PDA

View Full Version : The more time passes, the more disappointed I get in AC2



Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 10:07 AM
I haven't seen rooster here for a while, but I'm pretty sure as soon as I post this he'll run here to yell 'YOU JUST WANT TO DISCREDIT AC2!!!' It's all good, rooster. It's all good :p

Anyway, I want to preface this that I don't hate AC2, I enjoy AC2, I think it's a very quality title. HOWEVER. I can't help but think that AC2 was the beginning trend of some of the series' downfalls, and I get increasingly disappointed in it.

1. NOTHING happens in the modern day main Assassin vs. Templar and their satellite plotline. A whole game developed for two years, and we only have escape from Abstergo and a few dialogs with secondary characters (that for the most part have nothing to do with said plotline), plus bleeding effect getting worse (but that, alongside the 'training to become an Assassin' doesn't need anything specific for it to happen). The plotline itself does not receive ANY progression. Not only that, but at the end of the game we're suddenly introduced to the second main plotline via a plot twist. People may argue how ACB, ACR, ACIII and the parallel development have ****ed things up in modern day story department. I won't necessarily disagree. But, honestly, the 'no plotline progression but inclusion of a new plotline' AC2 to me is the cause.

2. Subject 16's puzzles that connect tons of historical events and people to the Assassin vs. Templar conflict. Even back when AC2 was released I thought that maybe they went a little bit overboard with making so many things directly connected to said conflict. But, you know, it's still acceptable. But it feels like this has set up a trend where soon enough you can't find anything that doesn't have direct connection to Assassins/Templars, even the backstory of a fictional character (Edward got the farm he lived in burned due to a Templar plot, long before he went to the Caribbean and actually met Templars, seriously?!)

3. Ezio's story has no connection to the modern day plotline until the very last twist. In AC1 we've had a very specific purpose of going through Altair's memories (even though we as the player were not sure of why the Templars wanted the Apple/Templar treasure until we saw the map, we knew that they wanted it for something). In AC2 we go through Ezio's memories... because? Just taking AC2 into account, without further games and retcons, the whole thing with the Apple and Codex and Minerva happens by pure accident, just because the Assassin team was thinking 'let's just go forward and watch this'. I think that this disconnect plays a really big role in point #1. Sure, later down the line both Assassins and Templars want to find Ezio's apple (which, btw, was heavily implied to be Altair's lost apple in AC2, but that was a more or less easy retcon to fix, if you count a whole game's worth of storyline an easy retcon...), but, you know what? That's a reason that would be much more suited for AC2 which got nothing in that regard.

4. And while not AC2's fault directly, the thing with AC2's 23 years of life, the prequel movie, the following Ezio spin-offs and the final animation short have all played a role in trend and expectation that annoys me a lot lately - that being the expectation to see every main character's full life story. And you know, nowadays that's a fair expectation because there was precedent. But I really wish that there wasn't one.

There were a few other points I wanted to make, but I'll leave them for a later time, I feel like I'm going to get enough wrath on my head as it is :D

iSoTryHard
03-07-2014, 10:23 AM
In AC2 we go through Ezio's memories... because?


If you remember we went through Ezio's memories to train Desmond to be an Assassin.

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 10:29 AM
If you remember we went through Ezio's memories to train Desmond to be an Assassin.

But as I've already mentioned that's a passive reason, that happens regardless due to the nature of the bleeding effect and staying in the Animus (and, for that matter, can happen with any Assassin, what's wrong with going back to Altair's youth and professional Assassin training? Or Connor's? Or Altair's child? Or absolutely any Assassin?), I'm talking about an active reason that would play a role in the main storyline's progression.

TheHumanTowel
03-07-2014, 12:12 PM
But as I've already mentioned that's a passive reason, that happens regardless due to the nature of the bleeding effect and staying in the Animus (and, for that matter, can happen with any Assassin, what's wrong with going back to Altair's youth and professional Assassin training? Or Connor's? Or Altair's child? Or absolutely any Assassin?), I'm talking about an active reason that would play a role in the main storyline's progression.
They address this in-game. Desmond specifically asks "Why Ezio and not Altair again?". And Lucy says it's because they're looking for The Vault which they know Ezio was involved with somehow.

pacmanate
03-07-2014, 12:59 PM
They address this in-game. Desmond specifically asks "Why Ezio and not Altair again?". And Lucy says it's because they're looking for The Vault which they know Ezio was involved with somehow.

http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1031719&type=sigpic&dateline=1375802646

mikeyf1999
03-07-2014, 01:01 PM
To add to it they knew ezio knew about the vault
Because of subject 16

TheJurre
03-07-2014, 01:25 PM
But how did they know about that vault in the first place?

jdowny
03-07-2014, 01:26 PM
Huh, I didn't realise you were so disappointed by AC II :p

All of these are to do with the wider story as opposed to gameplay - honestly, I'm okay with the flimsy reasoning behind the modern-day AC II story. I didn't notice it till now and I'm still not that fussed by it. The secondary plotline has always been a bit flimsy to my mind, acting only as the excuse to delve into an ancestor's memories, which is after all the crux and appeal of the series. They saved the satellite plotline for further down the line, which is fine - this sort of thing happens in all kinds of stories. I'm perfectly happy to let that particular plotline take the back seat for one game.

But when you state that Ezio's story has nothing to do with the modern-day story until the end twist - isn't that the point? It was a hell of a twist. From a storyline perspective as a player, you play the game wondering where it's all leading - to end it on that note was a cliffhanger and a mindf***. That's not bad storytelling - that's great storytelling. I remember playing that and immediately ordering Brotherhood afterwards. The story simply wouldn't have had that same impact if the two stories connected from the beginning.

Yeah, I sort of agree that AC 2's excuse of training Desmond was a bit weak, but I think that's easily remedied - It's heavily implied that the Assassins knew that an Apple of Eden came to Ezio. Training Desmond was just a benefit, and a pretty good excuse to start from the beginning of his life.

I will agree that Subject 16's puzzles were a bit heavy, implying that the Assassin/Templar war has played a key part in almost every aspect of human history. But so what? It's their story and these puzzles fleshed out a lot of much-needed back story. They were mysterious, fun, challenging (at the end), and provided the player with a great reward. I'm okay with that. And I'm okay with a lot of the PoE back story stuff because it's Assassin's Creed - I wasn't a huge fan of all the secret lairs and temples the player finds hidden all over Italy, but they were fun.

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 01:30 PM
They address this in-game. Desmond specifically asks "Why Ezio and not Altair again?". And Lucy says it's because they're looking for The Vault which they know Ezio was involved with somehow.

Okay, granted, but only they didn't know at all what they were looking for (again, retcons from the future notwithstanding) until the vault was mentioned during Ezio's story, Ezio was chosen simply because out of all Subject 16's multiple ancestors Vidic seemed to focus on him. And it would be all fine and dandy if the vault led to an Apple (which the Templars need for the satellite) or something, but nobody knew what was inside it and what was actually inside had no bearing on the Satellite plot at all, so there's still disconnect with the main plot introduced in the first game - it doesn't progress in any way.

ze_topazio
03-07-2014, 01:47 PM
But how did they know about that vault in the first place?

Because Ezio wrote about in his diary, which was preserved in the Assassin's archive, later stole by Daniel and so the Templars discovered about it too, thanks to it, Abstergo tried to relieve Ezio's memories by way of Subject 16, Clay, but Clay was descendent of a bastard son of Ezio who was born long before Ezio ever reached the Vault, so Lucy, who was secretly a Templar, used Desmond to secretly search the genetic memory of Ezio and uncover the truth about the Vault and the prophecy.

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 01:56 PM
Huh, I didn't realise you were so disappointed by AC II

I want to focus on the part where I say 'as the time passes'. I.e. I'm disappointed with it in retrospective.


From a storyline perspective as a player, you play the game wondering where it's all leading - to end it on that note was a cliffhanger and a mindf***. That's not bad storytelling - that's great storytelling.

If we were to talk at the time of ACII's release, I would agree with you. I was so incredibly excited and thought, 'WOW, this is getting intense, how they're going to deal with two problems now?' But that's because there wasn't a big picture to look at, and now there is, and I can't call it great storytelling.

Seeing how Desmond's story that looks good on paper in general as a whole becomes this jumbled mess, kinda can't resist but look back and try to figure out how it went all wrong, and, honestly, ACII just looks at fault to me.

AC1 has introduced a very intriguing Satellite plotline (which plays on the main Assassin/Templar moral narrative), and has ended with the Templars having a map to all Pieces of Eden. What does AC2 do with that whole plotline that was set-up? Nothing. ACB doesn't know if it should focus on the Satellite narrative or Solar Flare narrative (since AC2 didn't do anything with the first one, it kinda tries to focus on both, the Apple being the answer to both prevent the Satellite launch and help with the Solar Flare thing), and AC3 shafts the Satellite plotline to an e-mail (because it has to resolve the apocalypse) and is resolved by sheer accident just because one of the characters happened to be kidnapped and had what we needed for the other main plotline. The main plotline introduced in the first game based on the philosophical differences between Assassins and Templars (with some sci-fi elements) gets shafted to an e-mail. "Vidic's dead so the satellite's cancelled". That's not great storytelling. And I hold AC2 responsible for that :p Having just one main plotline would bring a lot more cohesion to the modern day narrative (which can't have as much focus as the historical narrative).

The Satellite plotline was what had me intrigued with the Modern Day storyline (that, and it's launch date of 21st of December), back when I played the very first game. It's one of the things that made me say, 'you know what, I'm not confused as to why they didn't just make this a historical game, since this all can turn out to be really interesting'. So you can understand me when I'm quite disappointed with what we've got :p


Yeah, I sort of agree that AC 2's excuse of training Desmond was a bit weak, but I think that's easily remedied - It's heavily implied that the Assassins knew that an Apple of Eden came to Ezio.

Yes, but it is also implied so heavily to the point that it's almost stating it (Which is the only reason why they could kinda get away with a future retcon, that it wasn't explicitly stated) that AC2's apple of Eden was previously Altair's which we know from AC1 got destroyed, and with ACB they introduced a big plothole which they had to fix with another game - that being Revelations. I don't have anything against training Desmond in principle, I'm just saying that training Desmond is something that happens passively regardless of what we're looking for, so might as well look for things more relevant to the set-up plotline. And look at ze_topazio's post about the diary and everything, at least half of it was created after the fact of AC2 to add relevance to what's going on in there, but it still has nothing to do with the main plotline set up in AC1.

EDIT: Also, I have enough AC2 criticisms from gameplay perspective, but I have enough criticisms in that regard for almost every AC game, so what else is new? :p

ze_topazio
03-07-2014, 02:20 PM
This is an ongoing story so details are revealed with each new chapter, different characters had different objectives, Abstergo was focused on the satellite plan, the Assassins were focused on surviving, Lucy was focused on gathering information for the Templars and Desmond was focused on stopping the solar flare from annihilating them all.

TheHumanTowel
03-07-2014, 02:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/image.php?u=1031719&type=sigpic&dateline=1375802646
If only Ubisoft would just say yes ;_;7 RIP in peace.

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 03:31 PM
1. NOTHING happens in the modern day main Assassin vs. Templar and their satellite plotline. A whole game developed for two years, and we only have escape from Abstergo and a few dialogs with secondary characters (that for the most part have nothing to do with said plotline), plus bleeding effect getting worse (but that, alongside the 'training to become an Assassin' doesn't need anything specific for it to happen). The plotline itself does not receive ANY progression. Not only that, but at the end of the game we're suddenly introduced to the second main plotline via a plot twist. People may argue how ACB, ACR, ACIII and the parallel development have ****ed things up in modern day story department. I won't necessarily disagree. But, honestly, the 'no plotline progression but inclusion of a new plotline' AC2 to me is the cause.
People can yap all day about how Revelations had little Modern day or about how AC III wrapped up everything in a crappy way, but no one ever stops to think what started this whole mess. AC II BARELY had any progression for the Modern day. It only introduced ANOTHER plot-line that made the whole thing convoluted. The satellite plot-line felt like an afterthought, like something they introduced and didn't like, so put it aside in favor of something else and even then, if introducing this new plot was REALLY necessary, they could'v connected it with the Satellite somehow, but no, they had to start over completely.
We had our apocalypse. we had our date, why start all over?


2. Subject 16's puzzles that connect tons of historical events and people to the Assassin vs. Templar conflict. Even back when AC2 was released I thought that maybe they went a little bit overboard with making so many things directly connected to said conflict. But, you know, it's still acceptable. But it feels like this has set up a trend where soon enough you can't find anything that doesn't have direct connection to Assassins/Templars, even the backstory of a fictional character (Edward got the farm he lived in burned due to a Templar plot, long before he went to the Caribbean and actually met Templars, seriously?!)
This didn't really bother me so much (But Edward getting his farm burned is stupid and I don't consider it canon) I liked how everything was connected to the Assassins and Templars. sure, it might seem contrived, but AC IS a conspiracy theorist's heaven on earth.


3. Ezio's story has no connection to the modern day plotline until the very last twist. In AC1 we've had a very specific purpose of going through Altair's memories (even though we as the player were not sure of why the Templars wanted the Apple/Templar treasure until we saw the map, we knew that they wanted it for something). In AC2 we go through Ezio's memories... because? Just taking AC2 into account, without further games and retcons, the whole thing with the Apple and Codex and Minerva happens by pure accident, just because the Assassin team was thinking 'let's just go forward and watch this'. I think that this disconnect plays a really big role in point #1. Sure, later down the line both Assassins and Templars want to find Ezio's apple (which, btw, was heavily implied to be Altair's lost apple in AC2, but that was a more or less easy retcon to fix, if you count a whole game's worth of storyline an easy retcon...), but, you know what? That's a reason that would be much more suited for AC2 which got nothing in that regard.
You could say that they were looking for the vault...etc, but that whole point is introduced so late in the game that you might as well stop caring. I mean okay, we're given a goal in the beginning, train Desmond to be an Assassin. that just loses its allure quickly, not to mention that it will be lost in getting immersed with Ezio's personal story.
by the time you're out of the Animus for the first time, Ezio just arrived in Venice...that's like..10 hours of the game, you most likely forgot why you were in there in the first place. "Oh training to be an Assassin" only THEN do they introduce the connection Ezio has with Modern day and we're still not given a reason why the Assassins would even want with the Vault. Lucy is a Templar and okay, these guys want to search every THING that has to do with TWCB, but why would the Assassins like Shaun and Rebecca go with it?


4. And while not AC2's fault directly, the thing with AC2's 23 years of life, the prequel movie, the following Ezio spin-offs and the final animation short have all played a role in trend and expectation that annoys me a lot lately - that being the expectation to see every main character's full life story. And you know, nowadays that's a fair expectation because there was precedent. But I really wish that there wasn't one.
Yeah, I hate it when someone asks for closure on Connor's life in the shape of his death and people go "closure doesn't mean death" yes it does, actually and Ubisoft put that standard, don't blame the fans of a character who only want the same treatment that EVERY OTHER Assassin Protagonist had (barring Aveline)
Desmond, Altair, Ezio, Aquilis, Nikolai, Daniel Cross...they all got closure in the shape of death and it's all because of the standard ubisoft put forth. Fans are not asking for anything special, honestly...they're only asking for what Ubisoft shaped as closure..


There were a few other points I wanted to make, but I'll leave them for a later time, I feel like I'm going to get enough wrath on my head as it is :D
I'm actually currently replaying AC II and AC III simultaneously and doing an analysis of my own, I might post it here when i'm done, it analyzes both plot and gameplay.

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 03:55 PM
The satellite plot-line felt like an afterthought, like something they introduced and didn't like, so put it aside in favor of something else and even then, if introducing this new plot was REALLY necessary, they could'v connected it with the Satellite somehow, but no, they had to start over completely.

At the time of ACB, when we were searching for Ezio's Apple so it wouldn't get into Abstergo's hands but ALSO as it was apparently a piece of the puzzle to stop the Flare, due to this combination of goals in the Apple I remember thinking that maybe the Satellite would be the only thing that could actually stop the Solar Flare (but it would also lead to the Templar goal being reached). But the Apple became just a key.


This didn't really bother me so much (But Edward getting his farm burned is stupid and I don't consider it canon) I liked how everything was connected to the Assassins and Templars. sure, it might seem contrived, but AC IS a conspiracy theorist's heaven on earth.

Well, conspiracy theorist heaven is one thing, I don't mind that, it's just that a lot of those connections undermine, in my opinion, the Templar ideals. Yes, Templars don't use necessarily the most humane means to achieve their goals, but starting the freaking World War II is just overkill (heck, World War II is something that Templars would work to STOP, not instigate), but these are the kinds of things that happen when you just start connecting Templars and Assassins to a lot of important events and people.

I-Like-Pie45
03-07-2014, 03:59 PM
Honestly, the WW2 thing should be retconned

How about make it that Hitler was a renegade templar who went insane after acquiring I don't know, a spear or fapple of eden, forcing his fellow Templars to join forces with the Assassins as the Allied Powers before turning on each other in the Cold War?

jdowny
03-07-2014, 04:10 PM
If we were to talk at the time of ACII's release, I would agree with you. I was so incredibly excited and thought, 'WOW, this is getting intense, how they're going to deal with two problems now?' But that's because there wasn't a big picture to look at, and now there is, and I can't call it great storytelling.

I get what you mean, but really it's the fault of the writer/s at large across the series, not just in AC II. I often compare AC with Lost - both had great beginnings, but you got the impression the writers were just making them up as they went along, never knowing how long the series were going to last and so therefore deliberately keeping a lot of strands open. You could say that it was at AC II that the problems began, but I think it's unfair to apply blame to a single game, especially when others are just as much at fault.


AC1 has introduced a very intriguing Satellite plotline (which plays on the main Assassin/Templar moral narrative), and has ended with the Templars having a map to all Pieces of Eden. What does AC2 do with that whole plotline that was set-up? Nothing.

I actually thought it was kind of dull, so maybe the AC team did as well, preferring to run with the more threatening (thought in my opinion equally as cliched) solar flare.


The main plotline introduced in the first game based on the philosophical differences between Assassins and Templars (with some sci-fi elements) gets shafted to an e-mail. "Vidic's dead so the satellite's cancelled". That's not great storytelling. And I hold AC2 responsible for that :p Having just one main plotline would bring a lot more cohesion to the modern day narrative (which can't have as much focus as the historical narrative).

