PDA

View Full Version : Just Not the Same? [spoilers]



tjbyrum1
11-03-2012, 10:16 PM
AC3 is superior to AC2 in every way. Better gameplay, better graphics, better animations, better features, better combat, naval warfare, Desmond gameplay, etc... it is superior in every way.

But for some reason, I just don't quite get that same... feeling... that I got from AC2. Maybe it's the characters? I connected to Ezio a lot better than I did Connor, and I preferred Ezio's story a lot more (a quest for vengeance to take down his family's murderers). But that still doesn't suffice. But still, while AC3 dominates and trumps AC2 in every way, I just feel like AC2 was... better...?

Anyone else feel like this?

EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong, Connor was a good character and his story was okay, and I think the game was amazing in every way and will replay it once I get 100% on my current playthrough.

FirestarLuva
11-03-2012, 10:19 PM
I think one of the main reasons is the time period. Another would be that people are more used to Ezio since we've had him for three games. In my opinion, the best thing in AC3 is Connor's story. Just a shame it wasn't as long as Ezio's in AC2. People say it's a big shame since they couldn't get to connect that much with Connor. :/

kolbaskat
11-03-2012, 10:37 PM
AC3 is superior to AC2 in every way. Better gameplay, better graphics, better animations, better features, better combat, naval warfare, Desmond gameplay, etc... it is superior in every way.

But for some reason, I just don't quite get that same... feeling... that I got from AC2. Maybe it's the characters? I connected to Ezio a lot better than I did Connor, and I preferred Ezio's story a lot more (a quest for vengeance to take down his family's murderers). But that still doesn't suffice. But still, while AC3 dominates and trumps AC2 in every way, I just feel like AC2 was... better...?

Anyone else feel like this?

EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong, Connor was a good character and his story was okay, and I think the game was amazing in every way and will replay it once I get 100% on my current playthrough.
Because AC 2 actually had better gameplay, and better events. You got introduced to everything, had started with one hidden blade then the 2nd. You felt the progress. Then you had nice events like the masquerade ball. The graphics...don't change much. It's the aesthetics that are important, which I prefered in AC II.
And the desmond gameplay was way to rushed in AC III. And also maybe the combat is better now. I prefered it that way, in the old game it was easier to achieve "cool kills" in this game you don't get to see many finishing moves.

AC III tried to add to much, but at the same time it left so much out.

TrueAssassin77
11-03-2012, 10:47 PM
we need one sequel... for conner. its only fair. hell even altair got a spirtual sequel in ACR. conner only gets like 9 sequences...less maybe?

conner story trumps ezio in every way....

how many stories has there been where i guys family was killed and he goes on a murder spreee??? now how many stories where i guys single mother was killed and he aims to kill the guy who did it , but a whole bunch of stuff just seems to be in his way? just a small thing called war

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 10:50 PM
Exactly my feelings too.
When I played AC2 for the first time, (and still today), I just can't put it down. I did with AC3, which speaks volumes to me.

I think the real life history and the Assassin vs Templar conflict was done in a better way in Ac2 as well.

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 10:58 PM
^^ I'd get rid of that, you might not be some peoples best friends soon.
It's not really relevant and this thread doesn't have spoiler tags.

TrueAssassin77
11-03-2012, 11:02 PM
im disgusted. what you mean is... you'd rather have photocopies of assassins creed 2? its really despicable. if you want a game like AC2, keep playing AC2. problem solved

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 11:05 PM
im disgusted. what you mean is... you'd rather have photocopies of assassins creed 2? its really despicable. if you want a game like AC2, keep playing AC2. problem solved

That's not what he said at all.

BlackLight3578
11-03-2012, 11:08 PM
Because AC 2 actually had better gameplay, and better events. You got introduced to everything, had started with one hidden blade then the 2nd. You felt the progress. Then you had nice events like the masquerade ball. The graphics...don't change much. It's the aesthetics that are important, which I prefered in AC II.
And the desmond gameplay was way to rushed in AC III. And also maybe the combat is better now. I prefered it that way, in the old game it was easier to achieve "cool kills" in this game you don't get to see many finishing moves.

AC III tried to add to much, but at the same time it left so much out.
Ac2 sure the hell didn't have better gameplay, but it just happened to use the era as a backdrop better for the story.

