PDA

View Full Version : WhatCulture: 10 Things We Loved About Assassin’s Creed 2 That AC 3 Ignored



im3jia
12-07-2012, 10:07 PM
http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-things-we-loved-about-assassins-creed-2-that-ac-3-ignored.php/4

"When the team at Ubisoft came to create the sequel to their new IP, Assassin’s Creed – they made notes. A LOT of notes. Every criticism and gripe was included, from (they claimed) fan forums right up to the top gaming sites. And boy did it show. Every facet of the game was picked clean and reworked or built on: many new features were added, from an economy to new weapons and a ton of new moves – an entirely new world was open to explore. Italy was overflowing with nuance, character and quality content – so much so that it almost felt like an entirely new game at times. And so Assassin’s Creed 2 became one of the most awesome and captivating open world gaming experiences of this generation.

"So here’s 10 things that made AC2 so awesome five years ago… which AC 3 could and should have learned a few more lessons from…"

AdrianJacek
12-07-2012, 10:17 PM
This is so subjective it makes my head hurt.

FirestarLuva
12-07-2012, 10:34 PM
It was already posted in another thread.
Some things, I can agree on, but not the protagonist part. I mean, Connor - Conan with a tomahawk. Are you serious? This guy clearly contradicts himself many times in the article, on one hand he says Connor is a good character, while when talking about Ezio he describes him as a well-written character.
If there is anything good about AC3, that's Connor's story. He probably didn't even wait for the epilogue at the end when it was clear Connor was a whole different character than he was when we started playing as him in sequence 6. Connor doesn't speak as much as Ezio, he doesn't show his feelings with words, you can see from the look in his eyes and his actions. Connor is the exact opposite of Ezio in every way, Connor = introvert, Ezio = extrovert. The change in him was hidden and it was harder for people to see it. I think Connor's story is much harder to understand than Ezio's, Connor being a complex character, I lost count how many times I wondered if Connor did the right thing or not, and what will become of him in the end. You won't fully understand Connor and his story if you don't pay a lot of attention in the dialogue, the gestures of Connor, or have at least played it twice. People give in too early just because you have to wait a little to play as Connor. Connor is a character that you love and hate, but drives the story forward, as a flawed character who makes many mistakes, while Ezio and Altair achieved great things in their lives and are considered as gods.I think Connor had a more in-depth development than Ezio, but then again, Ezio had 3 games to develop. I wouldn't call the change in Ezio in AC2 as development much, he simply matured, something everyone does at some point in their lives. The only time I actually saw Ezio grow was in ACR and the only time I really loved his character. :)

SaintPerkele
12-07-2012, 10:44 PM
Read through the article and while there are some valid points, others are - in my opinion - not thought out properly or simply not true.

10. The Customisation:
Of course there's no armour in ACIII - we are talking about the American Revolution. The capes were never that important to me anyway (let's face it, most people were glad when they were gone in ACR) and the "effect on NPC behaviour" (e.g. not getting a higher notoriety) is now replaced by the Animus hacks. The colour customisation is still pretty similar to ACII - sure, there could have been other colours than blue, white, red and black, but the time period just wasn't as colourful as the Renaissance in terms of fashion. Unlike ACII however, ACIII offered many different outfits (some unlockable while playing the game or getting collectibles, others worn at certain times like the Captain outfit) while ACII had pretty much none. And with all the different types of weapons, I'd say that ACIII had more customisation than ACII. And I don't know what's the big deal about the outfits not appearing in cutscenes.. if that is the trade off for amazing looking cutscenes, I have no problem with that. Also, lol'd at the Revelation multiplayer picture they used to show the customisation of ACII...

9. The Loading
Played on PC, didn't have any problems with that. Also, that's what to expect with areas that huge, graphics that great and the amount of NPCs - ACII just didn't look as fantastic as ACIII, thus shorter loading times were rather possible. At least ACIII didn't take as long to load as Fallout or Skyrim.