I agree, which ties in with my thoughts about the AC story as a whole and it being the fault of the writers instead of solely AC II. My point is that this could be better discussed in a separate topic about the wider story arc instead of limiting it to one game. If you ask my opinion, though this problem may have started in AC II, it was Revelations and III that really botched it.


The Satellite plotline was what had me intrigued with the Modern Day storyline (that, and it's launch date of 21st of December), back when I played the very first game. It's one of the things that made me say, 'you know what, I'm not confused as to why they didn't just make this a historical game, since this all can turn out to be really interesting'. So you can understand me when I'm quite disappointed with what we've got :p

Ha, me too. I guess they wanted to bring TOWCB to the forefront a bit more, which meant introducing a story that would tie all three parties together, which meant something greater than just another Templar plot. I would have liked it better if the satellite launch was something designed to stop the apocalypse, but perhaps did so at the cost of human freedom - thus introducing a tough moral decision for the Assassins - save the world but enslave it, or to damn it.

EDIT: ^ Didn't realise that we'd both come up with the same idea concerning the satellite launch, how weird.

Dome500
03-07-2014, 04:20 PM
The Satellite plotline was what had me intrigued with the Modern Day storyline (that, and it's launch date of 21st of December), back when I played the very first game. It's one of the things that made me say, 'you know what, I'm not confused as to why they didn't just make this a historical game, since this all can turn out to be really interesting'. So you can understand me when I'm quite disappointed with what we've got

Agreed. This was a highly interesting plot-line considering what the launch of the satellite with the PoE's could have meant for the world, or at least for the US. Also, considering that Vidic was never the boss but rather only the top scientist of Abstergo the whole thing about "Vidic is dead, satellite cancelled" could only serve as temporary solution, not as something that would prevent the launch altogether.

But IMO it's not to late to pick up those things again by introducing US (our modern day character) to those things and having him trying to deal with it.
There is so much interesting stuff going on with that, why not build on that. Make crazy mindf*** modern day storylines with intrigue, mind control and other things. There were so many thing hinting at Templars/Abstergo being able to scan you through your TV or similar devices and things like that. Make it crazy and interesting. It all kind of lost momentum when the whole apocalypse thing was introduced.

As for the blame, I do not blame AC II. I blame the general view of the authors on the series. Think about it. They want it to last forever. And you can sense that change of plans immediately, in ACII, then AC3 and the strongest in AC4. They do not WANT to progress in modern day because they want it to go on and on and on.... And think that is a problem.

I think they lost their momentum and appeal with modern day. What I think they have to do is, they have to go with a completely different mindset on this whole thing. The mindset should be "I only plan 2 - 3 games ahead, not further. I want this story to be a real story, tell the story of a modern day person, no matter how long it does continue in the end. If his story ends (like Desmonds), then another ones begins.

This whole thing about "you" being the protagonist and the whole modern day stiff actually only being a fan service, and not the point of the series is bad IMO. They don't do anything with it anymore. They want it to become a non-systemic, little-telling piece of the story which is a real shame.

IMO they should take on every modern day story like they did with Desmonds story. They started his story, continued it and brought it to a conclusion. Then they began with another protagonist (which in this case is not good but if you have one with a personality it's actually interesting).

That way they would handle the modern day storyline like they handle the past-animus-storyline. Multiple Protagonists, all have their stories, all are a little part of the whole.

I would like that more. They could explore the modern day stories and twists they have in mind more free, they could introduce new plots and adjust everything so it fits, they could make everything they want with the modern day, like they can with history. And that, IMO, would be the best for the creativity of the modern day storyline in Assassins Creed, because they would be free to tell complete stories without loosing momentum or building in too many different threats, etc.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 04:35 PM
Like I keep telling people, REPLAY AC:2. It wasn't the 10/10 masterpiece of the franchise like people keep saying it is. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who can see it's true value and not parade it with praises for the heck of it.

AC:2 was a good game, but was it the best sequel of the Assassin's Creed franchise? Not at all. It felt more like another add-on to the milking of the Ezio Trilogy.

Dome500
03-07-2014, 04:37 PM
Like I keep telling people, REPLAY AC:2. It wasn't the 10/10 masterpiece of the franchise like people keep saying it is. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who can see it's true value and not parade it with praises for the heck of it.

AC:2 was a good game, but was it the best sequel of the Assassin's Creed franchise? Not at all. It felt more like another add-on to the milking of the Ezio Trilogy.

Compared with Brotherhood, Revelations, AC3 and AC4? Yes.

Sure, it wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but it was the best.

ze_topazio
03-07-2014, 04:44 PM
Like I keep telling people, REPLAY AC:2. It wasn't the 10/10 masterpiece of the franchise like people keep saying it is. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who can see it's true value and not parade it with praises for the heck of it.

AC:2 was a good game, but was it the best sequel of the Assassin's Creed franchise? Not at all. It felt more like another add-on to the milking of the Ezio Trilogy.

I did, still like it as much.

jdowny
03-07-2014, 04:45 PM
Like I keep telling people, REPLAY AC:2. It wasn't the 10/10 masterpiece of the franchise like people keep saying it is. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who can see it's true value and not parade it with praises for the heck of it.

AC:2 was a good game, but was it the best sequel of the Assassin's Creed franchise? Not at all. It felt more like another add-on to the milking of the Ezio Trilogy.

Woah there - I still think it's a spectacular game. And how can it feel like an add-on to the Ezio trilogy when it was the first of three? Although I absolutely love the first game, AC II still reigns for me because it was a successful cohesion of gameplay, navigation, setting, time period, story and music. It delivered on all fronts where the original game was lacking. To me, there hasn't been another AC game that has developed so much and so successfully from a previous one.

It's hard though to judge games, or anything for that matter. Do you judge based on how it was for you at the time? Or judge how it stands up years later when it's a bit old, a bit weathered and you might be getting bored of the whole thing?

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 04:46 PM
Compared with Revelations, AC3 and AC4? No.

Sure, it wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but it was the best.

Fixed.

You can say it's enjoyable because it really was, but that doesn't change the fact that besides the modern day parts which is 5% of the game, story, gameplay, and add-ons offered nothing to the Assassin's Creed franchise. You were running around pirating more than you had with AC:IV. The stealth was mostly scripted and instead of giving players freedom, the game keeps sending Ezio either into a scripted fights, chases, or escapes with a few puzzles here in there to mask it. And the story didn't have Ezio become an Assassin until sequence 13, and unlike AC:IV, you only had 1 mission as an Assassin and they never touched on the Assassin's Creed.

TheHumanTowel
03-07-2014, 04:55 PM
Like I keep telling people, REPLAY AC:2. It wasn't the 10/10 masterpiece of the franchise like people keep saying it is. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who can see it's true value and not parade it with praises for the heck of it.

AC:2 was a good game, but was it the best sequel of the Assassin's Creed franchise? Not at all. It felt more like another add-on to the milking of the Ezio Trilogy.
AC2 was the first game Ezio was in. How could it possibly feel like a milking add-on to the Ezio trilogy?

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 04:59 PM
Woah there - I still think it's a spectacular game. And how can it feel like an add-on to the Ezio trilogy when it was the first of three? Although I absolutely love the first game, AC II still reigns for me because it was a successful cohesion of gameplay, navigation, setting, time period, story and music. It delivered on all fronts where the original game was lacking. To me, there hasn't been another AC game that has developed so much and so successfully from a previous one.

It's a spectacular game, no doubt, but as I've said, it didn't touch too much on anything of the series other than it's title, it's setting, and adding to it's original mechanics. For me, AC:3 had all of said appeal. And so did ACB, AC:R, AC:IV and AC:L.


It's hard though to judge games, or anything for that matter. Do you judge based on how it was for you at the time? Or judge how it stands up years later when it's a bit old, a bit weathered and you might be getting bored of the whole thing?

I'm judging it as a whole since I've had fuzzy memories of it so I had to replay the entire saga again.. People have this weird rating of what's an Assassin's Creed game and what's not since AC:IV. IMO, AC:2 is a great game, but it's nowhere close to the Assassin's Creed game people are praising it for.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE AC:2, but I'm open to its faults. Especially when the fanbase is at the point of targeting sequels' integrity.


AC2 was the first game Ezio was in. How could it possibly feel like a milking add-on to the Ezio trilogy?

Let me reword that. -- AC:2 is part of the milking. Brotherhood and Revelations are not alone.

Rugterwyper32
03-07-2014, 05:03 PM
As per usual, Farlander, I find myself agreeing with your opinion. You had previously made some good points regarding the historical part (mostly the storyline during the Venice section).
Admittedly, though, it falls short for me from the one thing that damaged the game the most for me: No replaying main missions. To date, it's the AC game I go back to the least simply because of that one fact. I have no clue what made them think that was a good decision or why they didn't patch that option in, even AC1 had a way of replaying sequences from the game, why not AC2? It's still a fantastic game, but that one decision was baffling. Oh, and making a good part of Ezio's character development into DLC. That one was bad too. Still a great game that pushed the series forward, but come on.

TheHumanTowel
03-07-2014, 05:08 PM
Let me reword that. -- AC:2 is part of the milking. Brotherhood and Revelations are not alone.
That doesn't make any sense. Ubisoft didn't know how Ezio would be received before they released AC2. How could they be milking the character in the very first piece of media he was introduced in?

LoyalACFan
03-07-2014, 05:09 PM
1. NOTHING happens in the modern day main Assassin vs. Templar and their satellite plotline. A whole game developed for two years, and we only have escape from Abstergo and a few dialogs with secondary characters (that for the most part have nothing to do with said plotline), plus bleeding effect getting worse (but that, alongside the 'training to become an Assassin' doesn't need anything specific for it to happen). The plotline itself does not receive ANY progression. Not only that, but at the end of the game we're suddenly introduced to the second main plotline via a plot twist. People may argue how ACB, ACR, ACIII and the parallel development have ****ed things up in modern day story department. I won't necessarily disagree. But, honestly, the 'no plotline progression but inclusion of a new plotline' AC2 to me is the cause.

I agree that AC2 was slow on the modern side, but really, so was AC1. There was a lot more modern content in it than AC2, but much of it was backstory and world-building (i.e. the emails and Lucy conversations). The only thing that really changed over the course of the story was that you found out Lucy was on your side, which they later retconned anyway. At the end, you're still an Abstergo hostage, with nothing much having progressed outside the Animus.


2. Subject 16's puzzles that connect tons of historical events and people to the Assassin vs. Templar conflict. Even back when AC2 was released I thought that maybe they went a little bit overboard with making so many things directly connected to said conflict. But, you know, it's still acceptable. But it feels like this has set up a trend where soon enough you can't find anything that doesn't have direct connection to Assassins/Templars, even the backstory of a fictional character (Edward got the farm he lived in burned due to a Templar plot, long before he went to the Caribbean and actually met Templars, seriously?!)

I'm not so sure that it set a precedent in that regard... AC3 actually capitalized on our assumptions that Templars are behind every bad thing ever in history, and let us assume (with Connor) that CHARLZLEE was behind the village burning. They botched the whole twist by having Connor stay friends with Washington, but the concept was there.


3. Ezio's story has no connection to the modern day plotline until the very last twist.

I actually preferred this. Later games have struggled to make grand connections between the ancestor and modernity, often to the point that it feels forced. ACR and AC4 especially felt like they were really trying too hard to connect the two. The Sync Nexus and the Observatory seemed really contrived to me.

Besides, they actually did specify in AC2 why they were reliving Ezio's memories; towards the end of Clay's life, he became obsessed with Italy. Sure, Lucy didn't explain it until like halfway through the game in that garage "training" scene, and even then I don't think she explained the full story about Clay being descended from Ezio. But they knew that the Assassins found something big in Renaissance Italy, and they had a guy (Desmond) who was descended from the most important Assassin of that era, so they had a golden opportunity to explore that. It made sense to me.


4. And while not AC2's fault directly, the thing with AC2's 23 years of life, the prequel movie, the following Ezio spin-offs and the final animation short have all played a role in trend and expectation that annoys me a lot lately - that being the expectation to see every main character's full life story. And you know, nowadays that's a fair expectation because there was precedent. But I really wish that there wasn't one.

Agreed, setting the precedent of viewing an ancestor's life up until their death was a bad move, but as you said, that was more ACB/ACR's fault than AC2's.

I've said it before, and I'll stand by it; if AC2 had decent combat and replayable memories, it would still be my favorite AC.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 05:13 PM
That doesn't make any sense. Ubisoft didn't know how Ezio would be received before they released AC2. How could they be milking the character in the very first piece of media he was introduced in?

They didn't just started making AC:B and AC:R after AC:2. They already had the Trilogy concept in mind during production of AC:2.

LoyalACFan
03-07-2014, 05:18 PM
They didn't just started making AC:B and AC:R after AC:2. They already had the Trilogy concept in mind during production of AC:2.

No, not at all. The events of Brotherhood were meant to be a part of AC2. It wasn't until VERY late in the development cycle that they decided to branch it off into its own game. And Revelations was going to be a Nintendo DS spinoff until early 2011; there was no plan for an Ezio trilogy until that point.

I think the "trilogy" thing you might be thinking of is the fact that the whole series was supposed to be a trilogy. One Altair game, one Ezio game, one somebody-else-who-wasn't-designed-at-that-point game, and bam, end of franchise.

TheHumanTowel
03-07-2014, 05:18 PM
They didn't just started making AC:B and AC:R after AC:2. They already had the Trilogy concept in mind during production of AC:2.
No they didn't? I've heard people say Brotherhood was planned to be dlc that turned into a main game but never saw any proper sources for it. But it's known for a fact that Revelations was supposed to be a DS game that got turned into a full console release. This was all decided after the release of Brotherhood as well. So no it wasn't decided during the production of AC2. It was a direct reaction to Ezio's popularity after AC2 was released

ze_topazio
03-07-2014, 05:23 PM
The city of Rome and the story of Brotherhood was supposed to be part of AC2, do to time constraints they had to shorten the story and game and that part was sacrificed, when AC2 turned out successful they decided to make that in to dlc, but was too big so it was expanded and made in to a full game, Revelations was a Nintendo 3DS game, a side story expanded and turned in to full game when they decided to annualized the series, the trilogy was not planned, it just happened.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 05:27 PM
No they didn't? I've heard people say Brotherhood was planned to be dlc that turned into a main game but never saw any proper sources for it. But it's known for a fact that Revelations was supposed to be a DS game that got turned into a full console release. This was all decided after the release of Brotherhood as well. So no it wasn't decided during the production of AC2. It was a direct reaction to Ezio's popularity after AC2 was released

From a podcast, the voice actor of Ezio during production of AC:2 had to voice grown (AC:B) and old (AC:R) Ezio and other related medias as well. Maybe it wasn't AC:B and AC:R as a direct sequel, but they definitely had a bunch of plans for Ezio.

TheHumanTowel
03-07-2014, 05:30 PM
During a podcast, the voice actor of Ezio during production of AC:2 had to voice grown (AC:B) and old (AC:R) Ezio and other related medias as well. Maybe it wasn't AC:B and AC:R as a direct sequel, but they definitely had a bunch of plans for Ezio.
Where are you getting this completely wrong information? Roger Craig Smith didn't do his voice work for ACB and ACR during the production of AC2.....They weren't even written yet.

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 05:31 PM
I get what you mean, but really it's the fault of the writer/s at large across the series, not just in AC II. I often compare AC with Lost - both had great beginnings, but you got the impression the writers were just making them up as they went along, never knowing how long the series were going to last and so therefore deliberately keeping a lot of strands open. You could say that it was at AC II that the problems began, but I think it's unfair to apply blame to a single game, especially when others are just as much at fault.

Well, it's definitely a complicated matter, and I'm not saying games like ACR and AC3 aren't at fault (I mean, for example, the creative decision to delegate Lucy's allegiance explanation to a DLC was just plain wrong), however those are two games that are picking up the pieces left by them by ACII and ACB with all the new things set up in them (and in case of AC3 it'd have to change it's storyline like, what, two times because of the two games that were developed in parallel one after another?), so, I kinda give them some slack. However, there was certainly a problem in planning on how the story would go, and a misunderstanding in the ability to scale the story up or down, and ACII is THE manifestation of that misunderstanding. Ubi devs say that ever from AC2 they realized they won't be able to allocate a lot of resources to the modern day in relation to the historical one. So what do they do? INTRODUCE MORE THINGS FOR THE MODERN DAY TO DEAL WITH!!!! Brilliant!

Now, granted, the results of ACII may still be handled well (for example, the idea of having the Satellite and Solar Flare plot be directly connected), but then we had additional games where SOMETHING had to be introduced otherwise they'd be pointless, to add more intrigue and mystery and relevance, but in the end it only skewed the scope of the modern day storyline to unreasonable proportions.


I actually thought it was kind of dull, so maybe the AC team did as well, preferring to run with the more threatening (thought in my opinion equally as cliched) solar flare.

I think he dullness may have come from imprisonment. But the idea of having to race against time to not let the Templars get to PoEs to launch the satellite has a lot of potential, I think.


If you ask my opinion, though this problem may have started in AC II, it was Revelations and III that really botched it.

As I've mentioned a bit higher in the post, while ACR and ACIII are definitely not without an array of faults, when you've got to try to pick up everything and tie everything up that was left behind you, eh... you're kinda ****ed regardless. It was a result of poor planning, and the domino effect started with ACII - it has essentially sealed the fate of the modern day storyline being at least somewhat of a disappointment. Though I think ACIII would've turned out better without the two games inbetween - it would have less to deal with and more things could be cut out without making the story worse.


As for the blame, I do not blame AC II. I blame the general view of the authors on the series. Think about it. They want it to last forever. And you can sense that change of plans immediately, in ACII, then AC3 and the strongest in AC4. They do not WANT to progress in modern day because they want it to go on and on and on.... And think that is a problem.

I don't agree with you here. That's not a problem, the problem is how you tackle it. Modern day can go forever without any problems. The war between Assassins and Templars has lasted at least for 10 centuries, no reason why it can't last more. Heck, it CAN'T end, because it's a war of ideologies. There will always be somebody who thinks like Templars, and there will always be somebody who thinks like Assassins.