JCearlyyears
11-03-2012, 11:08 PM
I felt like the game was like a roller coaster. Maybe it's because I didn't do the side stuff till now. It starts off very slow then goes really fast, but it didn't have that many twists. The characters were pretty flat in my opinion. I liked the homestead characters more. George Washington seemed like as much of a character as any civilian, it's sad. The gameplay side of the game was fantastic in my opinion. It's the story that seemed bad. There was a lot of potential and a lot of it was wasted. There weren't many epic scenes but it certainly had the setup for it, they just didn't do anything with it. Desmond's side had no character development. I still don't have crap of an idea of who Daniel is from the game. Anyone not involved in the other media wouldn't know much. Vidic too, the newbs must be confused. Also TWCB, that must have been very strange. There was a lot of potential for epic scenes on Desmond's side. There was only one, and it was short. I wont say it, but it certainly wasn't the ending. For a several year/game buildup to the end, the ending was massively underwhelming. For these reasons, the game is brought down. I felt that AC2 is better because almost everything attempted did very well. I think the only bad thing about AC2 is the combat. Everything else was done fantastically. I really wish there were more pieces of eden in this game. I'm hoping that the DLC will be very interesting and have epic scenes. Speaking of epic scenes, I love using the flying machine in AC2. It's a shame it didn't make it in AC3.

TrueAssassin77
11-03-2012, 11:09 PM
he doesn'y like it vecause it doesn't feel like assassins creed 2... the title of the thread say "just not the same?"

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 11:11 PM
The way AC2 uses the history of the era, and intertwines it with the Ezio side of things, is also much better imo.

TrueAssassin77
11-03-2012, 11:12 PM
I felt like the game was like a roller coaster. Maybe it's because I didn't do the side stuff till now. It starts off very slow then goes really fast, but it didn't have that many twists. The characters were pretty flat in my opinion. I liked the homestead characters more. George Washington seemed like as much of a character as any civilian, it's sad. The gameplay side of the game was fantastic in my opinion. It's the story that seemed bad. There was a lot of potential and a lot of it was wasted. There weren't many epic scenes but it certainly had the setup for it, they just didn't do anything with it. Desmond's side had no character development. I still don't have crap of an idea of who Daniel is from the game. Anyone not involved in the other media wouldn't know much. Vidic too, the newbs must be confused. Also TWCB, that must have been very strange. There was a lot of potential for epic scenes on Desmond's side. There was only one, and it was short. I wont say it, but it certainly wasn't the ending. For a several year/game buildup to the end, the ending was massively underwhelming. For these reasons, the game is brought down. I felt that AC2 is better because almost everything attempted did very well. I think the only bad thing about AC2 is the combat. Everything else was done fantastically. I really wish there were more pieces of eden in this game. I'm hoping that the DLC will be very interesting and have epic scenes. Speaking of epic scenes, I love using the flying machine in AC2. It's a shame it didn't make it in AC3.

daniel is drom the comic book of assassins creed that feature russia.

conners story had alot of stuff better. ezios story as a whole is better because well, he had lke 3 games all to himself. conner has a 3/4 of a game imo.

but if we just look at AC2 ezio story, compared to AC3 conner story, conners story is far better

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 11:13 PM
he doesn'y like it vecause it doesn't feel like assassins creed 2... the title of the thread say "just not the same?"

And goes on to talk about how the game made him feel.

Doesn't mean he wants the same game, just the same feelings of awesomeness, sadness and all that.

kolbaskat
11-03-2012, 11:18 PM
Ac2 sure the hell didn't have better gameplay, but it just happened to use the era as a backdrop better for the story.
I mean gameplay as in, it just felt better, We had those nice things like the secret armor. We got introduced to everything, in AC III we never had to use the poison darts a single time. Many thing got left out. The glyphs etc. This all is gameplay. And that did AC III not have. It's not a bad game, but it's weaker compared to previous titles. But every game series has this kind of stuff.

JCearlyyears
11-03-2012, 11:26 PM
daniel is drom the comic book of assassins creed that feature russia.

conners story had alot of stuff better. ezios story as a whole is better because well, he had lke 3 games all to himself. conner has a 3/4 of a game imo.

but if we just look at AC2 ezio story, compared to AC3 conner story, conners story is far better

I know that, but about the comparison between the games, the characters were a great part of AC2 imo and there were almost no good characters in the game. Connor as a character was okay, but the game was way too short to see every side of him like Ezio in AC2. I have no idea why the first three sequences of this game are the way that they are. It could have just been in one. I'm not sure if I want another Connor game. I think that maybe they should just move on, but if they could do with a Connor sequel what they failed at in AC3, I'd be okay with that maybe. In terms of assassins versus templars, the story was done mostly okay. Ezio didn't necessarily want to kill templars, it just happened to be that templars killed his family, so he wanted revenge, then he realised that his father was an assassin so he finished what his father started and then, well, you know the rest.