8. The Protagonist
Clearly this guy did not really pay any close attention to Connor's development. I'm not going into great detail here, as these things have been said before - but Ezio really didn't change THAT much in ACII as most people assume. He's still the somewhat funny, charismatic playboy at the end, the only difference being that he is not as hateful anymore. Connor is clearly not the "one dimensional character [...] we've seen in hundreds of films" - complete and utter ********. I loved both characters and both were unlike the usual stereotypes. Haytha, for example, while being interesting, was - as one of the devs put it - just an evil James Bond. The fact that the author points out how he preferred Haytham shows that he is clearly used to standard Hollywood movies and not media with unusual characters - at least that's what I think.

7. The Tombs
Valid point, but - there was just no way to introduce something like this in ACIII. In ACII, it was clearly possible that Assassins hid tombs in rather old buildings - why would something have been hidden in some new churches in NY and Boston, when almost the whole Assassin order in America [SPOILERS?] had been extinct before they were built?
And there was some background story for the Assassins in ACIII - like Shao Jun or the first colonial assassin. Yeah, it wasn't as much as Altair's Codex and it could have been worked on a bit more, but in my opinion, that comes with the setting. In Europe, guilds were established since.. since forever, basically. In Northern America, there was only one and it did basically not exist anymore. We mostly learned things about the last remaining assassin - Achilles - which in itself was a nice way to symbolize the North American order.
The tombs themselves weren't thaaaat great, but the choices were limited. Don't know why the author loved the ship graveyard, it was the most boring one to me. Fort Wolcott was fantastic however!

6. Music
Fair point.

5. The Consistency
As I said, PC players. No bugs and only fantastic gameplay for me, thank you very much.

4. The Humour
Ezio was a funny character. Think about it - he was not always the badass assassin, sometimes he was more of a goofy playboy. He did not always understand things (just remembering Leonardo telling him that he wouldn't get distracted by the women) and so on. Also, things like the special DLC jump of ACII were just perfect for Ezio, but wouldn't fit Connor at all. So naturally, there wasn't much humour in the past times (some though, like the misunderstandings evolving from different cultures between Connor and Achilles for example, some of the conversations on the Homestead or the Boone-missions and so on). ACIII's humour did mostly shine through modern times, especially Shaun's comments as well as his database entries. Some of them were outright hilarious.
By the way, the humour part was mostly introduced with Ezio (there was nothing like that in Altair times) and did mostly serve the purpose to define his character.

3. The Simplicity
If he is talking about the crafting system, to each their own. I liked crafting special items and Franklin inventions, the rest was rather pointless (seeing that quickly collecting bear pelts and selling them by ship was often more useful than crafting something). There were a lot of weapons to buy though, you could upgrade the ship... I had by far not bought everything after having finished the main game. And the author thinks that "he was playing as an Assassin - not a landlord/trader". Oh, what about Monteriggioni in ACII? Upgrading cities in ACB and ACR? I think he missed something there or is trying to blame ACIII for something that has been part of the franchise since the second game. The Homestead was fantastic and the fact that he did not complete the Homstead missions before finishing the main story tells a lot about this guy, honestly.. And Connor learning to craft things himself? This is NOT The Elder Scrolls. Connor is NOT a main who can do everything. He's an Assassin, not a blacksmith. ACIII is NOT an RPG. Argh.

2. The Assassinations
Oh, finally a valid point, I was getting mad at this guy already.
Yeah, the cutscenes assassinations were not neccessary and the sidequest assassinations just weird and boring. But there were so many other side missions which completely replaced the Assassination missions, that I'm cool with that. Only the cutscene-assassinations annoy me, but since the author didn't mention these..

1. The Scale
The setting. It's only the setting. The Frontier had a huge scale though. Ah well...

Final words: The author is not the huge AC fan he is pretending to be. Moreover, he just takes some things from ACII in order to criticize ACIII and doesn't even mention the great things of ACIII and the bad things of ACII. Hell, he doesn't even mention the things in ACIII that were ACTUALLY bad, just some random stuff (and console-related things, I'm sorry, but I just can't say much about that).