However, I do agree with you that they have lost momentum with the modern day, especially in the middle of Desmond's story. Parallel development really was NOT a benefit. But, given the business decision that this kind of thing is gonna be going on for a while, I think the way ACIV tackles the modern day story is really the best way to make the most qualitative narrative arc, since:
a) you can scope it more easily
b) you can't botch the development of the main character's arc
c) you can focus on the arc at hand (in current case: preventing Juno from manifesting) as long as you need (ACIII was kinda limited by the fact that it HAD to end the story there as it was 2012 already)

And, heck, in ACIV we got a lot more character development for Desmond than we did in AC3, and that's due to the production style of the modern day storyline... the scope of production will ALWAYS be small relatively to the historical part. Might as well make the best of it.


It's hard though to judge games, or anything for that matter. Do you judge based on how it was for you at the time? Or judge how it stands up years later when it's a bit old, a bit weathered and you might be getting bored of the whole thing?

When it comes to me personally and AC2 in particular, there were things that have always bothered me with AC2. The simplified combat system. The Templars. The non-sensical Carnevale and Arsenale sequences in Venice. But then there are things that bother me only in retrospective, the ones I'm talking about in this thread.


As per usual, Farlander, I find myself agreeing with your opinion.

Owwww ^_^


You had previously made some good points regarding the historical part (mostly the storyline during the Venice section).
Admittedly, though, it falls short for me from the one thing that damaged the game the most for me: No replaying main missions. To date, it's the AC game I go back to the least simply because of that one fact. I have no clue what made them think that was a good decision or why they didn't patch that option in, even AC1 had a way of replaying sequences from the game, why not AC2? It's still a fantastic game, but that one decision was baffling. Oh, and making a good part of Ezio's character development into DLC. That one was bad too. Still a great game that pushed the series forward, but come on.

The weirdest thing about AC2 replay function is that you can replay all side missions. I don't know why.


I agree that AC2 was slow on the modern side, but really, so was AC1. There was a lot more modern content in it than AC2, but much of it was backstory and world-building (i.e. the emails and Lucy conversations). The only thing that really changed over the course of the story was that you found out Lucy was on your side, which they later retconned anyway. At the end, you're still an Abstergo hostage, with nothing much having progressed outside the Animus.

As the first game of the series, I have found it acceptable to be more of a world-building kind of thing (well, there's also Assassins trying to free Desmond, but that's just a small action). But then you've got to actually make the wheels move.

And even then, AC2 didn't have any e-mails and had very little world building going on. Or character development, for that matter.


Besides, they actually did specify in AC2 why they were reliving Ezio's memories; towards the end of Clay's life, he became obsessed with Italy. Sure, Lucy didn't explain it until like halfway through the game in that garage "training" scene, and even then I don't think she explained the full story about Clay being descended from Ezio. But they knew that the Assassins found something big in Renaissance Italy, and they had a guy (Desmond) who was descended from the most important Assassin of that era, so they had a golden opportunity to explore that. It made sense to me.

The point I'm making, though, is that it didn't connect to anything that was set-up in the first game. It was essentially 'yeah, we've set up this whole thing, but we're going to do this now'. And in the end, it doesn't connect to anything, as it begins a plotline that's unrelated to the first.


No they didn't? I've heard people say Brotherhood was planned to be dlc that turned into a main game but never saw any proper sources for it. But it's known for a fact that Revelations was supposed to be a DS game that got turned into a full console release. This was all decided after the release of Brotherhood as well. So no it wasn't decided during the production of AC2. It was a direct reaction to Ezio's popularity after AC2 was released

If you search the news far enough you'll find mention of 'Assassin's Creed II Episodes'. That's what became Brotherhood.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 05:33 PM
Where are you getting this completely wrong information? Roger Craig Smith didn't do his voice work for ACB and ACR during the production of AC2.....They weren't even written yet.

From his podcast(?) No, you're actually right. --Revelations wasn't written until later by Darby. You're definitely in the rights, my apologies.

Dome500
03-07-2014, 05:33 PM
Fixed.

You can say it's enjoyable because it really was, but that doesn't change the fact that besides the modern day parts which is 5% of the game, story, gameplay, and add-ons offered nothing to the Assassin's Creed franchise. You were running around pirating more than you had with AC:IV. The stealth was mostly scripted and instead of giving players freedom, the game keeps sending Ezio either into a scripted fights, chases, or escapes with a few puzzles here in there to mask it. And the story didn't have Ezio become an Assassin until sequence 13, and unlike AC:IV, you only had 1 mission as an Assassin and they never touched on the Assassin's Creed.

That's... basically what ALL the AC games do. Those are not valid points of critique.

1. Since ACII no game did really offer much to modern day story (aside from AC3, and even this one did not do that much with it and the whole apocalypse thing was really not as big as one imagined)
2. ALL the games give you little freedom to do things your way and do a lot to push you into scripted stealth or firefight
3. All games since AC2 were about looting everything around and collectibles and side missions
4. Ezio might not have become an "official" Assassins until sequence 13, but he was basically always doing an Assassins work, wore their robes and was guided by them. So basically he was an Assassin recruit...
5. Agree that they never touched on the Creed ENOUGH, they touched on it slightly, but not enough IMO, true.

Like I said, most points are not very valid considering at least 80 -90% of the other games did the same things.


I think the "trilogy" thing you might be thinking of is the fact that the whole series was supposed to be a trilogy. One Altair game, one Ezio game, one somebody-else-who-wasn't-designed-at-that-point game, and bam, end of franchise

Yes, this was the original plan. I read several interviews about it back then also stating that one of the original founders of the series left the development because he did not want the games to become "a trilogy within a trilogy" and so on and that it was originally planned as a simple trilogy with 3 different characters. Altari - Ezio - Connor (in this case Connor, but Connor did not exist at the time this was planned). But Ubisoft changed plans because AC was making money.

TheHumanTowel
03-07-2014, 05:37 PM
From his podcast(?) No, you're actually right. --Revelations wasn't written until later by Darby. You're definitely in the rights, my apologies.
I reject your apology and demand your life as forfeit.

Dome500
03-07-2014, 05:47 PM
I don't agree with you here. That's not a problem, the problem is how you tackle it. Modern day can go forever without any problems. The war between Assassins and Templars has lasted at least for 10 centuries, no reason why it can't last more. Heck, it CAN'T end, because it's a war of ideologies. There will always be somebody who thinks like Templars, and there will always be somebody who thinks like Assassins.

However, I do agree with you that they have lost momentum with the modern day, especially in the middle of Desmond's story. Parallel development really was NOT a benefit. But, given the business decision that this kind of thing is gonna be going on for a while, I think the way ACIV tackles the modern day story is really the best way to make the most qualitative narrative arc, since:
a) you can scope it more easily
b) you can't botch the development of the main character's arc
c) you can focus on the arc at hand (in current case: preventing Juno from manifesting) as long as you need (ACIII was kinda limited by the fact that it HAD to end the story there as it was 2012 already)

And, heck, in ACIV we got a lot more character development for Desmond than we did in AC3, and that's due to the production style of the modern day storyline... the scope of production will ALWAYS be small relatively to the historical part. Might as well make the best of it.

I still think it would be best if they would start handling the modern-day characters in the same way they handle the historical characters.

Not "a new character every game" or "more time for modern day" mind you, what I mean is that they give modern day the same handling, in a way of "this is only one of many stories and one of many protagonists we will visit in modern day throughout the series". That way this story would get another layer.

Modern Day Characters that do not work could be switched in the next game by giving the story arc a conclusion or by continuing a part of it on with a new moder-day character. That way you would handle modern-day characters like historical characters/ancestors. The only difference would be that the ancestors have more screen time each game but the modern-day characters can have multiple games to conclude their story-arc (like Desmond).

That way they can tackle different topics, different POV's and different storylines in modern day and would be totally flexible with modern-day story.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 05:53 PM
I reject your apology and demand your life as forfeit.

How about a cookie, good sir?

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 06:03 PM
That's... basically what ALL the AC games do. Those are not valid points of critique.

1. Since ACII no game did really offer much to modern day story (aside from AC3, and even this one did not do that much with it and the whole apocalypse thing was really not as big as one imagined)
2. ALL the games give you little freedom to do things your way and do a lot to push you into scripted stealth or firefight
3. All games since AC2 were about looting everything around and collectibles and side missions
4. Ezio might not have become an "official" Assassins until sequence 13, but he was basically always doing an Assassins work, wore their robes and was guided by them. So basically he was an Assassin recruit...
5. Agree that they never touched on the Creed ENOUGH, they touched on it slightly, but not enough IMO, true.

Like I said, most points are not very valid considering at least 80 -90% of the other games did the same things.

That's the point I'm getting at, though. AC:2 is also in the fault and have never the less, made some of the most offense on the topic. Which is also worse since it's the direct sequel to AC:1.

[EDIT] As for
1. AC:2 was respectfully the start of a progressing modern day arc, but it arguably didn't offer as much to the story or lore as some of the sequels. And that's generally a bad thing since AC:2 was the start of an ongoing franchise that isn't going to end.
2. Not AC:2. It didn't BS anyone with side objectives or patronizing HUD, but it somehow manages to screw up freedom during a lot of its missions. My main disappointment was the lack of stealth. They emphasized too much on making Ezio a one-man army, having him parkour in a puzzle-like environment to confront the prey leading into a scripted chase, battle, or cutscenes instead of doing what Assassins would.
3. And AC:2 was the start of it. The worse part is, there was too much in AC:2. So much that even Darby McDevitt himself said something along the lines of Ezio was too much of a pirate/warrior. IMO, AC:2 was basically the epiphany of a pirates' game with all of its side missions that involved slaughtering for loot.
4. Understandable, and I get that. But the problem is, as a direct sequel to AC:1, it had a very poor amount of emphasis on the original foundations of the series. Like--one rehearsal of the Creed. Really, Ubs?

jdowny
03-07-2014, 06:09 PM
It's a spectacular game, no doubt, but as I've said, it didn't touch too much on anything of the series other than it's title, it's setting, and adding to it's original mechanics. For me, AC:3 had all of said appeal. And so did ACB, AC:R, AC:IV and AC:L.

It didn't touch too much on anything of the series? It was the second game - there wasn't exactly a lot available for it to touch upon. The only thing available was AC 1, and it improved upon this game in almost every respect. To touch upon it too much would risk imitating it, when the best choice was to branch out and provide something different.

What appeal did AC III have? You haven't exactly said.


I'm judging it as a whole since I've had fuzzy memories of it so I had to replay the entire saga again.. People have this weird rating of what's an Assassin's Creed game and what's not since AC:IV. IMO, AC:2 is a great game, but it's nowhere close to the Assassin's Creed game people are praising it for.

Well that's a matter of opinion, and most people would disagree with you on that, including me.


Let me reword that. -- AC:2 is part of the milking. Brotherhood and Revelations are not alone.

This doesn't make sense. How can you berate the first of a series for milking something? You might as well accuse the first season of Breaking Bad for milking the genre when you've just finished watching all of them. The only one I can think of that might come close to milking his story is Revelations, but even this game pulled it off for me.

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 06:27 PM
At the time of ACB, when we were searching for Ezio's Apple so it wouldn't get into Abstergo's hands but ALSO as it was apparently a piece of the puzzle to stop the Flare, due to this combination of goals in the Apple I remember thinking that maybe the Satellite would be the only thing that could actually stop the Solar Flare (but it would also lead to the Templar goal being reached). But the Apple became just a key.
Indeed. The Apple's importance was reduced so much gradually and unnecessarily.
The choice between letting the Abstergo have their way with the satellite and letting the earth burn would have been interesting, it's why I agree that AC I's historical connection with the modern days felt very organic. It showed a minimized version of what happen if Abstergo had their way in the form of Masyaf being taken over.



Well, conspiracy theorist heaven is one thing, I don't mind that, it's just that a lot of those connections undermine, in my opinion, the Templar ideals. Yes, Templars don't use necessarily the most humane means to achieve their goals, but starting the freaking World War II is just overkill (heck, World War II is something that Templars would work to STOP, not instigate), but these are the kinds of things that happen when you just start connecting Templars and Assassins to a lot of important events and people.
Oh, well when you put it that way, then yes I completely agree. ANYTHING the Templars say about how they want good for the world..etc just dies when we're given the fact that EVERY atrocity in the world was perpetrated by Templars. WW II, The Holocaust, yes it worked the opposite way with what they wanted to do with the portrayal of the Templars from the first game.

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 06:44 PM
That's... basically what ALL the AC games do. Those are not valid points of critique.

1. Since ACII no game did really offer much to modern day story (aside from AC3, and even this one did not do that much with it and the whole apocalypse thing was really not as big as one imagined)
2. ALL the games give you little freedom to do things your way and do a lot to push you into scripted stealth or firefight
3. All games since AC2 were about looting everything around and collectibles and side missions
4. Ezio might not have become an "official" Assassins until sequence 13, but he was basically always doing an Assassins work, wore their robes and was guided by them. So basically he was an Assassin recruit...
5. Agree that they never touched on the Creed ENOUGH, they touched on it slightly, but not enough IMO, true.

Like I said, most points are not very valid considering at least 80 -90% of the other games did the same things.

but that's the thing, AC II is just as bad as the other games, BUT it should be held more responsible because it was the direct sequel of the first game. It had so much less on its plate, so much less convolution. It was the progression of what was built and introduced in the first game.

1- That can be added to how AC II is the DIRECT sequel of the first game and should have provided more than what we got in terms of progression. There was no character progression and no plot progression apart from Desmond escaping from Abstergo. all AC II did was unnecessarily introduce...it introduced 2 new characters without giving them sufficient screen time, it introduced a convoluted plot-line in the solar flare. It all just felt unnecessary when you realize that NOTHING from the first game was progressed., which is the job of the sequel, adding to that, I think ACB, ACR and AC III did better to advance the modern storyline. you can argue all you want about how it was a convoluted mess, which I don't disagree with, I disagree with NOT tracing it back to AC II.

2- Not really, no. It was always a choice between fire-fight and stealth, but the fact remains that were always a choice. ever since AC II, the level design was influenced too much by a GTA-style of go there, kill those and that trend kept carrying on, but freedom kept coming back gradually.

3- Yeah, but look at the side missions in AC II. some of them were weird and made no sense. Couriering? beating husbands up? there are other great side missions like Contracts, Glyphs and Tomb exploration, but Couriering and beating husbands up are just atrocious side missions.

4- Actually, this was not the case with every AC. Altair was an Assassin throughout most of his game, Ezio was a full Assassin in ACB and ACR and Connor was an Assassin half-way through the game. This point would make more sense when people bring up the fact that Edward was not an Assassin until very late into the game.

Like I said, I get on AC II's case, because i'm quite sure it was a direct sequel, so it was supposed to do things it did NOT do at all or well enough in my opinion. The points being invalid TO YOU should be of no consequence to the rest of the discussion and the validity of those points to the person presenting them. Just because the other games do crap, doesnt mean AC II is exempt from criticism...

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 06:48 PM
It didn't touch too much on anything of the series? It was the second game - there wasn't exactly a lot available for it to touch upon. The only thing available was AC 1, and it improved upon this game in almost every respect. To touch upon it too much would risk imitating it, when the best choice was to branch out and provide something different.

Exactly, just like said sequels. There's only so much they can do, but that doesn't mean they can't take a step back and iterate on what the first game had planned originally. AC:IV had all of the elements of an AC game that could have been a spin-off, but instead it pulled off a respectful sequel that tackled everything from philosophies, to the main conflicts, and to even the Assassin's Creed.


What appeal did AC III have? You haven't exactly said.

Well that's a matter of opinion, and most people would disagree with you on that, including me.

Cities, combat, protagonist, parkour, --Like AC:2, it's subjective and based on opinions as you've said.


This doesn't make sense. How can you berate the first of a series for milking something? You might as well accuse the first season of Breaking Bad for milking the genre when you've just finished watching all of them. The only one I can think of that might come close to milking his story is Revelations, but even this game pulled it off for me.

Don't worry, a few people have corrected me on this. Feel free to browse the earlier pages.

Dome500
03-07-2014, 07:00 PM
2- Not really, no. It was always a choice between fire-fight and stealth, but the fact remains that were always a choice. ever since AC II, the level design was influenced too much by a GTA-style of go there, kill those and that trend kept carrying on, but freedom kept coming back gradually.

Disagree.

Freedom was always really bad in the main story of ANY Assassins Creed game. It was most of the time the character HAVING to use Stealth or HEAVING to get into combat.
A shame actually, since they could have made it more open and only forced you to do one or the other in special situations. That way you would have had a lot more freedom while those special scripted or semi-scripted moments where you had to do one of the two would have had an even more memorable effect in the end.

AC4 gave you a little bit freedom back in some situations, but at the same time robbed you of it in other situations in comparison to the old games.
In the end, that is of course only my opinion, AC has to get more open towards multiple options and playstyles to do things.



3- Yeah, but look at the side missions in AC II. some of them were weird and made no sense. Couriering? beating husbands up? there are other great side missions like Contracts, Glyphs and Tomb exploration, but Couriering and beating husbands up are just atrocious side missions.


Well, for me it made sense. Ezio was on a budget in ACII. He had no money, no family to pay for him (father died, Uncle not rich (as seen when looking at the state of the villa)). He had to earn money somehow. I agree courier missions were boring and races were REALLY ridiculous. But I liked the beating up missions. But the most important thing is that AC2 had an amazing variety of missions with a lot of story background context for them, a thing only AC4 recently could match.

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 07:02 PM
It didn't touch too much on anything of the series? It was the second game - there wasn't exactly a lot available for it to touch upon. The only thing available was AC 1, and it improved upon this game in almost every respect. To touch upon it too much would risk imitating it, when the best choice was to branch out and provide something different.
What appeal did AC III have? You haven't exactly said.
The fact that it was the second meant that it had LESS to touch upon, thus an easier job of progressing what AC I presented. The Satellite launch, the occurrences around the world from Africa being 90% wiped out by plague to Americans immigrating to Mexico, the progression of the protagonist..etc. It was the game with the LEAST on its plate and it did the worst job, in my opinion, of making Desmond an interesting character. It wouldn't be imitating AC I by building on what it introduced, no, it would be progressing it.