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 11:30 PM
I personally feel the vast majority of the characters were better in the Ezio games.

TrueAssassin77
11-03-2012, 11:30 PM
And goes on to talk about how the game made him feel.

Doesn't mean he wants the same game, just the same feelings of awesomeness, sadness and all that.

awesomeness= a war is awesome

sadness= has he completed AC3? ppl don't like the game becasue its sad.

ezio in AC2, everything basically went right for him. in the end ezio was the same exact way as he was when he put on the hood. he was a sterotypical revenge story with the plot twist concerning minerva and stufff. conners story SEEMS like it doesn'y have plot twist because its about colonial america........... the thing they teach us in school from 3rd to 12th. of course we already know what gonna happen.

well, if you live in america at least.

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 11:34 PM
awesomeness= a war is awesome

sadness= has he completed AC3? ppl don't like the game becasue its sad.

ezio in AC2, everything basically went right for him. in the end ezio was the same exact way as he was when he put on the hood. he was a sterotypical revenge story with the plot twist concerning minerva and stufff. conners story SEEMS like it doesn'y have plot twist because its about colonial america........... the thing they teach us in school from 3rd to 12th. of course we already know what gonna happen.

well, if you live in america at least.

AC1 already had a war. And it was handled much better.

I'd guess he has completed it, sadness contributes to the feeling, which he is on about.

Not everyone is American, like me. They can still make a good intertwining plot, instead they dropped Connor into events, rather than make the events work for the story imo,

BlackLight3578
11-03-2012, 11:40 PM
I mean gameplay as in, it just felt better, We had those nice things like the secret armor. We got introduced to everything, in AC III we never had to use the poison darts a single time. Many thing got left out. The glyphs etc. This all is gameplay. And that did AC III not have. It's not a bad game, but it's weaker compared to previous titles. But every game series has this kind of stuff. Gameplay is a pretty broad subject and usually people pertain to mechanics. i agree that we didn't feel progression with the gameplay.

Assassin_M
11-03-2012, 11:56 PM
Wow... People called ACR`s story bad, because Corey did not write it. Now we had Corey May and people still think its bad. So I guess Corey is not a Writing God after All eh ?

F4H bandicoot
11-03-2012, 11:59 PM
Wow... People called ACR`s story bad, because Corey did not write it. Now we had Corey May and people still think its bad. So I guess Corey is not a Writing God after All eh ?

Maybe these aren't those 'people'

TrueAssassin77
11-03-2012, 11:59 PM
Wow... People called ACR`s story bad, because Corey did not write it. Now we had Corey May and people still think its bad. So I guess Corey is not a Writing God after All eh ?

Assassins creed embers is the only thing that made ACR story good imo.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 12:00 AM
I don't think Corey has even been mentioned in this thread.
People called the story bad. And who wrote that ? Oh Corey..

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 12:02 AM
People called the story bad. And who wrote that ? Oh Corey..

Yeah I changed my post. Sorry :P
What is the people who didn't like R's story aren't these people.

Personally I liked Revelations story, it had a clear purpose.
A more clear purpose than 3 imo.

JCearlyyears
11-04-2012, 12:02 AM
Alex said that about 20 percent of the game was cut out. If he meant story, features, or both, then that explains some of these problems. That would explain where the characters went, maybe. As it stands, I like the story for the most part, but in terms of character development, it was crap for most characters besides Connor and Haytham.
Edit: I hate stories that are in any way about opening a door(Revelations and AC3)

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 12:06 AM
Yeah I changed my post. Sorry :P
What is the people who didn't like R's story aren't these people.

Personally I liked Revelations story, it had a clear purpose.
A more clear purpose than 3 imo.
Its the same people..

Everyone Kept saying how Revelations` Story sucked, because Corey was not the writer and How Corey may was a writing God. My favorite story was ACR and Now it is AC III, I think both are Superb, I`m only pointing out the small bits of lost thoughts and Ideas some people here have..They do not know what they want.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 12:10 AM
It always happens. Happened with Drew Karpyshan at the Mass effect board.