ElDoucherino
12-07-2012, 11:09 PM
Some of the reasons are laughable. But he has a point in assassinations. But Hutchinson has stated that the lack of freedom in SP is a result of telling their story. But the protagonist part is downrigh stupid. It is quite amusing how he referes to Connor as a cliche character when Ezio is more cliche then Connor. But he is like every other on facebook and youtube wanting a action packed game with a wise cracking womanizer.

CalgaryJay
12-07-2012, 11:36 PM
Ya, I wouldn't say the author is as much an AC fan as he is an AC2 fan.

D.I.D.
12-07-2012, 11:41 PM
This is so subjective it makes my head hurt.

Of course it is, it says so right there in the title: "What We Loved..."

This site always structures its headlines that way, and by "we" they mean "WhatCulture.com". They couldn't possibly attempt to speak for all players, and they're not trying to do that.

xboxauditore
12-07-2012, 11:45 PM
Why is every bloody thread about how you hate AC3? Wish I could swear my brains out right now.

IT'S BETTER. I LOVED IT, NOTHING WRONG THAT NEEDS TO BE SCREAMED ABOUT ON THE WEB 24/7. Don't like it? Play the old ones and stop moaning.

doogsy91
12-07-2012, 11:57 PM
I tend to agree with the article, some points more than others, but particularly point 3.

I did really like the new setting though, even if there weren't as many monuments to climb.

ace3001
12-08-2012, 01:10 AM
To date, I consider Assassin's Creed II the peak of the series. However, this guy should've thought a bit more before typing this list.

Why the hell would he add "loading" into that list? Is he implying that a loading screen is something a developer adds in just to kill time? Does he think that developers specify their duration? On PC, it takes like 10 seconds (15 tops) to load a new area. With consoles, a slightly longer loading time has to be expected because of the age old hardware. Ubisoft almost performed a miracle by getting those to run this massive game.

And bugs. There are a lot of bugs, yes. But again, just like loading screens, bugs aren't intentional. This time, it is the developers' fault instead of the hardware's fault, but it is still not something they decided to include, so it doesn't belong in a list called "things AC3 ignored".

I can agree with him on music (this game's soundtrack is terrible compared to AC2's, though that is also highly subjective) and platforming missions being too short, though. He's at least right about those.

@SaintPerkele: I played on PC as well, but I faced a considerable amount of bugs. Mainly when it comes to side quests. Markers not appearing on the map where they should is the biggest offender. It seems that some people get them and some people don't. At least I didn't get those dreaded FPS drops in Boston, so I guess I'm lucky that way.

kriegerdesgottes
12-08-2012, 01:26 AM
The first thing I thought of when I saw the article was ambient music and sure enough that is one of his points. The background music is sooo important. It sets the mood for entire game. That is ACIII's biggest problem in my opinion.

BATISTABUS
12-08-2012, 01:36 AM
10. Customization
Customization was utterly pointless in the previous Assassin's Creed games. You could play the entire game without buying a single upgrade (except for when a mission requires it), and doing so only served to make the game easier.

9. Loading
...download the game to your console.

8. The Protagonist
Horrible analysis; He calls Connor a cliche, yet doesn't hold Ezio to the same standard, who is actually a much bigger offender. He seems to dislike that Connor hasn't really developed more, which is understandable. We should've gotten more time to play as him, but in the next game, this should hopefully be a non-issue. Assassin's Creed II has the worst story of any of the main console games, and it's a shame that so many people have such a shallow sense of good storytelling. Again, "Ezio is smooth and gets ladies so he's better than Connor who's so booooreing." Please.

7. Tombs
Okay, I agree with this 100%. Tombs were possibly my favorite thing about AC2 (and onward), and I was really missing them in AC3. Yeah, we got the Pegleg arc, but that wasn't enough, dammit! I know it's Colonial America and structures like this aren't as readily available, but still...I wish they had fudged something, or at least made more Mayan/Aztec/Native American ruins missions.

6. The Music
I thought this was gonna be another "Kyd rulz, Balfe sux" comment, but it's apparently about the lack of ambient. I agree with this.

5. The Consistency
They didn't develop it over 5 years, but I agree. The bugs really were too much. There were a lot of boring missions, and side quests without a meaningful narrative are utterly pointless; most of them are just running from point A to point B. Still, AC2 looked worse than AC1 in my opinion, so it's no wonder the game ran fine.