I could tell you what appeal AC III has for me, i wont talk for anyone else. AC III has a much better protagonist, much better cast of characters, much better main-side mission chemistry and overall more appealing story. AGAIN, this is my opinion alone. I don't think AC II gave me ANY reason to care for Modern day nor its characters, it did not have a particularly interesting protagonist nor did it do well to properly evolve him, It had a bland cast of characters from antagonists to side characters, its side missions can feel mundane and outdated with the contracts being provided by a long deceased Lorenzo de Medici if done after a certain point in the story and finally, it had a rather boring plot, which may be interesting at first, but lags half way in.




Well that's a matter of opinion, and most people would disagree with you on that, including me.
of course it is, you don't have to point it out in every post. he perfectly presented his posts as opinions of his own, not facts. and I do not think anyone cares if yours is the opinion of the majority and theirs is the minority. This does nothing really to advance an argument. I also don't think it's something to particularly be proud of and flail around. being in the majority that is.

Dome500
03-07-2014, 07:07 PM
The fact that it was the second meant that it had LESS to touch upon, thus an easier job of progressing what AC I presented. The Satellite launch, the occurrences around the world from Africa being 90% wiped out by plague to Americans immigrating to Mexico, the progression of the protagonist..etc. It was the game with the LEAST on its plate and it did the worst job, in my opinion, of making Desmond an interesting character. It wouldn't be imitating AC I by building on what it introduced, no, it would be progressing it.


Agreed with that.

Actually, no game after AC1 did a good job in continuing Desmonds story in an interesting and meaningful way.
And right at the moment he became interesting again and where you thought he might discover a lot more secrets and stuff now that he is almost a real Assassin, they ended his story.

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 07:18 PM
Disagree.

Freedom was always really bad in the main story of ANY Assassins Creed game. It was most of the time the character HAVING to use Stealth or HEAVING to get into combat.
A shame actually, since they could have made it more open and only forced you to do one or the other in special situations. That way you would have had a lot more freedom while those special scripted or semi-scripted moments where you had to do one of the two would have had an even more memorable effect in the end.

AC4 gave you a little bit freedom back in some situations, but at the same time robbed you of it in other situations in comparison to the old games.
In the end, that is of course only my opinion, AC has to get more open towards multiple options and playstyles to do things.
Did you ever play AC I? I'm sorry, but this is just completely wrong. AC I's Assassination missions were built entirely upon giving the player the freedom of approach. You never HAD to do anything except a few rare times when it was necessary to take freedom away from the player to advance the plot (like the beginning and end of the game with Robert and Almualim) EVERY other Assassination in AC I gave so much freedom to how you wanted to approach your character.

The market that Tamir was in had more than one way of being entered, you could enter through the rooftops by way of scaffolding or blend in with a group of scholars, then afterwards you can either blow your cover and chase Tamir till he reaches a guard tower and fights you or you can blend in and continue silently to kill him.

The hospital of Garnier de Naplouse had more than way of entering. You can either go through the rooftops and face archers or go through the front door by blending with scholars. Then again, you were given a choice of continuing to be stealthy or blow your cover and go Rambo.

These were just 2 examples of how well the Assassination missions of AC I were designed and how the main priority was freedom in approach and kill. You were only forced to use stealth OR combat when the situation demanded it, which was rare.



Well, for me it made sense. Ezio was on a budget in ACII. He had no money, no family to pay for him (father died, Uncle not rich (as seen when looking at the state of the villa)). He had to earn money somehow. I agree courier missions were boring and races were REALLY ridiculous. But I liked the beating up missions. But the most important thing is that AC2 had an amazing variety of missions with a lot of story background context for them, a thing only AC4 recently could match.
Well, it didn't make sense to me. How can a Woman call a random guy in the street and tell him her Husband is cheating on her, so bring him home? He might go kill him and rob his money, he might go and mug him, It made no sense to me why someone on the street would ask a random bum to go and beat her Husband up...there were other ways (like fixing the Mundane and broken economy system) of getting money that they could'v added.
I didn't think AC II had that much Variety. the races were basically re skinned Courier missions. get from point A to point B as fast as possible and the tombs were just linear Parkour sequences, so they can actually be considered re skinned races because they sometimes involved Parkour. in regards to story context, like I said...some had made no sense (like racing, Couriering and beating husbands up) and some felt outdated because they can be provided by a deceased character.
this is of course, my opinion...

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 07:19 PM
Agreed with that.

Actually, no game after AC1 did a good job in continuing Desmonds story in an interesting and meaningful way.
And right at the moment he became interesting again and where you thought he might discover a lot more secrets and stuff now that he is almost a real Assassin, they ended his story.

Well, that's the thing. They CAN'T do justice to Desmond's story. Despite the franchise being AAA, the writers and developers are on a timer and a budget. Desmond's arc, despite being 5-8% of the game, takes A LOT of time to write and produce. It's even harder on the writers to have to make up excuses to further his story every game. And it's not just Desmond either. They have tonnes of other modern day plot-holes and shenanigans to deal with.

First person modern day isn't great, but it's definitely the best thing for the franchise right now.

ze_topazio
03-07-2014, 07:31 PM
The wonderful thing about this franchise is how each game has a different style, themes and mood, there's a game for almost everybody, everyone can be pleased.

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 07:34 PM
The wonderful thing about this franchise is how each game has a different style, themes and mood, there's a game for almost everybody, everyone can be pleased.
Indeed, I don't think any one AC game was bad...I go back to each depending on my mood. Feel nostalgic for home, I'd go play AC I and ACR. feel like walking through beautiful streets and hear amazing music, I play AC II. Feel like commanding a Brotherhood and leading Assassins, I play ACB. Feel like being a predator in the trees, I play AC III.

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 07:43 PM
some felt outdated because they can be provided by a deceased character.

Animus. :p All contracts are unlocked when they're supposed to be unlocked/happening in ACII, but you can do them whenever, and that's kinda the beauty of the Animus, you don't have to be locked out from missions for time passed and it still makes sense because just because you complete a memory now doesn't mean that the ancestor would have done it like that back then.

I can understand why that can feel weird though. It would be nice if side missions in their description had like a year in there, like AC3's naval missions for example (but, you know, just as part of the text from the letter), so our brains wouldn't try to wire it as 'oh it's happening now'.

STDlyMcStudpants
03-07-2014, 07:47 PM
When I look back and think of Assassins Creed 2 I see quite the opposite...
The more I think about it the more I appreciate it and especially it's use of time.
Thinking back, it's the only Assassin's Creed game that I could feel the days passing.
Social events took place that you could participate in just an example of them implementing days passing.
Surprising considering you played connor since childhood and the games have a day night cycle
But to each their own.
You call it the start of a decline as of course you would because im assuming the original AC is your favorite.
Of course anything after favorite on a chart is viewed as a decline, but I see it as the series start of momentum.
Hate it or love it Assassins Creed 2 made this series so successful - not Assassins Creed 1
Critics didnt like the original..Many AC fans didnt like it.
Assassins Creed hasnt even hit its peak yet let alone start a decline.
If you want to see decline look at Call of Duty..
Black Ops One was it's peak..it is on a decline and wahlah TitanFall comes to take it's place.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 07:54 PM
Indeed, I don't think any one AC game was bad...I go back to each depending on my mood. Feel nostalgic for home, I'd go play AC I and ACR. feel like walking through beautiful streets and hear amazing music, I play AC II. Feel like commanding a Brotherhood and leading Assassins, I play ACB. Feel like being a predator in the trees, I play AC III.

And AC:IV for... You know. Sailing.

GunnerGalactico
03-07-2014, 08:32 PM
Hate it or love it Assassins Creed 2 made this series so successful - not Assassins Creed 1
Critics didnt like the original..Many AC fans didnt like it.
Assassins Creed hasnt even hit its peak yet let alone start a decline.


There's nothing I disliked about AC2. It was a huge departure from the first AC. Don't get me wrong the plot in AC1 was interesting but the missions were repetitive, no day and night cycle, limited arsenal of weapons etc . With AC2 it retained all elements from the first AC and added more. For the first time you are able to swim, use gondolas and carriages, fast travel station and have a bigger arsenal of weapons -the list goes on. Every mission in AC2 felt unique and non-repetitive. And not to mention, the soundtrack was just too damn good.

AC2 is my most favourite game from the entire series, I still it play now and again. Ezio is just a very lively and likeable character. ;)

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 08:51 PM
And AC:IV for... You know. Sailing.
My bad, that too..


Animus. :p All contracts are unlocked when they're supposed to be unlocked/happening in ACII, but you can do them whenever, and that's kinda the beauty of the Animus, you don't have to be locked out from missions for time passed and it still makes sense because just because you complete a memory now doesn't mean that the ancestor would have done it like that back then.

I can understand why that can feel weird though. It would be nice if side missions in their description had like a year in there, like AC3's naval missions for example (but, you know, just as part of the text from the letter), so our brains wouldn't try to wire it as 'oh it's happening now'.
and i'm completely fine with the Animus explanation since i don't complain about it in AC III's Naval, but yeah, like you said, adding a date before the beginning of each contract mission would've been a nice visual element that retains the immersion for me..

jdowny
03-07-2014, 08:55 PM
The fact that it was the second meant that it had LESS to touch upon, thus an easier job of progressing what AC I presented. The Satellite launch, the occurrences around the world from Africa being 90% wiped out by plague to Americans immigrating to Mexico, the progression of the protagonist..etc. It was the game with the LEAST on its plate and it did the worst job, in my opinion, of making Desmond an interesting character. It wouldn't be imitating AC I by building on what it introduced, no, it would be progressing it.

I'm referring to Fatal-Feit, who seemed to suggest that not touching upon the series was a bad thing. I also said that progressing was exactly what AC II did - it built upon AC 1's gameplay in almost every way. I didn't care much for the modern-day storyline (what little there was), but regardless of whether you personally thought it was good, AC II expanded the game.


I could tell you what appeal AC III has for me, i wont talk for anyone else. AC III has a much better protagonist, much better cast of characters, much better main-side mission chemistry and overall more appealing story. AGAIN, this is my opinion alone. I don't think AC II gave me ANY reason to care for Modern day nor its characters, it did not have a particularly interesting protagonist nor did it do well to properly evolve him, It had a bland cast of characters from antagonists to side characters, its side missions can feel mundane and outdated with the contracts being provided by a long deceased Lorenzo de Medici if done after a certain point in the story and finally, it had a rather boring plot, which may be interesting at first, but lags half way in.

You know I was still talking to Fatal-Feit right?


of course it is, you don't have to point it out in every post. he perfectly presented his posts as opinions of his own, not facts. and I do not think anyone cares if yours is the opinion of the majority and theirs is the minority. This does nothing really to advance an argument. I also don't think it's something to particularly be proud of and flail around. being in the majority that is.

I'm not pointing it out in every post thanks. I'm also not hiding behind the majority - I'm making a point. Fatal-Feit stated that "AC II is a great game but comes nowhere close to the Assassin's Creed game people are praising it for." That sounds like a pretty strong statement of certainty. I'm saying that even on recent on opinion polls of the best AC games, AC II is close to the top in almost every one - hence it is the Assassin's Creed game people are praising it for. That's not to say that it emphatically deserves all the praise it gets, but Fatal-Feit was talking about the reception of the game as a whole, something which is objective and not subjective.

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 09:28 PM
I also said that progressing was exactly what AC II did - it built upon AC 1's gameplay in almost every way. I didn't care much for the modern-day storyline (what little there was), but regardless of whether you personally thought it was good, AC II expanded the game.
Well, no, I disagree, I don't think AC II advanced anything, neither Modern day storyline or gameplay. Me thinking it's not good is BASED on the fact that I thought it did not expand on what AC I established. The correct phrase would be, regardless of whether or not you agree, I don't think AC II expanded upon AC I's core elements of gameplay nor its established Modern day lore.



You know I was still talking to Fatal-Feit right?
Doesn't really matter, I felt like i had something to say to your post to him so I did...it wasn't a private correspondence between you and him



I'm not pointing it out in every post thanks. I'm also not hiding behind the majority - I'm making a point. Fatal-Feit stated that "AC II is a great game but comes nowhere close to the Assassin's Creed game people are praising it for." That sounds like a pretty strong statement of certainty. I'm saying that even on recent on opinion polls of the best AC games, AC II is close to the top in almost every one - hence it is the Assassin's Creed game people are praising it for. That's not to say that it emphatically deserves all the praise it gets, but Fatal-Feit was talking about the reception of the game as a whole, something which is objective and not subjective.
Well, I guess it WAS an exaggeration on my part. you only did it in 2 of your posts, my bad. You actually are. When you feel like your statements or opinions in a discussion or argument need to be backed up by phrases such as "It's what the majority thinks" then i'm pretty sure you're trying to add strength to your argument or as you put it, hide behind the majority...I don't see any other reason why you'd bring majority, which you did again in this post, into a subjective discussion, sorry. Furthermore, I don't see any contradiction with what Fatal said and the retained subjectivity. He doesn't think it's the AC game people are hailing and praising it to be, he doesnt need to add "I think" or "imo" to show that it's his view that AC II, TO HIM, is not what people praise it to be. He put it forth as a strong statement, sure, since it's his opinion and this IS a discussion leaning on the argumentative.

Fact of the matter is, like I said, none of us who criticize AC II care what the majority thinks. none of us care that the majority likes AC II. We disagree with the majority and we have reasons, you saying "no, you're wrong, AC II expanded and progressed and look, the majority thinks so" wont change anything, since we completely disagree with the majority. AC II being on top on every poll does not mean it's objectively the AC people are praising it for, it only means that AC II is the most popular game in the series, nothing more...that's the only objective result you get from polls. I think you misunderstood what Fatal meant with his phrase, really...he didnt touch AC II's reception, only gave a subjective outlook on it. Most people praise it, but I don't think it deserved the praise it gets. That's all.

jdowny
03-07-2014, 09:57 PM
Well, no, I disagree, I don't think AC II advanced anything, neither Modern day storyline or gameplay. Me thinking it's not good is BASED on the fact that I thought it did not expand on what AC I established. The correct phrase would be, regardless of whether or not you agree, I don't think AC II expanded upon AC I's core elements of gameplay nor its established Modern day lore.

So side missions, swimming, collectibles with rewards, greater variety of weapons, fighting techniques, heavy weapons, customizable outfits, secret lairs, huge interiors, day/night cycle, races isn't expansion? I'm just saying.


Doesn't really matter, I felt like i had something to say to your post to him so I did...it wasn't a private correspondence between you and him

I'd just be more interested in hearing Fatal-Feit's points instead of yours since that's who my comments were aimed at - as valid as yours may be.


Well, I guess it WAS an exaggeration on my part. you only did it in 2 of your posts, my bad. You actually are. When you feel like your statements or opinions in a discussion or argument need to be backed up by phrases such as "It's what the majority thinks" then i'm pretty sure you're trying to add strength to your argument or as you put it, hide behind the majority...I don't see any other reason why you'd bring majority, which you did again in this post, into a subjective discussion, sorry. Furthermore, I don't see any contradiction with what Fatal said and the retained subjectivity. He doesn't think it's the AC game people are hailing and praising it to be, he doesnt need to add "I think" or "imo" to show that it's his view that AC II, TO HIM, is not what people praise it to be. He put it forth as a strong statement, sure, since it's his opinion and this IS a discussion leaning on the argumentative.

That's not my point. I'm not saying my opinion is right because it's backed up by the majority at all. Fatal-Feit stated something that sounded like a certainty. I was pointing out the flaw in this certainty by providing facts that disprove it.

Okay he may not have meant it as fact, but it sounded like one - and when people state things with such certainty they sound arrogant. Most people have no problem with saying 'I think,' or 'personally' at the start. But this was a short, flat statement. Again, if Fatal-Feit had supported this statement with an argument I might be more inclined to discuss, which is what the forums are for.


Fact of the matter is, like I said, none of us who criticize AC II care what the majority thinks. none of us care that the majority likes AC II. We disagree with the majority and we have reasons, you saying "no, you're wrong, AC II expanded and progressed and look, the majority thinks so" wont change anything, since we completely disagree with the majority. AC II being on top on every poll does not mean it's objectively the AC people are praising it for, it only means that AC II is the most popular game in the series, nothing more...that's the only objective result you get from polls. I think you misunderstood what Fatal meant with his phrase, really...he didnt touch AC II's reception, only gave a subjective outlook on it. Most people praise it, but I don't think it deserved the praise it gets. That's all.

Fair enough. I'm not in the majority either - AC II isn't my favourite game in the series. But I guess the difference is that I still thought it was good.

Farlander1991
03-07-2014, 10:13 PM
Most people have no problem with saying 'I think,' or 'personally' at the start.

Eh... I really don't think that 'I think' or 'personally' is at all required. It's just redundant. If I (for example) say something, OF COURSE it's my opinion, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. And if I argue with somebody, OF COURSE I don't think their opinion is correct, otherwise there'd be no argument and disagreement. I'm sorry, I just heard a lot of people in discussions with me run out of arguments to say and go like, 'well, it's just your opinion, man', that this sort of thing began to REALLY bug me. :rolleyes: Of course it's my opinion. Arrogance, I think :p , comes not from strong statements themselves, but from the inability to accept others' opinions or enforcing yours or putting words into others peoples' mouths or from trying to change somebody's mind rather than just exchanging thoughts and etc.

Fatal-Feit
03-07-2014, 10:31 PM
So side missions, swimming, collectibles with rewards, greater variety of weapons, fighting techniques, heavy weapons, customizable outfits, secret lairs, huge interiors, day/night cycle, races isn't expansion? I'm just saying.

They expanded on the gameplay, but not the story. It's easy for someone to say ''it's a different take'' but that doesn't mean they can stamp an Assassin's Creed title onto it and call it a sequel. AC:IV was a unique take with a bunch of game changing contents, but it still had all of the elements worthy of an AC title.

And with that said, AC:2 still eliminated a lot of things from AC:1 itself and despite being less linear, the side contents weren't very Assassin's Creed.


I'd just be more interested in hearing Fatal-Feit's points instead of yours since that's who my comments were aimed at - as valid as yours may be.

I'm perfectly fine with _M speaking for me. On the topic, I share a similar opinion with _M so I rather not iterate the same thing.


That's not my point. I'm not saying my opinion is right because it's backed up by the majority at all. Fatal-Feit stated something that sounded like a certainty. I was pointing out the flaw in this certainty by providing facts that disprove it.

