I also don't recall ACR being underrated. It has an average of 80 on Metacritic (with many reviewers putting the game in the 90-100 bracket), which was too high in my opinion. I don't think a game getting 8, meaning "excellent", can ever be seen as underrated except by the most ardent of fanboys and fangirls.

Only after the game was out and the players had their say did we see the flood of concern about the yearly schedule. Until then it wasn't really an issue - while the games were good, we were all happy.