4. Humor
Subjective. There were enough funny moments in AC3 for my liking, and I'm someone who has a pretty high tolerance for silliness in serious entertainment. Comparing Connor to Altair, contrary to the belief of this author, is a good thing. Both fantastic characters, Altair just had more time to grow.

3. Simplicity
I'll agree with this...I'm not a fan of the economic system in AC3, and even if I wanted to get into it, I'd just feel too overwhelmed. I know Hutchinson likes simulators like this, but I wish time had been delegated to other areas. The way Ezio was an investor made sense; he was a noble, and his father was a banker. I understand that Connor basically ran a town, but an accountant should've just been another Homesteader.

2. Assassinations
Eh, I don't have a strong opinion about this one. I see what he's saying, but the targets in AC3 were FAR more memorable than those in AC2, and still less memorable than those in AC1.

1. The Scale
Subjective again, but I might agree to an extent. You can't beat Italy's cities.

I hate how people hold AC2 on a pedestal. I didn't totally disagree with all of his points, and some I quite agree with, but AC2 isn't as much of a masterpiece as he makes it sound. Go back and play all of the games in order, and you'll see what I mean.

CalgaryJay
12-08-2012, 01:39 AM
Apparently I'm really lucky, because I've never had a long loading time in this game.

Actually its funny, because if anything, I wanted to commend Ubi on load times in AC3, because for me its been bar none the quickest its ever been in this series. Sometimes it shocks me how quick it loads. I don't get how I'm having such an opposite experience here.

kriegerdesgottes
12-08-2012, 01:41 AM
I hate how people hold AC2 on a pedestal. I didn't totally disagree with all of his points, and some I quite agree with, but AC2 isn't as much of a masterpiece as he makes it sound. Go back and play all of the games in order, and you'll see what I mean.

I have done this and it's still a masterpiece. The difference as I see it is that ACII came and fulfilled all the fan's expectations and it seems like the developers had a better sense of what the franchise was supposed to be and what people really loved about it and with ACIII it almost seems like they did some research to try and figure it out and got some stuff right and just totally missed on other things that you would think would be obvious like having his hood UP at the end and having background music during freeroam.

That is the saddest thing about ACIII is that it's a good game that had the potential to be just revolutionary like ACI and ACII were and it just kind of missed the mark with little things that make a big difference.

CalgaryJay
12-08-2012, 01:45 AM
AC2 maybe. But outside of the setting, I fail to see how AC1 was revolutionary. Unless you just mean because it was the first in the series.

After playing AC2, AC1 seemed like an early demo.

EDIT: And agreed about missing on the little things, like music. It was a great game, but you're right, it should've been epic.

SaintPerkele
12-08-2012, 02:44 AM
@SaintPerkele: I played on PC as well, but I faced a considerable amount of bugs. Mainly when it comes to side quests. Markers not appearing on the map where they should is the biggest offender. It seems that some people get them and some people don't. At least I didn't get those dreaded FPS drops in Boston, so I guess I'm lucky that way.
I had some low FPS at the very first time you enter Boston, but they weren't game-breaking and, for some reason, got much better as I progressed. My side missions were pretty much bug-free. I only lost money from some ships I sent once and saw a couple of horses stuck in the ground; but it's not like the previous ACs didn't have any weird bugs either (just remembering the infinite guards or the flying glitch in ACII :D)

shobhit7777777
12-08-2012, 10:01 AM
Largely agree with it.

Although I still feel Connor can be made into a more interesting character and deserves another game.

ProdiGurl
12-08-2012, 12:57 PM
Read through the article and while there are some valid points, others are - in my opinion - not thought out properly or simply not true.