Which is perfectly fine, but if you're going the ''majority vote'' route as facts, then no. It's not like I, myself have not provided facts to further my point either. And if there aren't enough, you have Farlander's and _M's many posts on this same thread.


Okay he may not have meant it as fact, but it sounded like one - and when people state things with such certainty they sound arrogant. Most people have no problem with saying 'I think,' or 'personally' at the start. But this was a short, flat statement. Again, if Fatal-Feit had supported this statement with an argument I might be more inclined to discuss, which is what the forums are for.

I've used all of the above statements quite a lot already. And in a thread filled with opinions and debates, I don't think it's all that necessary. I'm sorry if I came off as arrogant, but I'm pretty certain my points were supported by others' opinions on the same thread. Why repeat what's been said? lol

Assassin_M
03-07-2014, 10:50 PM
So side missions, swimming, collectibles with rewards, greater variety of weapons, fighting techniques, heavy weapons, customizable outfits, secret lairs, huge interiors, day/night cycle, races isn't expansion? I'm just saying.
I was referring more to the core gameplay elements (Combat, stealth, navigation and investigation) and modern day lore, but i can discuss this point to point and i might even explore things you may have missed that AC II introduced.

Side missions: AC I had side missions, but AC II expanded upon them. It introduced some of the best side missions in the series. Side missions like contracts, tombs and Glyphs were amazing. they made good use of the core mechanics and gave interesting puzzles to fill the world with intrigue (my only gripe are with the contracts and the break in immersion i felt when i'd still take Contracts from a dead Lorenzo) however, side missions like Races, couriers and beating husbands up did not appeal to me in the slightest. They were mundane, nonsensical and boring to me. the races and couriers were reskinned tombs (i.e timed parkour sequences) and beating husbands up just made no sense in the fact that a random woman would come up to you from out of no where and tell you to beat up her cheating Husband.

Swimming: Didn't really find it that interesting, I could'v very well lived without it, since I thought it brought nothing intriguing to the table in terms of mechanics. we already had our core gameplay, I didn't think swimming was necessary at all.

Collectibles with rewards: had you not included "with rewards", I would have ended this pretty quickly, so good move, although you can argue that achievements are a award, but i wont go there, anyway, like I said, since i'm talking about expanding of core gameplay mechanics, this isn't really what i'm talking about, but yeah..i'll give it to AC II. it made going for collectibles actually worthwhile.

Greater variety of weapons: Once again, this does nothing to evolve the specific core element it was meant for i.e combat. The variety of the weapons lie only in the cosmetic look. different swords have no consequence or repercussions. There's no difference between a sword with 1 notch of speed and another with 3 notches, there really isn't, i'v tried them all and the only stat that matters is power, Just like AC I. stronger swords only served to deal less hits in order to start a combo kill and that was it...speed and deflect had no effect whatsoever on the combat. I would gladly throw away 50 swords for 5 that actually matter in fights and make a difference (and just the fact that it only deals more damage, which was there in the previous game)

Fighting techniques: Lets list the new fighting techniques. Taunting, disarming, taking hostage, throwing dust at eyes and making hand-to hand combat the same as armed combat.
-taunting served to make guards attack you, so that's fine since the AI is broken as hell and can take ages to attack.
-disarming gave you a weapon when you're unarmed, which is pointless since hand-to-hand combat has been refined into being exactly like armed combat. (i.e I didn't feel in danger when I wasn't armed), but works when faced with brutes and seekers, which is nice.
-taking hostage went against the idea of making them attack you fast and only served to slow down the pace of combat, more so than it already is, amazingly.
-throwing dust AGAIN slowed the pace of combat and is ONLY effective when an unbelievably small window occurs, which is when a guard attacks and you throw dust to stop it, but THAT is also moot since you have the saving grace in the shape of the high profile button that as long as it is pressed, you'll be fine evading guard attacks with your vambrace. It also broke the guards of the soldiers, which made disarming moot, since you can dispatch quite easily when their guard is broken.
-refining hand-to-hand combat: I would'v appreciated this if it had put in a separate category UNDER armed combat. I still wanted it to be dangerous if you fight armed guards when you're unarmed so that i'd have to resort to disarming, but that never happened since unarmed combat still didn't feel too dangerous except against brutes and and seekers.

Heavy weapons: Even though i think this should be put under variety weapons, i'll discuss it. Heavy weapons were just cosmetic. They were basically the normal weapons mechanically, except slower. They only worked with what was added to the combat (which goes back to my statement of refining the combat, rather than adding to it mundanely)

Customizable outfits: From the Tailors? Just different colors that I didn't use AT ALL, I do have to give it to AC II for Altair's armor, though...that was amazing. if you're referring to armors, I didn't use those either since I thought they ruined the clean and sleek look of Ezio's outfit. I would've liked them if they mattered, but their use was rendered moot with the presence of medicine. facing 15 guards with 4 squares of health was the same as facing them with 20...I had medicine on me, so...

Secret lairs: part of side missions and I mentioned them as great there.

Huge interiors: I MIGHT be confused, but I don't know what this is? which huge interiors?

Day/Night Cycle: This was a great addition to the system and I agree, it's one of the things i like about AC II.

Races: Side missions

Economic system: Having Money is always nice in open world games, but when the economic system is broken and mundane, you lose interest very quickly. that was AC II's system for me...broken and mundane. Money came to you by way of pushing buttons (upgrading the villa and taking money from chest), looting chests and doing missions and even then, you can disregard ALL of those and simply focus on the Villa and upgrading it and you'll have ****-load of cash at your disposal and EVEN THEN money didnt really matter because weapons were just cosmetic, outfits were just dyes and the game was easy as feck, so I didn't need armor.

So yeah, like I said...I only referred to the core mechanics when I mentioned evolving and expanding (something I felt like AC II, rectifying what I said, BARELY touched upon) with everything you mentioned being, to me, mundane additions.

A gripe of mine (among many others) with AC II is that it removed things from the first game that I liked a lot and that it did not evolve on what it retained imo. It removed the ability to replay memories and it removed Investigations.



I'd just be more interested in hearing Fatal-Feit's points instead of yours since that's who my comments were aimed at - as valid as yours may be.
Not like i'm holding him back by my post, he can still reply to you if he wishes.




That's not my point. I'm not saying my opinion is right because it's backed up by the majority at all. Fatal-Feit stated something that sounded like a certainty. I was pointing out the flaw in this certainty by providing facts that disprove it.

Okay he may not have meant it as fact, but it sounded like one - and when people state things with such certainty they sound arrogant. Most people have no problem with saying 'I think,' or 'personally' at the start. But this was a short, flat statement. Again, if Fatal-Feit had supported this statement with an argument I might be more inclined to discuss, which is what the forums are for.
No no, I don't think that's what you said. I'm saying that you believe that since the majority praise AC II, then it IS what it's put out to be. the best AC of all time, correct me if i'm wrong in thinking this. We had this conversation before and like I said last time, there's a subjective certainty. I'm fairly certain, backed by my playing of AC II countless times, that AC II really does not deserve all the praise it's given.

Perhaps it did sound arrogant, but that's just picking at straws, really.




Fair enough. I'm not in the majority either - AC II isn't my favourite game in the series. But I guess the difference is that I still thought it was good.
I think it's good too, you misunderstand, I just don't think it's as good as people put it out to be...I wouldnt have relpayed it so many times if I didnt think it was good.

TheJurre
03-08-2014, 12:11 AM
What would be the actual size of the zone that the satelliete would influence be? Would it only be useful in the US, or world wide?

jdowny
03-08-2014, 12:24 AM
I think it's good too, you misunderstand, I just don't think it's as good as people put it out to be...I wouldnt have relpayed it so many times if I didnt think it was good.

Then I think we've got off on the wrong foot or got lost in misunderstandings.


I was referring more to the core gameplay elements (Combat, stealth, navigation and investigation) and modern day lore, but i can discuss this point to point and i might even explore things you may have missed that AC II introduced.

Ah I see - we're talking about core mechanics rather than cosmetic changes. So if we're limiting this to core gameplay mechanics, I agree - AC II didn't change a huge lot. But you can say that about AC Brotherhood and Revelations as well. You can say that about a great many games in a great many series. My point being that I don't see why AC II is apparently being singled out as the disappointing game here. Okay, this is a topic about AC II, but if we're including the series as a whole (as many people have in their arguments), then to me its faults aren't as great as everyone is claiming them to be. I'm all for knocking the tarnish off and seeing games for what they are instead of what they're hyped to be, but to me AC II still stands out as one of the best AC games. Of course it's got its faults, but many people here seem to be truly disappointed by it, which I find odd.

Oh and my list was never meant to be comprehensive. But my point was not whether these additions were good or not (I agree with you on a few of them), but that they added to the game. By added I mean in terms of size and length. They improved on AC 1's repetitiveness. Of course there are going to be things that people don't like about these additions or things that were left out from the original game but that's beside the point. Assassin's Creed II expanded upon the gameplay of AC 1 - not in terms of core mechanics, but in terms of variety of activities.


A gripe of mine (among many others) with AC II is that it removed things from the first game that I liked a lot and that it did not evolve on what it retained imo. It removed the ability to replay memories and it removed Investigations.

Out of interest, were there any more things that it removed that you liked?


Not like i'm holding him back by my post, he can still reply to you if he wishes.

And he has. So I'll reply.


No no, I don't think that's what you said. I'm saying that you believe that since the majority praise AC II, then it IS what it's put out to be. the best AC of all time, correct me if i'm wrong in thinking this. We had this conversation before and like I said last time, there's a subjective certainty. I'm fairly certain, backed by my playing of AC II countless times, that AC II really does not deserve all the praise it's given.

And I'm fine with subjective certainty as long as people state it as subjective certainty - otherwise it just comes off as obnoxious arrogance. You for instance, said I'm fairly certain that... instead of saying It's certain that... That's sensible. That's a healthy argument and avoids misunderstandings.

I have however just realised that a lot of this has been down to a huge misunderstanding on my part - I missed the IMO that Fatal-Feit put at the beginning of his sentence. That was completely my fault, I apologise.


Eh... I really don't think that 'I think' or 'personally' is at all required. It's just redundant. If I (for example) say something, OF COURSE it's my opinion, otherwise I wouldn't have said it. And if I argue with somebody, OF COURSE I don't think their opinion is correct, otherwise there'd be no argument and disagreement. I'm sorry, I just heard a lot of people in discussions with me run out of arguments to say and go like, 'well, it's just your opinion, man', that this sort of thing began to REALLY bug me. :rolleyes: Of course it's my opinion. Arrogance, I think :p , comes not from strong statements themselves, but from the inability to accept others' opinions or enforcing yours or putting words into others peoples' mouths or from trying to change somebody's mind rather than just exchanging thoughts and etc.

I think it is required, or at least heavily encouraged, especially on forums, when people inevitably end up discussing opinions instead of proven facts. It helps to clarify what people mean. I've seen it so often where people just end up stating their opinions as facts and it all escalates into heated argument. And you might laugh but people don't seem to notice when they put 'I think,' or 'it seems' in sentences. Most do it without realising. You for instance do it naturally, which is how it should be.


They expanded on the gameplay, but not the story. It's easy for someone to say ''it's a different take'' but that doesn't mean they can stamp an Assassin's Creed title onto it and call it a sequel. AC:IV was a unique take with a bunch of game changing contents, but it still had all of the elements worthy of an AC title.

When you say they didn't expand the story, which story do you mean? If you mean the in-game story about Ezio, they're entirely within their rights to separate it from AC 1. It's a different story. An AC sequel doesn't have to be directly related to the previous game - that's the brilliance of the Animus. But come to think of it, they did expand upon AC 1's story through Altair's codex.

If it's the modern-day story, I'd agree with you - they didn't expand upon AC 1's much. But then the modern story takes up such a miniscule amount of the game that to me it pales in comparison to the huge Ezio story arc - it seems strange to berate a game so strongly based on this small flaw.

Fatal-Feit
03-08-2014, 12:59 AM
When you say they didn't expand the story, which story do you mean? If you mean the in-game story about Ezio, they're entirely within their rights to separate it from AC 1. It's a different story. An AC sequel doesn't have to be directly related to the previous game - that's the brilliance of the Animus. But come to think of it, they did expand upon AC 1's story through Altair's codex.

If it's the modern-day story, I'd agree with you - they didn't expand upon AC 1's much. But then the modern story takes up such a miniscule amount of the game that to me it pales in comparison to the huge Ezio story arc - it seems strange to berate a game so strongly based on this small flaw.

I'm not referring to the modern day story. I'm talking about the ancestor's story. Ezio's. The protagonist we play for 33+ hours in AC:2.

The problem isn't the fact that AC:2 scarcely connects with Altair or his legacy. AC:IV and the others hadn't either. The problem is, --as I've mentioned a billion times-- AC:2 is not delivering on the franchise's original foundation. With the exception of _M's and Farlander's posts, I've already given my reasons in a few other threads including the past 7 pages.

Fatal-Feit
03-08-2014, 01:19 AM
Ah I see - we're talking about core mechanics rather than cosmetic changes. So if we're limiting this to core gameplay mechanics, I agree - AC II didn't change a huge lot. But you can say that about AC Brotherhood and Revelations as well. You can say that about a great many games in a great many series. My point being that I don't see why AC II is apparently being singled out as the disappointing game here. Okay, this is a topic about AC II, but if we're including the series as a whole (as many people have in their arguments), then to me its faults aren't as great as everyone is claiming them to be. I'm all for knocking the tarnish off and seeing games for what they are instead of what they're hyped to be, but to me AC II still stands out as one of the best AC games. Of course it's got its faults, but many people here seem to be truly disappointed by it, which I find odd.

Oh and my list was never meant to be comprehensive. But my point was not whether these additions were good or not (I agree with you on a few of them), but that they added to the game. By added I mean in terms of size and length. They improved on AC 1's repetitiveness. Of course there are going to be things that people don't like about these additions or things that were left out from the original game but that's beside the point. Assassin's Creed II expanded upon the gameplay of AC 1 - not in terms of core mechanics, but in terms of variety of activities.

Well this is a thread about AC:2 and its problems. There's nothing odd about criticizing the topic of discussion. As people have said, some of them think AC:2 is a great game. A spectacular one, IMO. But it doesn't mean we can't give our constructive opinions about it. IIRC, there have not been a single post in this thread where someone called AC:2 a true disappointment. No offense, but as Farlander said, you might be taking these opinions and criticisms in a harsher manner than you think.

Dome500
03-08-2014, 02:13 AM
Did you ever play AC I? I'm sorry, but this is just completely wrong. AC I's Assassination missions were built entirely upon giving the player the freedom of approach.

You are right.

But due to the linearity of the game I kind of forgot that fact. Sorry I didn't mention it. The whole series since ACII did that. ACI had freedom of approach, but on the other hand had the exact problems the other games (especially AC2 and AC4) fixed, mission and side mission variety.


and the tombs were just linear Parkour sequences, so they can actually be considered re skinned races because they sometimes involved Parkour.

Disagreed. I always liked the way you went through ancient ruins and tunnels and found the way to open the next door and do some parkour. It was not a re-purposed race mission. It was a fun unique mission IMO. I always liked Tombs.



First person modern day isn't great, but it's definitely the best thing for the franchise right now.

Like I said, not in my opinion.

I still think it would be best to have multiple characters like Desmond all telling their own stories. That way you would have a constant ancestor (every game) and modern-day character (every 3 games or so) fluidity and variety. It would enable you to have more creative freedom and bring in all kinds of ideas and story arcs and plots and plot twists in modern day.


I'm referring to Fatal-Feit, who seemed to suggest that not touching upon the series was a bad thing. I also said that progressing was exactly what AC II did - it built upon AC 1's gameplay in almost every way. I didn't care much for the modern-day storyline (what little there was), but regardless of whether you personally thought it was good, AC II expanded the game.

In a lot of things but not in modern day storyline.



And with that said, AC:2 still eliminated a lot of things from AC:1 itself and despite being less linear, the side contents weren't very Assassin's Creed.

But then again, I like that.
I agree that some side content should also be Assassins Creed.
But AC4 also did a lot of side content that was not AC but rather pirate stuff. I think side content which is not directly connected to the Assassins fleshes the backstory out and adds to the variety and fun of the game, AS LONG AS there are also Assassin side activities.



Side missions: AC I had side missions, but AC II expanded upon them. It introduced some of the best side missions in the series. Side missions like contracts, tombs and Glyphs were amazing. they made good use of the core mechanics and gave interesting puzzles to fill the world with intrigue (my only gripe are with the contracts and the break in immersion i felt when i'd still take Contracts from a dead Lorenzo)

Agreed.



Swimming: Didn't really find it that interesting, I could'v very well lived without it, since I thought it brought nothing intriguing to the table in terms of mechanics. we already had our core gameplay, I didn't think swimming was necessary at all.

Well, it was at least necessary for my immersion that my character, a master Assassin, didn't drown.


Customizable outfits: From the Tailors? Just different colors that I didn't use AT ALL, I do have to give it to AC II for Altair's armor, though...that was amazing. if you're referring to armors, I didn't use those either since I thought they ruined the clean and sleek look of Ezio's outfit. I would've liked them if they mattered, but their use was rendered moot with the presence of medicine. facing 15 guards with 4 squares of health was the same as facing them with 20...I had medicine on me, so...

I loved the different colors.
Although I also loved the different outfits in AC3 and AC4. I think they should combine those 2 systems with each other. Have different colors for different outfits. I found it pretty cool not running around in the same outfit all the time, but that's a matter of taste I guess :D


Huge interiors: I MIGHT be confused, but I don't know what this is? which huge interiors?

I asked myself the same question...


Economic system: Having Money is always nice in open world games, but when the economic system is broken and mundane, you lose interest very quickly. that was AC II's system for me...broken and mundane. Money came to you by way of pushing buttons (upgrading the villa and taking money from chest), looting chests and doing missions and even then, you can disregard ALL of those and simply focus on the Villa and upgrading it and you'll have ****-load of cash at your disposal and EVEN THEN money didnt really matter because weapons were just cosmetic, outfits were just dyes and the game was easy as feck, so I didn't need armor.


I don't see it THAT strict. But I agree, you had way too much money in ACII and ACB.