I feel that character development was lacking, if I wasn't told who Washington was, I probably wouldn't give a **** about him.
Achilles and Faulkner are the only characters I really care for aside from Connor.

I liked how Historical events were used in previous games, but it feel different here, which I didn't like.

TrueAssassin77
11-04-2012, 12:12 AM
ACR/emeber story was the best story of all the games.

anyone who thinks AC2 story was the best needs to read a alot more books and watch a few movies. because that story is repeated many times.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 12:14 AM
ACR/emeber story was the best story of all the games.

anyone who thinks AC2 story was the best needs to read a alot more books and watch a few movies. because that story is repeated many times.

That doesn't make it a bad story.
If you think that you're a fool.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 12:16 AM
It always happens. Happened with Drew Karpyshan at the Mass effect board.


I feel that character development was lacking, if I wasn't told who Washington was, I probably wouldn't give a **** about him.
Achilles and Faulkner are the only characters I really care for aside from Connor.

I liked how Historical events were used in previous games, but it feel different here, which I didn't like.
I dunno, Maybe I`m an Idiot, but I loved everything about the story. I dont think I was supposed to care about Washington much Since all the characters around seemed to have more colorful Personalities such as Franlin, Adams and even Charles Lee.

I loved Haytham, Achilles, Faulkner, Sam Adams, Putnam (especially Putnam xD) and to my surprise, I did not despise The Templars like I did in past games, and I guess that was my point..

But to each his own

JCearlyyears
11-04-2012, 12:19 AM
How did you like Putnam? We barely got to know him and you "loved" him. I just don't know how that's possible. Sorry if I sound like an ***, I don't mean to.

zhengyingli
11-04-2012, 12:23 AM
How did you like Putnam? We barely got to know him and you "loved" him. I just don't know how that's possible. Sorry if I sound like an ***, I don't mean to.
His character alone! You don't need character development to be impressed, you know?

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 12:23 AM
How did you like Putnam? We barely got to know him and you "loved" him. I just don't know how that's possible. Sorry if I sound like an ***, I don't mean to.
and even If you mean to, Its not a problem xD. I liked Putnam`s brief screen time. I liked his loud yet Intelligent Personality. His arrogant tone and blind Honesty towards a Cynical Connor. I believe that the Patriots` portrayal was not supposed to be taken Individually (Although I did enjoy each`s contribution on his own) It was to give a view of the general Patriot faction.


His character alone! You don't need character development to be impressed, you know?
This.

Altair had only one game and yet we loved him more than Ezio after playing AC II

BlackLight3578
11-04-2012, 12:24 AM
How did you like Putnam? We barely got to know him and you "loved" him. I just don't know how that's possible. Sorry if I sound like an ***, I don't mean to. you have to love him, he's that generic gruff voiced general we all need in war games......

JCearlyyears
11-04-2012, 12:27 AM
Oh. I didn't really like how most of the characters barely got any screen time. I think that more screen time to display character traits would help create feelings toward the characters.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 12:28 AM
Oh. I didn't really like how most of the characters barely got any screen time. I think that more screen time to display character traits would help create feelings toward the characters.
To you Perhaps, but like I said. I do not have to see Someone over and over to actually enjoy his Character.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 12:30 AM
To you Perhaps, but like I said. I do not have to see Someone over and over to actually enjoy his Character.

Enjoying and 'connecting' are two different things though.

kolbaskat
11-04-2012, 12:30 AM
Gameplay is a pretty broad subject and usually people pertain to mechanics. i agree that we didn't feel progression with the gameplay.

That's the mistake, gameplay is actually everything what is not graphic, story and sound :). Though all things affect each other in some way.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 12:32 AM
Enjoying and 'connecting' are two different things though.
True, I did not say otherwise, but In my opinion, I only need to connect to the Protagonist I do not need to connect to every other character in the game. I did not connect to any of the AC II Characters but I enjoyed the screen time each was given..

zhengyingli
11-04-2012, 12:41 AM
Enjoying and 'connecting' are two different things though.
What does it mean to connect, though? I'm not a wealthy playboy, I didn't witness my father's death in a wrongful execution, I didn't join a faction that turned my life upside down. Assuming we're talking about Ezio.