10. The Customisation:
Of course there's no armour in ACIII - we are talking about the American Revolution. The capes were never that important to me anyway (let's face it, most people were glad when they were gone in ACR) and the "effect on NPC behaviour" (e.g. not getting a higher notoriety) is now replaced by the Animus hacks. The colour customisation is still pretty similar to ACII - sure, there could have been other colours than blue, white, red and black, but the time period just wasn't as colourful as the Renaissance in terms of fashion. Unlike ACII however, ACIII offered many different outfits (some unlockable while playing the game or getting collectibles, others worn at certain times like the Captain outfit) while ACII had pretty much none. And with all the different types of weapons, I'd say that ACIII had more customisation than ACII. And I don't know what's the big deal about the outfits not appearing in cutscenes.. if that is the trade off for amazing looking cutscenes, I have no problem with that. Also, lol'd at the Revelation multiplayer picture they used to show the customisation of ACII...

9. The Loading
Played on PC, didn't have any problems with that. Also, that's what to expect with areas that huge, graphics that great and the amount of NPCs - ACII just didn't look as fantastic as ACIII, thus shorter loading times were rather possible. At least ACIII didn't take as long to load as Fallout or Skyrim.

8. The Protagonist
Clearly this guy did not really pay any close attention to Connor's development. I'm not going into great detail here, as these things have been said before - but Ezio really didn't change THAT much in ACII as most people assume. He's still the somewhat funny, charismatic playboy at the end, the only difference being that he is not as hateful anymore. Connor is clearly not the "one dimensional character [...] we've seen in hundreds of films" - complete and utter ********. I loved both characters and both were unlike the usual stereotypes. Haytha, for example, while being interesting, was - as one of the devs put it - just an evil James Bond. The fact that the author points out how he preferred Haytham shows that he is clearly used to standard Hollywood movies and not media with unusual characters - at least that's what I think.

7. The Tombs
Valid point, but - there was just no way to introduce something like this in ACIII. In ACII, it was clearly possible that Assassins hid tombs in rather old buildings - why would something have been hidden in some new churches in NY and Boston, when almost the whole Assassin order in America [SPOILERS?] had been extinct before they were built?
And there was some background story for the Assassins in ACIII - like Shao Jun or the first colonial assassin. Yeah, it wasn't as much as Altair's Codex and it could have been worked on a bit more, but in my opinion, that comes with the setting. In Europe, guilds were established since.. since forever, basically. In Northern America, there was only one and it did basically not exist anymore. We mostly learned things about the last remaining assassin - Achilles - which in itself was a nice way to symbolize the North American order.
The tombs themselves weren't thaaaat great, but the choices were limited. Don't know why the author loved the ship graveyard, it was the most boring one to me. Fort Wolcott was fantastic however!

6. Music
Fair point.

5. The Consistency
As I said, PC players. No bugs and only fantastic gameplay for me, thank you very much.

4. The Humour
Ezio was a funny character. Think about it - he was not always the badass assassin, sometimes he was more of a goofy playboy. He did not always understand things (just remembering Leonardo telling him that he wouldn't get distracted by the women) and so on. Also, things like the special DLC jump of ACII were just perfect for Ezio, but wouldn't fit Connor at all. So naturally, there wasn't much humour in the past times (some though, like the misunderstandings evolving from different cultures between Connor and Achilles for example, some of the conversations on the Homestead or the Boone-missions and so on). ACIII's humour did mostly shine through modern times, especially Shaun's comments as well as his database entries. Some of them were outright hilarious.
By the way, the humour part was mostly introduced with Ezio (there was nothing like that in Altair times) and did mostly serve the purpose to define his character.

3. The Simplicity
If he is talking about the crafting system, to each their own. I liked crafting special items and Franklin inventions, the rest was rather pointless (seeing that quickly collecting bear pelts and selling them by ship was often more useful than crafting something). There were a lot of weapons to buy though, you could upgrade the ship... I had by far not bought everything after having finished the main game. And the author thinks that "he was playing as an Assassin - not a landlord/trader". Oh, what about Monteriggioni in ACII? Upgrading cities in ACB and ACR? I think he missed something there or is trying to blame ACIII for something that has been part of the franchise since the second game. The Homestead was fantastic and the fact that he did not complete the Homstead missions before finishing the main story tells a lot about this guy, honestly.. And Connor learning to craft things himself? This is NOT The Elder Scrolls. Connor is NOT a main who can do everything. He's an Assassin, not a blacksmith. ACIII is NOT an RPG. Argh.