A gripe of mine (among many others) with AC II is that it removed things from the first game that I liked a lot and that it did not evolve on what it retained imo. It removed the ability to replay memories and it removed Investigations.

Agreed.

I would have loved to see investigations instead of letters or races. They were really cool. All they would have had to do is make them more variable and different and with that less repetitive. Also, if you think about all the GREAT things added like Tombs, Assassin Contracs, etc, etc. then actually having the investigations before an Assassination replace the letter/courier missions and the races would have been PERFECTLY fine IMO.

_________________


All in all I think one can say that ACII added more to the series than any other AC game, but sadly enough it did not add enough to core gamplay and did move away from the concepts of the original, such as investigations, stealth and the modern-day-storyline.

A fact that could be corrected with AC5, since AC4 already STARTED to tackle on SOME of those things (Stealth, Combat (okay combat way mainly AC3), freedom).

What do we want to see in future AC games?

Maybe a return of the investigations, more freedom how to approach missions, better A.I., (even) more Stealth SUPPORT (as an option in most main and side missions/activities) and more progression and interesting topics in the modern day storyline.

Fatal-Feit
03-08-2014, 02:57 AM
Like I said, not in my opinion.

I still think it would be best to have multiple characters like Desmond all telling their own stories. That way you would have a constant ancestor (every game) and modern-day character (every 3 games or so) fluidity and variety. It would enable you to have more creative freedom and bring in all kinds of ideas and story arcs and plots and plot twists in modern day.

The only input we can give is our opinions on the matter. Everyone has an ideal modern day gameplay and protagonist. I want mine to be about some handicap guy in a wheelchair who works for Abstergo and learns about his many interesting ancestors. The gameplay would be in a Telltale-like fashion. That way the players would be restricted to a few rooms but have lots of contents and side conversations with replayable choices. However the realism of this is, it's not always the plausible way. Developers and writers are on a timer and a budget. They also have a variety of fans to deal with. Some wants modern day to be removed while others want it to be expanded upon.

Darby himself have said that if he had it his way, he would make modern day about a couple of trouble makers who snuck into Abstergo and played with the Animus. While they're browsing around, the many random ancestor they play as could be the tutorial. Later they would soon learn of the Assassins and Templar through the ancestors. But for the time being, it's just not possible and most of our ideas-- requires too much production time and money.

I also read somewhere in his Q&As' on ACinitiates that writing AC:R or AC:III's modern day alone took a couple months.


But then again, I like that.
I agree that some side content should also be Assassins Creed.
But AC4 also did a lot of side content that was not AC but rather pirate stuff. I think side content which is not directly connected to the Assassins fleshes the backstory out and adds to the variety and fun of the game, AS LONG AS there are also Assassin side activities.

I like it too. It adds variety and makes each game feel organic, but my point of the subject was AC:2 not being that perfect AC people are complimenting it to be. It's hardly a Assassin's Creed if it rarely touches upon Assassin's Creed. AC:IV had it's fair share of faults too, but it manages to retain many important things that the original Assassin's Creed game had and like AC:2, expanded the gameplay-- even more so. 6+ games in, and IMO, it's JUST now that we're getting an actual sequel.


I loved the different colors.
Although I also loved the different outfits in AC3 and AC4. I think they should combine those 2 systems with each other. Have different colors for different outfits. I found it pretty cool not running around in the same outfit all the time, but that's a matter of taste I guess :D

You're not the only one. I make a habit out of changing my Assassin's wear and colors. I would seriously LOVE to see that idea come true.

Assassin_M
03-08-2014, 03:25 AM
Then I think we've got off on the wrong foot or got lost in misunderstandings.
Yeah, that and because you probably took my criticism harsher than I intended it to be :p



Ah I see - we're talking about core mechanics rather than cosmetic changes. So if we're limiting this to core gameplay mechanics, I agree - AC II didn't change a huge lot. But you can say that about AC Brotherhood and Revelations as well. You can say that about a great many games in a great many series. My point being that I don't see why AC II is apparently being singled out as the disappointing game here. Okay, this is a topic about AC II, but if we're including the series as a whole (as many people have in their arguments), then to me its faults aren't as great as everyone is claiming them to be. I'm all for knocking the tarnish off and seeing games for what they are instead of what they're hyped to be, but to me AC II still stands out as one of the best AC games. Of course it's got its faults, but many people here seem to be truly disappointed by it, which I find odd.
I'm pointing it out because we're in a thread talking about AC II, so I don't really see the need in saying "AC II did this badly, oh but ACB and ACR did that too" had this thread been about the series in general or another specific game, I would'v signaled it out like i'm doing with AC II now and you might ask why there's a critical thread about AC II in the first place, well it's because people praise it the most...it's placed on the highest pedestal and is thus candidate for the most scrutiny...it should be placed under the most scrutiny. It's revered as the best. It was the long awaited direct sequel...that alone should make it the most scrutinized game...at least to me.

That's fine, I find it odd that anyone would say AC II is the best in the series and Ezio being the best protagonist ever.


Oh and my list was never meant to be comprehensive. But my point was not whether these additions were good or not (I agree with you on a few of them), but that they added to the game. By added I mean in terms of size and length. They improved on AC 1's repetitiveness. Of course there are going to be things that people don't like about these additions or things that were left out from the original game but that's beside the point. Assassin's Creed II expanded upon the gameplay of AC 1 - not in terms of core mechanics, but in terms of variety of activities.
I don't disagree of course that they're additions, that's plain fact, but like I said, to me expanding the gameplay mechanics is not like the overall experience. variety of activities falls in the category of overall experience to me, not the gameplay mechanics. of course gameplay mechanics are a part of the overall experience, but it's separate from the category of side missions and variety.



Out of interest, were there any more things that it removed that you liked?
Yeah, the ambiguity of the conflict between the Assassins and Templars. I don't want to like the Templars or even think that there ambitions are good for all, AC I, AC III nor AC IV (which i loved the Templars in) didnt do any of that, they simply presented a grey conflict. The Assassins who fight for freedom would shut the Templars up without question and would avoid getting into conflict with parties who are not templars, regardless of the fact that these parties are committing atrocities or not.

It also removed Sequence 13 and made it a DLC (Console gamer) a sequence that FINALLY had Ezio evolve and progress as a character and as an Assassin. One of my biggest gripes of AC II is that throughout the whole game, I felt like Ezio did not change at all whatsoever. The logical progression direction of character for a protagonist like Ezio with his story, to me, would be changing into someone who's a lot less trusting of people, someone who's more gruff and cynical and someone who's a lot less talkative with people he JUST met.




And I'm fine with subjective certainty as long as people state it as subjective certainty - otherwise it just comes off as obnoxious arrogance. You for instance, said I'm fairly certain that... instead of saying It's certain that... That's sensible. That's a healthy argument and avoids misunderstandings.
Oh come now, i'm sure you're bigger than picking on something as petty as that xP


I have however just realised that a lot of this has been down to a huge misunderstanding on my part - I missed the IMO that Fatal-Feit put at the beginning of his sentence. That was completely my fault, I apologise.
and I respect your willingness to acknowledge mistakes and misunderstandings.


You are right.

But due to the linearity of the game I kind of forgot that fact. Sorry I didn't mention it. The whole series since ACII did that. ACI had freedom of approach, but on the other hand had the exact problems the other games (especially AC2 and AC4) fixed, mission and side mission variety.
Repetitiveness would be the right word to use, not linearity, unless you're talking about the story (i.e lack of choices) then yes, it IS linear.

sure, AC I had problems of its own, but we're not talking about AC I...



Disagreed. I always liked the way you went through ancient ruins and tunnels and found the way to open the next door and do some parkour. It was not a re-purposed race mission. It was a fun unique mission IMO. I always liked Tombs.
Oh trust me, I liked them too, but like I said, the side missions variety in AC II felt to me like reskins of other side missions in the same game.



Well, it was at least necessary for my immersion that my character, a master Assassin, didn't drown.
Agreed, it was immersive for me.



I loved the different colors.
Although I also loved the different outfits in AC3 and AC4. I think they should combine those 2 systems with each other. Have different colors for different outfits. I found it pretty cool not running around in the same outfit all the time, but that's a matter of taste I guess :D
Agreed, a combination of both systems would do well..



I would have loved to see investigations instead of letters or races. They were really cool. All they would have had to do is make them more variable and different and with that less repetitive. Also, if you think about all the GREAT things added like Tombs, Assassin Contracs, etc, etc. then actually having the investigations before an Assassination replace the letter/courier missions and the races would have been PERFECTLY fine IMO.
I would'v actually loved that. incorporate the investigations into the Assassination contracts.



All in all I think one can say that ACII added more to the series than any other AC game
I don't agree.


What do we want to see in future AC games?

Maybe a return of the investigations, more freedom how to approach missions, better A.I., (even) more Stealth SUPPORT (as an option in most main and side missions/activities) and more progression and interesting topics in the modern day storyline.
Ohohoh i'd talk for ages about this. one thing I SORELY want is ramping up the guard AI and that alone deserves its own thread...

jdowny
03-08-2014, 03:30 AM
I'm not referring to the modern day story. I'm talking about the ancestor's story. Ezio's. The protagonist we play for 33+ hours in AC:2.

The problem isn't the fact that AC:2 scarcely connects with Altair or his legacy. AC:IV and the others hadn't either. The problem is, --as I've mentioned a billion times-- AC:2 is not delivering on the franchise's original foundation. With the exception of _M's and Farlander's posts, I've already given my reasons in a few other threads including the past 7 pages.

There's no need to get sarcastic - there are two stories in AC II. The modern-day and the historic one. In this thread we've been talking about both. It might be nice if you could clarify instead of just saying story.

And I'm sorry but you haven't been explaining what the franchise's original foundation is. You've mentioned a couple of points about how Ezio was more pirate than assassin, but not much deeper. And while you may have delivered these arguments in other threads, you can't expect others to have seen them or to go looking for them.


Well this is a thread about AC:2 and its problems. There's nothing odd about criticizing the topic of discussion. As people have said, some of them think AC:2 is a great game. A spectacular one, IMO. But it doesn't mean we can't give our constructive opinions about it. IIRC, there have not been a single post in this thread where someone called AC:2 a true disappointment. No offense, but as Farlander said, you might be taking these opinions and criticisms in a harsher manner than you think.

Read through my posts in this thread from the beginning - I'm all for critiquing these games. I have never given any sign that I'm not. I might not agree with everything the OP and others have said, but you can't expect everyone to. I've apologised for misreading one of your posts, but kindly point out where I've been taking these criticisms harshly.

Fatal-Feit
03-08-2014, 04:00 AM
There's no need to get sarcastic - there are two stories in AC II. The modern-day and the historic one. In this thread we've been talking about both. It might be nice if you could clarify instead of just saying story.

And I'm sorry but you haven't been explaining what the franchise's original foundation is. You've mentioned a couple of points about how Ezio was more pirate than assassin, but not much deeper. And while you may have delivered these arguments in other threads, you can't expect others to have seen them or to go looking for them.

I wasn't sarcastic, you just keep missing the point so I tried to be blatant. I'm getting tired of repeating myself only to have to repeat myself only to have to repeat myself, lol. Like I said, I'm talking about Ezio's story. Or is that not clear enough? :nonchalance:

Original foundation
*The Assassin's Creed
*The amendments
*The moral greyness of Assassins and Templars
*Stealth -- No, those few scripted half-baked stealth don't count
*The burden of being a mass murderer in the name of principles
*The philosophies -- Those redundant black and white lectures don't count either
-- And a few many others that others could point out for me. I haven't played AC:1 in a long while, sorry.

As for Ezio being more of a pirate than an Assassin, as I've said he wasn't an Assassin until sequence 13. And before that, I could barely call him a recruit. He slaughtered guards for their loots. Did mundane task like beating up husbands or completing races for sex and gold.-- Along with a couple story main elements<<<< Ran/explored through hidden catacombs and off-limits layers for treasures--Including the many chases and killing of innocent guards for said goals. Did dozens of assassination contracts for Lorenzo. Purchased treasure maps and explore about every inch of every cities and places for said loots. Hell, even in most of his main missions and side sequences, Ezio preferred the confronting approach, which always lead to mundane chases, than circling around and catching the prey by surprise. Sailed across regions in search of his goal, may it be gold or not-- Venice, Rome, Forli, etc etc. Etc, etc, etc, etc, and more etc. I'm sorry but having a white hood does not make you an Assassin.

However if those aren't enough, you still have 7 pages of this thread to look through.

----------------------------------------------------------

I also hate to keep going off topic for this,



Read through my posts in this thread from the beginning - I'm all for critiquing these games. I have never given any sign that I'm not. I might not agree with everything the OP and others have said, but you can't expect everyone to. I've apologised for misreading one of your posts, but kindly point out where I've been taking these criticisms harshly.

I'm not going to keep digging through the thread for all of it.


My point being that I don't see why AC II is apparently being singled out as the disappointing game here. Okay, this is a topic about AC II, but if we're including the series as a whole (as many people have in their arguments), then to me its faults aren't as great as everyone is claiming them to be. I'm all for knocking the tarnish off and seeing games for what they are instead of what they're hyped to be, but to me AC II still stands out as one of the best AC games. Of course it's got its faults, but many people here seem to be truly disappointed by it, which I find odd.

I don't recall anyone bringing up other games for critiquing until people keep repeating something along the lines of ''But da otha gamez dud it tooz''

There's also a jumble of derailment on your part on the topic of people not including ''IMO'' or ''I think''. Almost to a degree where you're scrapping from the end of the barrel.

But since you found your mistake, can we now end this topic? :p

BoBwUzHeRe1138
03-08-2014, 04:33 AM
loooool

AC2 is, by far, the most important title in the series. First of all, they definitely answered why you live through Ezio's life. You ask why they don't relive another ancestor's life but Ezio knew of the Vault. But more than that, you have to realize how Ezio's life meshes a bit more with Desmond's -- as far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong people, but Desmond was never trained to kill. At least not very much. That's how it always seemed. He was an Assassin by blood and connection but wasn't a literal assassin. So he grew up never honing any of his natural skills. Altair had. So if they were to relive Altair's memories... he'd be trying to learn from a child as a grown man. Ezio on the other hand, also didn't start honing his skills until his late teens/early twenties.

That's what I always gathered from that.

Secondly... it's not perfect. By no means is it perfect. When you look at some of the design decisions, this becomes painfully obvious: the fact that you couldn't unequip armor, you can't replay missions, that while it's open world -- barring the viewpoints and side missions like races or whatever... there isn't much to DO besides run around. Sure there are thieves running around but I always, ALWAYS wished they had taken a page out of Spiderman 2 or Rockstar's book had a TON of dynamic random events such as muggings, or fights, random assassination contracts, etc. That way there's always stuff to DO even after beating the main story. Red Dead and Spiderman 2 are still the two games that, IMO, have done this best. They let you make your own fun by just running around the game world or (in RDR's case), shooting random people and just messing around, but they also through in optional random events for you to complete.

I can still pick up Spiderman 2 or Red Dead and have a blast exploring the world and helping out random civilians. I can never do this in ANY AC but specifically, AC2 since that's the game we're discussing.

So yeah, not a 10 out of 10 but definitely a 9 and still the best of the series. Various games have tweaked and refined the gameplay and made it better but overall, AC2 is still the best.

AC1: Created basic gameplay and plot. Very repetitive and monotonous and next to nothing to do outside the main missions.
AC2: Gutted the more boring aspects of the first and added in a lot of new side content (which I mentioned wasn't perfect but at least the game HAD it). Tweaked and made the game a lot better than the original.
ACB: Added nothing but the ability to call in Assassins and tweaked the fighting even more so that it went by faster. Other than graphics, nothing substantial was added nor taken away. It does, however, have my favorite Assassin outfit.
ACR: Didn't add much onto ACB other than a lame den defense mini-game and tweaking the climbing mechanics to, disappointingly, speed up the already fine climbing speed thus trivializing one of the coolest aspects of AC -- it's parkour and climbing. Also ziplines.
AC3: The only other game with as many changes as AC2 but unfortunately not nearly as good. First of all, climbing was made way more automated and feels less natural. It looks nicer but that's it. It did add vaulting fences and things finally which is fantastic. I also love the way snow works in the game. It introduced hunting and sailing but hunting was only decent and sailing just felt like a different game altogether and was just disconnected from everything else. The cities were also crap compared to any of the previous games and were just not FUN to run around and explore. They felt the most lifelike and realistic but the designs of the buildings and the verticality was sacrificed. Then you've got the massively wide streets everywhere that make jumping from roof to roof a chore. It was just a bad setting.

Can't talk much about AC4 but at least it made the sailing aspect feel like a legitimate part of the game and has at least one pretty good city in the form of Havana.

Assassin_M
03-08-2014, 04:42 AM
loooool

AC2 is, by far, the most important title in the series. First of all, they definitely answered why you live through Ezio's life. You ask why they don't relive another ancestor's life but Ezio knew of the Vault. But more than that, you have to realize how Ezio's life meshes a bit more with Desmond's -- as far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong people, but Desmond was never trained to kill. At least not very much. That's how it always seemed. He was an Assassin by blood and connection but wasn't a literal assassin. So he grew up never honing any of his natural skills. Altair had. So if they were to relive Altair's memories... he'd be trying to learn from a child as a grown man. Ezio on the other hand, also didn't start honing his skills until his late teens/early twenties.

That's what I always gathered from that.

Secondly... it's not perfect. By no means is it perfect. When you look at some of the design decisions, this becomes painfully obvious: the fact that you couldn't unequip armor, you can't replay missions, that while it's open world -- barring the viewpoints and side missions like races or whatever... there isn't much to DO besides run around. Sure there are thieves running around but I always, ALWAYS wished they had taken a page out of Spiderman 2 or Rockstar's book had a TON of dynamic random events such as muggings, or fights, random assassination contracts, etc. That way there's always stuff to DO even after beating the main story. Red Dead and Spiderman 2 are still the two games that, IMO, have done this best. They let you make your own fun by just running around the game world or (in RDR's case), shooting random people and just messing around, but they also through in optional random events for you to complete.

I can still pick up Spiderman 2 or Red Dead and have a blast exploring the world and helping out random civilians. I can never do this in ANY AC but specifically, AC2 since that's the game we're discussing.

So yeah, not a 10 out of 10 but definitely a 9 and still the best of the series. Various games have tweaked and refined the gameplay and made it better but overall, AC2 is still the best.