Edit: I'm assuming "relate" is the same as "connect," by the way.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 12:51 AM
What does it mean to connect, though? I'm not a wealthy playboy, I didn't witness my father's death in a wrongful execution, I didn't join a faction that turned my life upside down. Assuming we're talking about Ezio.

Edit: I'm assuming "relate" is the same as "connect," by the way.

Not necessarily
You still feel emotions?? You don't need to experience to have experienced the base emotions or be able to empathise with him/
I really liked Yussuf, if he had 1 little bit of screen time, I wouldn't give a **** when he died. Instead, I was able to 'connect' (I know it's vague) and so felt quite sad when he died.
I wouldn't have felt that if the majority of the characters died in 3.

tjbyrum1
11-04-2012, 12:58 AM
Let me explain something (I'm the OP) to some people who seem to have misunderstood what I said.

I didn't want a rehash of AC2, and I didn't say that. I just said the experience I had in AC2 was amazing, but the same experience was not so in AC3.

AC3 is dominate in every category except story and characters. AC2 had better story and characters. I guess that's what makes and breaks a game for me. I just AC3 had an experience equal to or greater than AC2 you know?

In AC2 we started as Ezio in his normal life, then witnessed his family's murder (males anyway), and I grew onto him. He was also simply likeable, and I think Ezio was a great character. I feel they tried to rehash this by starting out as young Connor, witnessing his mother's death, and then joining the Brotherhood for the sake of justice and revenge. It's nearly a copy of AC2 if you think about the basis of the stories. The failed part? Ezio was just more likeable and had a better storyline; not that Connor isn't likeable, but Ezio was just a better character.

I liked playing through the story and missions on AC2 than AC3, see what I mean? But AC3 is much better in everything else. Also whoever mentioned the thing about progression, like having 1 blade then 2, you're also right.

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 01:11 AM
Just want to point out: some people like AC1 more than AC2. Some people like AC2 more than AC3. This will always happen.

I feel that each Assassin's Creed was better than the last in nearly every way. (Side missions from Brotherhood to Revelations was horrible)

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 01:11 AM
Just want to point out: some people like AC1 more than AC2. Some people like AC2 more than AC3. This will always happen.

I feel that each Assassin's Creed was better than the last in nearly every way. (Side missions from Brotherhood to Revelations was horrible)
Agree with this..

My favorite story was not AC II. It was ACR, and AC III improved in the story in my opinion, and greatly surpassed AC II in terms of Gameplay.

So I find AC III as a major Upgrade from the Past in the right direction..

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 01:24 AM
I liked ACB's story more than AC2 also.. well, at least I liked it's pacing a lot more. AC2 went by a little fast for me, I never really felt like most of the 9 assassins were needed for the story.

TrueAssassin77
11-04-2012, 04:41 AM
Let me explain something (I'm the OP) to some people who seem to have misunderstood what I said.

I didn't want a rehash of AC2, and I didn't say that. I just said the experience I had in AC2 was amazing, but the same experience was not so in AC3.

AC3 is dominate in every category except story and characters. AC2 had better story and characters. I guess that's what makes and breaks a game for me. I just AC3 had an experience equal to or greater than AC2 you know?

In AC2 we started as Ezio in his normal life, then witnessed his family's murder (males anyway), and I grew onto him. He was also simply likeable, and I think Ezio was a great character. I feel they tried to rehash this by starting out as young Connor, witnessing his mother's death, and then joining the Brotherhood for the sake of justice and revenge. It's nearly a copy of AC2 if you think about the basis of the stories. The failed part? Ezio was just more likeable and had a better storyline; not that Connor isn't likeable, but Ezio was just a better character.

I liked playing through the story and missions on AC2 than AC3, see what I mean? But AC3 is much better in everything else. Also whoever mentioned the thing about progression, like having 1 blade then 2, you're also right.

ill give you that. characters in Ac2 was better... but that is because the devs had more freedom concerning them. alot of stuff from AC2 was set toward speculation in terms of historic accuracy. We weren't for sure if leonarde de vinci acted like that, but well just give him a ecentric personality because thats how we feel he would have acted.(example)

In AC3, the devs had more evidence on how a specific character acted. we can't suddenly make it so george washington was super smart and had a great military mind. because there are acyually proof that, it wasn't the case. AC3 had more restrictions in that regard. the devs couldn't simply inject personality into characters like they could in
Ac2. if they had, they would be exteremly inacurate in terms of historic evidence.