2. The Assassinations
Oh, finally a valid point, I was getting mad at this guy already.
Yeah, the cutscenes assassinations were not neccessary and the sidequest assassinations just weird and boring. But there were so many other side missions which completely replaced the Assassination missions, that I'm cool with that. Only the cutscene-assassinations annoy me, but since the author didn't mention these..

1. The Scale
The setting. It's only the setting. The Frontier had a huge scale though. Ah well...

Final words: The author is not the huge AC fan he is pretending to be. Moreover, he just takes some things from ACII in order to criticize ACIII and doesn't even mention the great things of ACIII and the bad things of ACII. Hell, he doesn't even mention the things in ACIII that were ACTUALLY bad, just some random stuff (and console-related things, I'm sorry, but I just can't say much about that).

Good post. What I think it lacked are just a few valid things, some mystery & music - ACII had alot less bugs too.
What bothers me is that if Ubi copied ACII, they'd be writing their rants & complaints about how Stale AC has gotten as they refuse to progress and keep the Title fresh. lol
Since being here for ACR's release, all I can say is that no matter what direction Ubi takes, people will whine, complain & Rant about it - even the good features.
People like this can't just accept that AC has to change, but it will never be perfect.
Assassin M posted that when ACII came out, it was bashed and criticized back then too.

*edit in*
>> http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/UbiTheme/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by BATISTABUS http://static5.cdn.ubi.com/u/ubiforums/20120411.419/images/UbiTheme/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php?p=8775796#post8775796)

I hate how people hold AC2 on a pedestal. I didn't totally disagree with all of his points, and some I quite agree with, but AC2 isn't as much of a masterpiece as he makes it sound. Go back and play all of the games in order, and you'll see what I mean.
<<

Fully agree. It's not my favorite in the Trilogy. Each game has its own spark and magic about it that makes it unique and awesome.
People may have their favorites, but it's mostly just personal preference - I love ACB more than ACII and they might think I'm nuts for it lol.

And how I am with games, I get a deep fondness for the memories I have with them. So I think for some people, they think back of the good times they had & built a type of bond with a game.... a special feeling it gave them that they want to recapture.
I sort of relate it to losing a beloved pet - you will never get what you had with that pet, you can only replace them and build a different relationship you can enjoy in a different way. Build new memories

AdrianJacek
12-08-2012, 01:08 PM
Good post. What I think it lacked are just a few valid things, some mystery & music - ACII had alot less bugs too.
What bothers me is that if Ubi copied ACII, they'd be writing their rants & complaints about how Stale AC has gotten as they refuse to progress and keep the Title fresh. lol
Since being here for ACR's release, all I can say is that no matter what direction Ubi takes, people will whine, complain & Rant about it - even the good features.
People like this can't just accept that AC has to change, but it will never be perfect.
Assassin M posted that when ACII came out, it was bashed and criticized back then too.
AC has the weirdest ****ing fanbase ever. So many complains, so much "issue" pointing and yet... it sells. Sells better and better with every title.
Eh, I guess it sould be expected with at least 8 000 000 people plaing each game.

ProdiGurl
12-08-2012, 01:17 PM
AC has the weirdest f*cking fanbase ever. So many complains, so much "issue" pointing and yet... it sells. Sells better and better with every title.
Eh, I guess it sould be expected with at least 8 000 000 people plaing each game.

I only follow AC as far as forums go so I don't know about other game title's fan bases, but some members here have commented on how brutal others forums are. So I guess it's just not this one, this might be how gamers are? :nonchalance:
There's doubt it's a divided fan base. What one group loves, another hates so you see praise and complaint of the same things.
If it's selling then I have to assume it's not as bad as the ranting we continually hear.

>>
The first thing I thought of when I saw the article was ambient music and sure enough that is one of his points. The background music is sooo important. It sets the mood for entire game. That is ACIII's biggest problem in my opinion. <<

Definitely. I think it set the negative tone/mood towards the game right from the start & never recovered w/ many people. It needs music. Esp. in the cities & esp. Boston as you play Haytham..
That dead silence even affected me negatively and I loved Haytham.