AC1: Created basic gameplay and plot. Very repetitive and monotonous and next to nothing to do outside the main missions.
AC2: Gutted the more boring aspects of the first and added in a lot of new side content (which I mentioned wasn't perfect but at least the game HAD it). Tweaked and made the game a lot better than the original.
ACB: Added nothing but the ability to call in Assassins and tweaked the fighting even more so that it went by faster. Other than graphics, nothing substantial was added nor taken away. It does, however, have my favorite Assassin outfit.
ACR: Didn't add much onto ACB other than a lame den defense mini-game and tweaking the climbing mechanics to, disappointingly, speed up the already fine climbing speed thus trivializing one of the coolest aspects of AC -- it's parkour and climbing. Also ziplines.
AC3: The only other game with as many changes as AC2 but unfortunately not nearly as good. First of all, climbing was made way more automated and feels less natural. It looks nicer but that's it. It did add vaulting fences and things finally which is fantastic. I also love the way snow works in the game. It introduced hunting and sailing but hunting was only decent and sailing just felt like a different game altogether and was just disconnected from everything else. The cities were also crap compared to any of the previous games and were just not FUN to run around and explore. They felt the most lifelike and realistic but the designs of the buildings and the verticality was sacrificed. Then you've got the massively wide streets everywhere that make jumping from roof to roof a chore. It was just a bad setting.

Can't talk much about AC4 but at least it made the sailing aspect feel like a legitimate part of the game and has at least one pretty good city in the form of Havana.
I'd like for jdowny to call this post out on the grounds that it's sarcastic and portrays opinion as fact...just sayin'

I'm waiting...

Fatal-Feit
03-08-2014, 04:54 AM
loooool

AC2 is, by far, the most important title in the series. First of all, they definitely answered why you live through Ezio's life. You ask why they don't relive another ancestor's life but Ezio knew of the Vault. But more than that, you have to realize how Ezio's life meshes a bit more with Desmond's -- as far as I'm aware, and correct me if I'm wrong people, but Desmond was never trained to kill. At least not very much. That's how it always seemed. He was an Assassin by blood and connection but wasn't a literal assassin. So he grew up never honing any of his natural skills. Altair had. So if they were to relive Altair's memories... he'd be trying to learn from a child as a grown man. Ezio on the other hand, also didn't start honing his skills until his late teens/early twenties.

Desmond actually was already trained to kill before AC:1. In AC:IV, you could listen to a story of his about how his father trained him to be patient, sneak in quietly, and catch the prey by surprise along with additional information from Revelations. He left by his late teens, I believe. I also don't think Desmond learned how to be an Assassin from Ezio-- But then again, we can blame Ezio for Desmond in AC:3, lol (would make so much sense)-- , but merely obtained the skills to do so.

Farlander1991
03-08-2014, 08:57 AM
loooool


You know, before writing your 'loooooooooooooooooooooool' you could at least bother to read the thread. I've (and M) already stated all the numerous problems with the vault and how it doesn't connect to the main plot established in the first game, and not planning to go in circles about that particular part of the topic again unless there are new arguments that make sense.

PS. Also, on the topic of opinions and arrogance, that 'loooooool' is REALLY not appreciated and doesn't give any desire to do any kind of argumented discussion with you on the topic.

jdowny
03-08-2014, 01:16 PM
I wasn't sarcastic, you just keep missing the point so I tried to be blatant. I'm getting tired of repeating myself only to have to repeat myself only to have to repeat myself, lol. Like I said, I'm talking about Ezio's story. Or is that not clear enough? :nonchalance:

Whichever way you intended it it's not helpful since you never stated which you were talking about, you simply mentioned story. Now that you've mentioned Ezio's story, we can finally move on and discuss the thing you've said in detail.


Original foundation
*The Assassin's Creed
*The amendments
*The moral greyness of Assassins and Templars
*Stealth -- No, those few scripted half-baked stealth don't count
*The burden of being a mass murderer in the name of principles
*The philosophies -- Those redundant black and white lectures don't count either

- Being a story about a man who is initially driven by revenge and who eventually becomes an assassin, the Creed isn't going to play as large a part as AC 1, where Altair had been trained as an assassin almost from birth in an organised society in which the Creed was vital. I personally don't think it's an essential element to an Assassin's Creed game - they kind of had to cover it with the first because that was its title, but it's an element that hasn't received much coverage since. That said, it's present in AC II in the background - which is the same for the other Assassins who guide Ezio on his journey. You hear about the Creed when Mario teaches him in the ways of the Assassins and when Ezio is inducted into the Order and in Altair's codex.

- What amendments?

- Now, the moral greyness of Assassins and Templars. This is one point I entirely agree with you on. Yes, the villains in AC II and even Brotherhood are fairly 2D and black and white. I'd much prefer it if they were more rounded characters who had more of a noble plan instead of simply gaining power. There was no mention of a New World as in the previous game.

- I don't understand your point about stealth. AC II gave you more opportunities for stealth, not less. You could move through the crowd without being seen, you could use courtiers as a blend group, you could dive into water and approach by sea. This is what I mean by saying AC II expanded upon AC 1.

- I don't think any of the assassins have shown the consequences of being a mass-murderer in the name of principles. None of them. Edward was the only one who showed remorse but that was for his pirate days when he had no principles. Altair definitely doesn't.

- What lectures are you talking about? Here is where a little explanation might help. If you mean the Creed, I've mentioned that above. However, there are other philosophies evident in AC II that might not directly quote the Creed but certainly run in the same vein, and thereby qualify in my eyes as definitely being an AC game. Things such as respect for the dead, for an enemy, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, to think independently. These all fit into the Creed's philosophies.


As for Ezio being more of a pirate than an Assassin, as I've said he wasn't an Assassin until sequence 13. And before that, I could barely call him a recruit. He slaughtered guards for their loots. Did mundane task like beating up husbands or completing races for sex and gold.-- Along with a couple story main elements<<<< Ran/explored through hidden catacombs and off-limits layers for treasures--Including the many chases and killing of innocent guards for said goals. Did dozens of assassination contracts for Lorenzo. Purchased treasure maps and explore about every inch of every cities and places for said loots. Hell, even in most of his main missions and side sequences, Ezio preferred the confronting approach, which always lead to mundane chases, than circling around and catching the prey by surprise. Sailed across regions in search of his goal, may it be gold or not-- Venice, Rome, Forli, etc etc. Etc, etc, etc, etc, and more etc. I'm sorry but having a white hood does not make you an Assassin.

We're talking about side missions though, which is an unfair way to judge a game. AC III after all had you investigating paranormal mysteries, delivering letters, delivering supplies, stealing from chests and hunting animals. Does this sound like something that fits in with the Creed? No. Does it make it any less of an AC game? Not in my view. Even the first game's side quests had you racing across rooftops, collecting flags, stealing and killing guards. Every single Assassin's Creed game has had fairly silly side quests and collectibles that don't necessarily tie in with the Creed.

I entirely agree though, beating up men and racing across Forli wouldn't be my first choice of side missions either. But this is what I mean about side quests - from a game design point of view they're meant to be fun, to relieve the seriousness of the main story. And from a story point of view, I don't count them as canon. I don't interpret them to mean that Ezio literally killed hundreds of guards to steal 10,000 florins.


I don't recall anyone bringing up other games for critiquing until people keep repeating something along the lines of ''But da otha gamez dud it tooz''

You did. You mentioned every single other AC game in one of your earlier posts. You said:


It's a spectacular game, no doubt, but as I've said, it didn't touch too much on anything of the series other than it's title, it's setting, and adding to it's original mechanics. For me, AC:3 had all of said appeal. And so did ACB, AC:R, AC:IV and AC:L.


You brought up the other AC games in comparison to AC II by saying it didn't have the appeal. I can point out the flaws you've mentioned earlier that are present in almost every single other AC game. That makes it relevant. My point is that I don't believe AC II is especially guilty on this front, since so many of the other games do these things too. Of course, as I've said before, this doesn't make these points any less true. But AC II is part of a series. It deserves to be judged in relation to the other games instead of on its own. Okay, if we want to limit this topic to just AC II, then a lot of my points sound reactionary, but why limit it to just AC II? Why not critique these problems in the series as a whole?


But since you found your mistake, can we now end this topic? :p

Happily :)Believe it or not I'm not normally this stubborn, and I'm not aiming all of this at you Fatal-Feit. I'm just trying to get things cleared up so we can discuss the topic.

Dev_Anj
03-08-2014, 03:01 PM
Excellent thread Farlander1991! I always think that Assassin's Creed 2 unfairly gets a pass for its problems.

Some points from a review that are relevant to the discussion:

Deep Disloyalty to the Original Game
Part of what made the original game so great is the way every element of the game seamlessly fit together: and I mean seamlessly. The original game as the first game I ever encountered that gave an actual plot justification for a visible, discrete health meter. It was the first game I've seen to pay active attention to making sure the gameplay contributed to the tone and setting. And it was the first game I've played that intentionally, actively avoided many stereotypically game-y elements that just don't make realistic sense.

Just to make sure I give adequate information for what I'm talking about, let me dwell on the quality of the original a bit longer. For example, in most games the fact that you have a certain number of health "points" or "bars" is just something you accept: even though you know realistically, a stab to the gut is going to kill you, you ignore it. But the sync system in the original game got past this: suddenly, it made sense for there to be a visual, discrete representation of "health". Plus, the game also took its stealth aspects to heart. It actively encouraged you to attempt to stay anonymous. One subtle way it accomplished this was by giving no reward for fighting: combat was almost always an inconvenience. Overall, the original game wasn't just a game: it was a cohesive narrative experience. Sure, it was formulaic (see my review for that game): but the formula was explained by the plot. Everything worked together toward one realistic, believable story and setting.

Playing Assassin's Creed 2, I couldn't shake the feeling that the developers were completely separate from the original game's team. It's like Ubisoft gave the original game to a new team and said, "Hey, make a sequel!" Then the new team, without talking to the old at all, said, "Hey, this is pretty fun -- but why didn't they include this long list of stereotypical video game features? Let's put them in!" As a result, Assassin's Creed 2, while being a fun game, is most certainly a game. The same suspension of disbelief you take when playing any other game comes into play here: yes, people don't have health meters, chests aren't lying everywhere, etc., but we ignore these to enjoy the game.

And the game is still enjoyable, and it's hard to hold it up to a standard that most other games in the industry aren't trying to meet. With few exceptions, even the most serious games don't go too far out of their way to hide that they're games, like BioShock's ammo vending machines. But that's just it: the original did try to meet this standard, and it nearly succeeded. To see the sequel so blatantly disregard one of the original game's crowning features is... disappointing, to say the least.


Loss of Stealth Aspect
As I mentioned in the introduction to this section, part of Assassin's Creed's strength was that it put a simultaneous gameplay and plot focus on stealth. Sure, the plot told you that anonymity and blending were good, but the gameplay emphasized it, too. That's part of the reason battles in the original presented no reward: based on the plot, you weren't supposed to want to fight it out every time.

But Assassin's Creed 2 totally loses that. First of all, there are actually benefits to fighting: you can loot felled guards for extra cash, knives and medicine. Need some cash? Go fight off some baddies (among other ways). The entire idea of rewarding fighting is fundamentally against the fabric of the original. There are also many missions or objectives where you're required to reveal yourself: for example, throughout the game there are codex pages guarded by four guards. There is no way to kill all four guards anonymously: you're forced to fight them head-to-head.

The game also includes a new "notoriety" system that I'll thoroughly trash in a few paragraphs: but the important thing to note here is that it makes maintaining anonymity completely trivial. A couple quick side-tracks now and then and you're guaranteed to remain anonymous unless you do something extremely public: so not only does the game give you too many reasons not to be anonymous, it makes it too easy to do so when you actually feel like it.

One could also make an argument that the 'suspicion radius' and easier fleeing contribute to this as well, although those I don't buy: those could be incorporated into a stealth-focused game. But Assassin's Creed 2 loses that stealth focus. Just as Assassin's Creed did not focus on the 'assassin' part enough, Assassin's Creed 2 does not focus on the 'creed' part enough.

mikeyf1999
03-08-2014, 06:32 PM
So for the codex I guessing that you didn't use courtesans or what not

Dome500
03-08-2014, 09:09 PM
The philosophies -- Those redundant black and white lectures don't count either

IMO those were very important. I know they were B&W, but I think there was lots of room for interprestation, discussions and expansion of those concepts, and back in the days I always ended up thinking about those things for hours regarding them from different POVs, applying them to different situations and trying to continue the concepts after I played the game.

Fatal-Feit
03-09-2014, 01:10 AM
IMO those were very important. I know they were B&W, but I think there was lots of room for interprestation, discussions and expansion of those concepts, and back in the days I always ended up thinking about those things for hours regarding them from different POVs, applying them to different situations and trying to continue the concepts after I played the game.

They're always important with each title. But the main problem is that it's lacking in AC:2. Like I said, it's too black and white. Almost so that it's more of a lecture, not a distribution of varied believes, values, and respect that the first game tried so heavily to convey.

I don't know how you sat there and took it as a life lesson if you've played the first one. It's more like --''I could have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling Assassino!'' and bam, he's dead and your superher-Assassin gives his famous one-liner and the case is over. The bad bad wife abuser is a problem no more. That's basically how they handled the many Templar. I mean, NO DUHHHH-- a grown man who's old enough to pick up and understand Assassin's Creed knows not to abuse his wife or what other cliches' they displayed. Those white rooms felt wasted, IMO.

Dome500
03-09-2014, 02:04 AM
They're always important with each title. But the main problem is that it's lacking in AC:2. Like I said, it's too black and white. Almost so that it's more of a lecture, not a distribution of varied believes, values, and respect that the first game tried so heavily to convey.

I don't know how you sat there and took it as a life lesson if you've played the first one. It's more like --''I could have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling Assassino!'' and bam, he's dead and your superher-Assassin gives his famous one-liner and the case is over. The bad bad wife abuser is a problem no more. That's basically how they handled the many Templar. I mean, NO DUHHHH-- a grown man who's old enough to pick up and understand Assassin's Creed knows not to abuse his wife or what other cliches' they displayed. Those white rooms felt wasted, IMO.

Yeah it was a little bit too balck and white in AC II I agree. I was talking about ACI in terms of "philosophies" and "thinking over it afterwards", just FYI, in case you got me wrong.
ACII was more about the personal revenge of Ezio. But then again, they did a similar thing with Edward, moved him also a little bit away from the Assassins and towards his personal goals in the majority of the game.

For me Connor in AC3 proved that blindly following the Creed and killing Templars "cause they're baaad" didn't work anymore.
I know he didn't do it all the time, but often it came across that way. It was all about "you are a Templar and therefore you die", mixed with his revenge feelings he had because of his village and his mother. And the moment Connor actually started to question it and think about collaborating with the Templars Achilles gives him the last speech and he is "on course" again naively killing all the Templars.

Sorry, I drifted away a little.

What I want to say is we have a huge contrast here at the moment.

AC1 and AC3 are mostly about the Creed and about killing Templars and fighting for Freedom, while ACII and AC4 are more about a majority of personal goals followed by a little bit Creed in the end.

Brotherhood did that better, they did touch more upon the Creed even if they didn't really changed it or shed a new perspective on it. Revelations then started to question it, though not enough. Ezio was always mainly about his goals, except in Brotherhood.

I hope next we'll get a protagonist who is kind of torn between the Creed and his personal motivations, maybe even between Templar and Assassins because of that.
I hope it's more like trying to find "justice" (his personal definition of justice) - something they haven't touched on yet (they have touched on: Honor(AC1), Revenge(ACII), Unity (ACB), Wisdom (ACR), Freedom(AC3), Finding ones Place in life (AC4), etc.) - or something like that and trying to find it in one of the two sides (Assassins/Templars) or for himself. A new perspective yet again. Keeps the series fresh.

Assassin_M
03-09-2014, 02:15 AM
Brotherhood did that better, they did touch more upon the Creed even if they didn't really changed it or shed a new perspective on it. Revelations then started to question it, though not enough. Ezio was always mainly about his goals, except in Brotherhood.
How did they touch upon it, if I may ask? they only kept saying and added a few extra lines to it "the wisdom of our Creed is revealed through these words" doesn't really seem like touching upon..


I hope next we'll get a protagonist who is kind of torn between the Creed and his personal motivations,
Wasnt that Connor? At first he was torn between killing the Templars and sparing them, but learned that they MUST die, because as long as they live, they will spring plans. Then that happened again when he tried to reconcile with his Father and unite the Templars and Assassins. He was torn with what Achilles said about never trusting the Templars and his duty as an Assassin to hunt Templars and wanting to form a bond with his father. Then afterwards again when it was revealed that it was GW and not Lee who burned his Village. He knew that if he chose to pursue GW and murder him, he'd have accomplished what the Templars wanted all along, because GW's spot would be open once more and they'd install Charles Lee and inevitably deliver the Colonists' fate to the Templars, something he worked so hard to prevent, so he chose to spare GW for the greater good and sacrifice the well being of his people and continue to pursue Templars to end their plans once and for all...

Fatal-Feit
03-09-2014, 02:22 AM
- Being a story about a man who is initially driven by revenge and who eventually becomes an assassin, the Creed isn't going to play as large a part as AC 1, where Altair had been trained as an assassin almost from birth in an organised society in which the Creed was vital. I personally don't think it's an essential element to an Assassin's Creed game - they kind of had to cover it with the first because that was its title, but it's an element that hasn't received much coverage since. That said, it's present in AC II in the background - which is the same for the other Assassins who guide Ezio on his journey. You hear about the Creed when Mario teaches him in the ways of the Assassins and when Ezio is inducted into the Order and in Altair's codex.

That's not an excuse though. Since we've already mentioned other titles, I'll say it again. Look at AC:IV for example. From gameplay, to protagonist, to story, it's almost Assassin's Creed 2.2. However the difference is, it actually conveyed a lot of what Assassin's Creed 1 had and what the next 5+ sequels also diminished. References like Altair and his codex are just references. Hardly the game.


- What amendments?

There's more to Assassins than the ''Nothing is true; everything is permitted''


- I don't understand your point about stealth. AC II gave you more opportunities for stealth, not less. You could move through the crowd without being seen, you could use courtiers as a blend group, you could dive into water and approach by sea. This is what I mean by saying AC II expanded upon AC 1.