yes ezio is likeable... that doesn't make him a better hero at all. conner was 5 when he lost his single mother to a fire. ezio lost the whole male part of his family because of "treason" at the age of 17.... im not sure why you feel conners story is a rehash of ezio, but maybe you might need to play AC2 than immediatly play AC3 right after... conner is a hero who tried to protect what he cares about most, and he ultimately failed. ezio is a hero who grew angry, and vowed revenge against those who wronged him, he picked them off one by one, and thats all he cared about. never did he express concern for those he protected, never did he reflect on what happened to him.

conner is a better realistic character. he makes mistake. he fails. he grows. his principles change. his view of the world alters.
ezio is a likeable cliche character. he learns. he triumphs. he has his revenge. he leads. he teaches.

tjbyrum1
11-04-2012, 05:20 AM
ill give you that. characters in Ac2 was better... but that is because the devs had more freedom concerning them. alot of stuff from AC2 was set toward speculation in terms of historic accuracy. We weren't for sure if leonarde de vinci acted like that, but well just give him a ecentric personality because thats how we feel he would have acted.(example)

In AC3, the devs had more evidence on how a specific character acted. we can't suddenly make it so george washington was super smart and had a great military mind. because there are acyually proof that, it wasn't the case. AC3 had more restrictions in that regard. the devs couldn't simply inject personality into characters like they could in
Ac2. if they had, they would be exteremly inacurate in terms of historic evidence.

yes ezio is likeable... that doesn't make him a better hero at all. conner was 5 when he lost his single mother to a fire. ezio lost the whole male part of his family because of "treason" at the age of 17.... im not sure why you feel conners story is a rehash of ezio, but maybe you might need to play AC2 than immediatly play AC3 right after... conner is a hero who tried to protect what he cares about most, and he ultimately failed. ezio is a hero who grew angry, and vowed revenge against those who wronged him, he picked them off one by one, and thats all he cared about. never did he express concern for those he protected, never did he reflect on what happened to him.

conner is a better realistic character. he makes mistake. he fails. he grows. his principles change. his view of the world alters.
ezio is a likeable cliche character. he learns. he triumphs. he has his revenge. he leads. he teaches.

I can understand the whole 'freedom' thing.

But I never said that Ezio is a better hero cause he is more likeable, just that I connected to him a helluva lot better than Connor cause he was more likeable.

What I meant by 'rehash' is this, as I mentioned before only basic things:
1. Start young
2. Family members die
3. Driven by revenge to kill people who killed family members (Connor was driven by revenge to kill... you know)

They seem rather similar to me in basic terms, which I said before.

Assassin_M
11-04-2012, 05:23 AM
I can understand the whole 'freedom' thing.

But I never said that Ezio is a better hero cause he is more likeable, just that I connected to him a helluva lot better than Connor cause he was more likeable.

What I meant by 'rehash' is this, as I mentioned before only basic things:
1. Start young
2. Family members die
3. Driven by revenge to kill people who killed family members (Connor was driven by revenge to kill... you know)

They seem rather similar to me in basic terms, which I said before.
I can tell you confidently that Connor does not fight for Revenge over the death of family...

I cannot say how, because it is a Spoiler..

Jexx21
11-04-2012, 05:25 AM
I eat every deer I kill.

NOLA_Assassin
11-04-2012, 06:38 AM
The Venice part of AC 2 was so forgettable, AC 3 never had that problem.

TrueAssassin77
11-04-2012, 07:05 AM
I can understand the whole 'freedom' thing.

But I never said that Ezio is a better hero cause he is more likeable, just that I connected to him a helluva lot better than Connor cause he was more likeable.

What I meant by 'rehash' is this, as I mentioned before only basic things:
1. Start young
2. Family members die
3. Driven by revenge to kill people who killed family members (Connor was driven by revenge to kill... you know)

They seem rather similar to me in basic terms, which I said before.

Conner is not driven by revenge. he is out for justice. and that is apparent while you are playing the game. if you can connect with ezio better than you must be the actual james bond. when ezios family died, i felt no remorse at all. and to think of it, other than mario dying in ACB ezio faced no other sorrow throughout the game. when conners mom died, i thought it was most BS stuff in the world. a 5 year old losing his mother is no freaking joke. conner also faces many other sorrows throughout! exio never faced someone who was better than him. because ezio was the best apparently. conner faced someone who was better him, and only won barely. conner struggles on, while ezio breezes thruogh. players can actully see conner grow wiser and wiser. ezio just seems to get more wise between games. when i say between i mean the age difference between the games is where he gets wiser.

but... to each his own

TrueAssassin77
11-04-2012, 08:30 AM
Ezio can be prepared with many characters throughout literature and film. Conner is very unique. Not saying conner is un -comparable. But he is way more unique than ezio

MCRMJ
11-04-2012, 01:45 PM
The overall character development feels lacking in AC3. In AC2, we see the progression of Ezio, but it's the supporting characters that really enhance things. As Ezio progresses, he meets people who, by the reveal that they are all assassin's, you can either care about or understand. La Volpe, Antonio, Leonardo, Mario and so on.

In 3, you rush from meeting character to character with a basic explanation of who they are, then they either do not pop up again, or if they do it's only briefly. There are characters that I still have no idea what they are there for (for example, the french guy who is around Washington who clears the tunnels for you, that memorable I can't even remember his name).

Even Achilles doesn't get developed fully, the impression I got was he had some contact with Connors mother, which wasn't explored (if I got that correct of course).

What I did enjoy character wise was the development of the 'villains' of the game. Rodrigo was the only other Templar I thought was handled quite well (until they sidelined him in ACB), but I haven't actually despised and WANTED to go after a Templar more than Charles Lee, they got the sinister vibe spot on with him. Haytham was a great twist, though it jarred slightly that Connor (still thinking that he and Lee were responsible for the death of his mother) just so readily started tagging along.

pirate1802
11-04-2012, 01:51 PM
The Venice part of AC 2 was so forgettable, AC 3 never had that problem.

I thought that Venice section of AC2 was dreamlike. easily THE best part of all ACs. I haven't played AC3 though. Maybe my opinion will change :D

Crucify Lucifer
11-04-2012, 02:06 PM
The setting definitely had a great deal to do with that for me. Not to be mistaken - it was still well done - but the revolution never really grabbed my interests as much as the Crusades or the Renaissance. Especially during AC2, I immersed myself in the setting and read all of those bits of info about different characters and landmarks (might have been my Italian heritage at work :p). In AC3, I just didn't care about them or skimmed them briefly.

F4H bandicoot
11-04-2012, 03:01 PM
Ezio can be prepared with many characters throughout literature and film. Conner is very unique. Not saying conner is un -comparable. But he is way more unique than ezio

That doesn't mean he is better.

TrueAssassin77
11-04-2012, 08:41 PM
That doesn't mean he is better.


Likeable-ness doesn't mean better.

I meant to say "compared " not prepared btw

twenty_glyphs
11-04-2012, 11:43 PM
AC3 is superior to AC2 in every way. Better gameplay, better graphics, better animations, better features, better combat, naval warfare, Desmond gameplay, etc... it is superior in every way.

But for some reason, I just don't quite get that same... feeling... that I got from AC2. Maybe it's the characters? I connected to Ezio a lot better than I did Connor, and I preferred Ezio's story a lot more (a quest for vengeance to take down his family's murderers). But that still doesn't suffice. But still, while AC3 dominates and trumps AC2 in every way, I just feel like AC2 was... better...?

Anyone else feel like this?

EDIT: I mean, don't get me wrong, Connor was a good character and his story was okay, and I think the game was amazing in every way and will replay it once I get 100% on my current playthrough.

Yep, I feel the same way. I haven't finished the game yet, I'm in Sequence 9, but I completely agree. It feels like AC3 has the superior brains in many ways, but the heart and soul of AC2 just isn't there. I can't put the blame in one place. I thnk the presentation is lacking in many ways. Many story missions just seem to end abruptly, then you find yourself going to the next story mission without a feeling of cohesion. Characters aren't given the time to grow. Maybe part of the problem is that the American Revolution is too event-focused. The beauty of AC2 was that you were in a cool setting with a unique story that incorporated a few historical events. AC3 seems to be trying to hit too many events, and the setting itself is just not that interesting, unlike 15th century Italy.

There are other things, like the lack of The Truth puzzles and mysteries. The lack of ambient music makes the game feel empty a lot of the time. None of the characters or maps interest me as much as AC2. AC3 feels like this big technical feat without the heart and soul to bring it together like AC2.