As I've said, AC:2 was heavily scripted and stealth was too scarce. You had your occasional easy-peasy-here-we-placed-the-guards-exactly-at-this-spot-for-you-to-assassinate for about 7-10% of the game and they only did it once or twice per sequence. Sequence 14, the trip to Rome is of the very few I feel is worth complimenting, but again with only a few more stealth parts while the rest consisted of scripted actions like horse back riding across the bridge. Most of the main missions and side quests consisted of parkouring through dungeons and areas, running from checkpoint to checkpoint, battle sequences, chases, and many other non stealthy elements.

Although I do give them props for the assassination contracts. Those were some of the only few element in the game that had me forgive them.


- I don't think any of the assassins have shown the consequences of being a mass-murderer in the name of principles. None of them. Edward was the only one who showed remorse but that was for his pirate days when he had no principles. Altair definitely doesn't.

Altair was raised as a murderer and with principles, thus his stone-cold nature was self explanatory including other things.--Similar to Connor, Edward, and the others. They have a goal, they have their principles, and they have their lives already set from betrayal, hardship, misfortune, and death. Even the side cast in AC:1, AC:3, AC:R, and AC:IV occasionally showcased remorse and self-explainable personalities and goals.

Ezio, from what I know, wasn't a murderer or have dealt with murder and misfortune before hand. I can make excuses and roll my eyes occasionally because Ezio IS unique and suppose to be this talented/charismatic warrior, but sometimes it feels more like simply drab writing. A huge lack of depth and just poor character development on the subject. Even the side casts sometimes have me chuckling to myself because of how unengaged they are when it came to said subject.


- What lectures are you talking about? Here is where a little explanation might help. If you mean the Creed, I've mentioned that above. However, there are other philosophies evident in AC II that might not directly quote the Creed but certainly run in the same vein, and thereby qualify in my eyes as definitely being an AC game. Things such as respect for the dead, for an enemy, freedom of speech, freedom of worship, to think independently. These all fit into the Creed's philosophies.

Here

They're always important with each title. But the main problem is that it's lacking in AC:2. Like I said, it's too black and white. Almost so that it's more of a lecture, not a distribution of varied believes, values, and respect that the first game tried so heavily to convey.

I don't know how you sat there and took it as a life lesson if you've played the first one. It's more like --''I could have gotten away with it if it weren't for you meddling Assassino!'' and bam, he's dead and your superher-Assassin gives his famous one-liner and the case is over. The bad bad wife abuser is a problem no more. That's basically how they handled the many Templar. I mean, NO DUHHHH-- a grown man who's old enough to pick up and understand Assassin's Creed knows not to abuse his wife or what other cliches' they displayed. Those white rooms felt wasted, IMO.


We're talking about side missions though, which is an unfair way to judge a game. AC III after all had you investigating paranormal mysteries, delivering letters, delivering supplies, stealing from chests and hunting animals. Does this sound like something that fits in with the Creed? No. Does it make it any less of an AC game? Not in my view. Even the first game's side quests had you racing across rooftops, collecting flags, stealing and killing guards. Every single Assassin's Creed game has had fairly silly side quests and collectibles that don't necessarily tie in with the Creed.

I've agreed before. Everything Assassin's Creed has to distribute some kind of side missions and objectives to give the players more activities and ways to immerse themselves in each unique setting. But the difference is that AC:2 relied heavily on it and most of it isn't very related to the protagonist's cause or the Assassins'. Ezio did more piracy in AC:2 than you had with Edward's who's a Pirate in AC:IV. And it was the sequel to AC:1.

[QUOTE=jdowny;9565348]I entirely agree though, beating up men and racing across Forli wouldn't be my first choice of side missions either. But this is what I mean about side quests - from a game design point of view they're meant to be fun, to relieve the seriousness of the main story. And from a story point of view, I don't count them as canon. I don't interpret them to mean that Ezio literally killed hundreds of guards to steal 10,000 florins.

What's recorded and counted towards 100% synch is what I call canon.



You did. You mentioned every single other AC game in one of your earlier posts. You said:



You brought up the other AC games in comparison to AC II by saying it didn't have the appeal. I can point out the flaws you've mentioned earlier that are present in almost every single other AC game. That makes it relevant. My point is that I don't believe AC II is especially guilty on this front, since so many of the other games do these things too. Of course, as I've said before, this doesn't make these points any less true. But AC II is part of a series. It deserves to be judged in relation to the other games instead of on its own. Okay, if we want to limit this topic to just AC II, then a lot of my points sound reactionary, but why limit it to just AC II? Why not critique these problems in the series as a whole?

AC:2 should be held more accountable becauseIT'S THE SEQUEL TO AC:1. What happens from AC:2 sets the mark for future installments. And this is a thread about AC:2 so pointing fingers at other titles doesn't make it less faulty. Especially when AC:2 was the start of it all.

By the way. Nice try with the quote, but it was a response to your reply that brought up the other titles first.

Woah there - I still think it's a spectacular game. And how can it feel like an add-on to the Ezio trilogy when it was the first of three? Although I absolutely love the first game, AC II still reigns for me because it was a successful cohesion of gameplay, navigation, setting, time period, story and music. It delivered on all fronts where the original game was lacking. To me, there hasn't been another AC game that has developed so much and so successfully from a previous one.

Dome500
03-09-2014, 02:28 AM
but learned that they MUST die, because as long as they live, they will spring plans

Do you really belive that? I mean, do you only state what Connor believed or do you believe it was the right decision that the Templars HAD to die?
I think this perspective Connor had (influenced by Charles Lees actions, by Achilles and other events) was a little too naive and black&white.

To be honest, I ended up being for the Templars in the end, cause actually Connor couldn't have gone down a more destructive part in a lot of things.
Especially regarding what he personally actually wanted and what he fought for and all that.


He knew that if he chose to pursue GW and murder him, he'd have accomplished what the Templars wanted all along, because GW's spot would be open once more and they'd install Charles Lee and inevitably deliver the Colonists' fate to the Templars, something he worked so hard to prevent, so he chose to spare GW for the greater good and sacrifice the well being of his people and continue to pursue Templars to end their plans once and for all...

And what has that brought him in the end?
I think he played for the wrong side.

Personally, I would have sided with the Templars in AC3. They were not as bad as they were in AC1, 2, B, R or even in 4.
In AC3, I actually found the Templars pretty understandable.
It was kind of the game where I started to understand that there is no bad&good. I mean I knew it before, but this game emphasized it, let me realize it, shoved it in my face.
That in the end they are actually just 2 broken philosophies trying to reach the same goal. And that not all the Templars use morally bad methods to achieve their goals.

Fatal-Feit
03-09-2014, 02:40 AM
Every time I question myself if you've actually played the games, Dome. Every time.... :(


Yeah it was a little bit too balck and white in AC II I agree. I was talking about ACI in terms of "philosophies" and "thinking over it afterwards", just FYI, in case you got me wrong.
ACII was more about the personal revenge of Ezio. But then again, they did a similar thing with Edward, moved him also a little bit away from the Assassins and towards his personal goals in the majority of the game.

Edward never had revenge on his mind. Only comprehension, reconciliation and absolution. There's a difference between revenge and redemption.


For me Connor in AC3 proved that blindly following the Creed and killing Templars "cause they're baaad" didn't work anymore.
I know he didn't do it all the time, but often it came across that way. It was all about "you are a Templar and therefore you die", mixed with his revenge feelings he had because of his village and his mother. And the moment Connor actually started to question it and think about collaborating with the Templars Achilles gives him the last speech and he is "on course" again naively killing all the Templars.

Considering you setting Edward on the same plate as Ezio, I'm not surprised by this wrongness. That's all I can say before I'm typing 5+ paragraphs on the subject.


AC1 and AC3 are mostly about the Creed and about killing Templars and fighting for Freedom, while ACII and AC4 are more about a majority of personal goals followed by a little bit Creed in the end.

Every Assassin thus far has their own goals, and the Assassins are their means to an end. For the love of god, may you please replay through the entire Assassin's Creed saga before saying stuff like these, lol.

Also, AC:IV was based ON the Creed. The game was about the Creed and why it's important. Since AC:1, AC:IV is the only title that revived it.


Brotherhood did that better, they did touch more upon the Creed even if they didn't really changed it or shed a new perspective on it. Revelations then started to question it, though not enough. Ezio was always mainly about his goals, except in Brotherhood.

AC:Brotherhood did nothing. Nada, nothing at all with the Creed. Mentioning it a billion times does not mean anything, sorry. :p

And Revelations hadn't either.


I hope next we'll get a protagonist who is kind of torn between the Creed and his personal motivations, maybe even between Templar and Assassins because of that.
I hope it's more like trying to find "justice" (his personal definition of justice) - something they haven't touched on yet (they have touched on: Honor(AC1), Revenge(ACII), Unity (ACB), Wisdom (ACR), Freedom(AC3), Finding ones Place in life (AC4), etc.) - or something like that and trying to find it in one of the two sides (Assassins/Templars) or for himself. A new perspective yet again. Keeps the series fresh.

AC:3 and AC:IV.

Assassin_M
03-09-2014, 02:56 AM
Do you really belive that? I mean, do you only state what Connor believed or do you believe it was the right decision that the Templars HAD to die?
I think this perspective Connor had (influenced by Charles Lees actions, by Achilles and other events) was a little too naive and black&white.

To be honest, I ended up being for the Templars in the end, cause actually Connor couldn't have gone down a more destructive part in a lot of things.
Especially regarding what he personally actually wanted and what he fought for and all that.
Both. I'm stating what I believed and what Connor believed. Lets analyze this. Johnson posed a threat to Connor's village by wanting to buy it by force without consent. Connor was notified of this, ordered by Achilles to kill him, but he thought otherwise, he found a workaround to save his people AND not have to kill Johnson. He cut all his funding and forced him to abandon his quest to buy the land, but 6 months later, Johnson returned with the funds to buy his people's land AND he was killing them "because they wound not listen"....Yeah...I believe Johnson HAD to die. Same case with Hickey, Connor once tried getting him arrested instead, but Connor's recklessness had him arrested as well and even when Hickey was arrested, he was still sprung out of Prison...so he too HAD to die.

There's just no way around it, Achilles explained it. so long as the Templars lived, they posed a threat to the freedom the Assassins wanted for people.

Why were you for the Templars, if I may ask? Because Haytham said that they wanted good? that Johnson sought to buy the land and keep it safe? that Pitcairn, even if he wanted to encourage diplomacy, would'v succeeded? that eliminating GW was better for everyone? ALL of these things meant that the Templars would be in control and looking at the way Johnson was willing to murder the Natives for refusing to negotiate the sale of their land, he started killing them.....from my point of view, Connor's choice to eliminate the Templars was far..FAR less destructive


And what has that brought him in the end?
I think he played for the wrong side.
It brought him what he wanted. Freedom for all. True, his people were forced from their lands, but they still had their freedom...away from the war, in retrospect, they were safe. He started out with the only aim of saving his people, he did not care for the colonists, but as the game progressed, he sympathized with their struggle, so yes, actually what you're saying about him being on the wrong side just proves my point. he struggled with the side he chose and the ideology he possessed.


Personally, I would have sided with the Templars in AC3. They were not as bad as they were in AC1, 2, B, R or even in 4.
In AC3, I actually found the Templars pretty understandable.
It was kind of the game where I started to understand that there is no bad&good. I mean I knew it before, but this game emphasized it, let me realize it, shoved it in my face.
That in the end they are actually just 2 broken philosophies trying to reach the same goal. And that not all the Templars use morally bad methods to achieve their goals.
How is killing Natives for refusing to negotiate sale not morally bad? How is instigating the Boston massacre not morally bad? How is forcing men into the army not morally bad? (liberation missions) How is oppressing the citizens of a crippled city and spreading disease not morally bad? (Liberation missions)

how on earth did you side with the Templars?

Dome500
03-09-2014, 03:04 AM
Every time I question myself if you've actually played the games, Dome. Every time....

Though why do you do that? :D

Just because I have a completely different view of things and a different perspective on them? :)
Just because my opinions and perceptions do not line up with yours?


Edward never had revenge on his mind. Only comprehension, reconciliation and absolution. There's a difference between revenge and redemption.

Never said that. Where did I say Edward had revenge on his mind? :confused: Please read my post again.
I said Edward and Ezio both moved rather towards personal goal throughout AC2 and AC4 respectively, not that they both had revenge on their mind.

Ezio => Revenge
Edward => Pirating, Wealth to afford a better live, Searching his place in the world


Every Assassin thus far has their own goals, and the Assassins are their means to an end. For the love of god, may you please replay through the entire Assassin's Creed saga before saying stuff like these, lol.


You know you sit on your high ross their, thinking you are the expert on all things AC and no other opinion counts.

In AC3 Connor had his own goals sure, I never said he did not have them. I just said that the tone of the game and the actual story tended towards the Creed, killing the Templars and fighting for Freedom as game-focus.

In AC1 Altair did blindly follow his orders. It was about killing Templars, about "freeing the holy land from Templar influence" for about 90% of the game. In fact, since Al Mualim himself was a Templar actually in 100% of the game.

I did never said they didn't have personal motivations, I just said the focus was more on the Creed and the fight against the Templars as opposed to AC4 and AC2 where the focus was more on the personal goals of Ezio and Edward respectively.

Just a statement btw, no negativity or positivity intended.


AC:Brotherhood did nothing. Nada, nothing at all with the Creed. Mentioning it a billion times does not mean anything, sorry.

Like I said, it didn't change it, it didn't discuss on it. But it made it more focus for Ezio, in terms of what he things about, follows and lives by. I agree that it did not bring the Creed any further in any way.

But at least it was a theme that was present in the whole game. In contrast to AC2 where it was not at all. That's all I'm saying.

And Revelation IMO was a personal struggle between Ezio and the Assassins/ the Creed. He began to ask why he does what he does, what this fight with the Templars is for, etc, etc.


AC:3 and AC:IV.

Not at all.

Edward did never emotionally struggle with the Creed or fight for justice. He was confronted with it and didn't share it, was between the Templars and Assassins, that is right. But not in the way I hope to see it in one of the next games. It's just a personal wish though, nothing to take too seriously.

As for Connor, he has his struggles with it, sure, but they were very short and he was always rather on the Assassins side. The only reason he really was "in-between" Templars and Assassins (if you want to call it that way) was that he thought he might be able to make peace with them, and because he personally wished to connect with his father. But again, that was a short period.

As for this protagonist, I actually would wish for a protagonist who goes back and forth between the groups, is on different sides in different situations, always trying to be just but often having problems with it, struggling with it because there is so much moral grey and every perspective has it's advantages and disadvantages, it's weakpoints in the end. And that he comes to a conclusion then in the end of the game. (Kind of like Edward, but rather with the protagonist being more involved with the Assassins and Templars from the get go and during all of the game here and there. ).

Anyway, it's hard to describe.

As for your comments, no offense really, but please look that you are not so harsh, because as far as I can tell you did understand me wrong in several points and again started to "ask yourself if I ever played the game" and such things. That is not very nice really. I know what happened in them, I played them, most of them not too long ago. And just because I have different opinions and perspectives that you might sometimes not understand or understand wrong doesn't mean that I haven't played the games or that I am stupid or something like that.

That is not a nice experience for me to read such things.


Why were you for the Templars, if I may ask? Because Haytham said that they wanted good? that Johnson sought to buy the land and keep it safe? that Pitcairn, even if he wanted to encourage diplomacy, would'v succeeded? that eliminating GW was better for everyone? ALL of these things meant that the Templars would be in control and looking at the way Johnson was willing to murder the Natives for refusing to negotiate the sale of their land, he started killing them.....from my point of view, Connor's choice to eliminate the Templars was far..FAR less destructive

Well, but considering the same happened under Whasington in the end he actually only changed one evil for another, and maybe not even the lesser evil.

IMO he has not the right to decide who lives and who dies just because he thinks his decision will lead to a better tomorrow. But then again, one can say that about all Assassins. And that is where my problem starts. Both sides are wrong.

In AC3 I was for the Templars. Maybe not for Johnson or Hickey, but for Charles Lee and Haytham at least. I mean we were at the other side, right? We were Haytham shortly. And we know that from the other side you see a complete opposite of what the Assassins see. And from that perspective, it seems to make sense.

Maybe they would have been in Templar control in the end. But would that really be so bad? Do you think it would have been worse than being slaughtered by the very people they helped (or at least Connor helped) becoming independent?

I don't know, I just think there is 2 ways of seeing it. And in the end Connor, even if he started and tried to make things right, to unite Templars and Assassins, decided to go the way of killing them all. Sure, he had his objections. But he was quick to throw them away and "do it for the greater good".
As all Assassins have. But does that make them better than the Templars? Does that make them the good guys? Or does it only make them one site of a broken coin, as guilty as the other side, doing the wrong things for the right reasons?

Assassin_M
03-09-2014, 03:38 AM
As for Connor, he has his struggles with it, sure, but they were very short and he was always rather on the Assassins side. The only reason he really was "in-between" Templars and Assassins (if you want to call it that way) was that he thought he might be able to make peace with them, and because he personally wished to connect with his father. But again, that was a short period.

Well of course he was on the Assassin side, he's an Assassin after all and the resiliency and stubbornness of his character would mean that he'd continue the road he started till the end. Connor, as he put it, trusted his own hands to differentiate between right and wrong. leaning towards a side does not mean lack of struggle and again, like I said, the struggle started long before he wanted to reconcile with his father (him not wanting to kill them, but incapacitate them instead) and long after he more or less lost hope for reconciliation (His decision to spare GW and help with Benedict Arnold)

Actually, now that I think about it...I'd say that Altair struggled with the Creed as well. He held its meaning literally, kind of like Edward. His arrogance was backed by the phrase "Nothing is true and everything is permitted" as the game progressed, he started to see the bigger picture...understand the creed and its meaning. That it does not command them to be free, but to be wise. He questioned why he was killing his targets and what connected them, he struggled with the orders his Master gave and what they would accomplish, sometimes doubting his mission each time a Templar fell to his blade, but just like Connor, he remained adamant in thinking that what he was doing was the right thing..

Assassin_M
03-09-2014, 03:52 AM
Well, but considering the same happened under Wasington in the end he actually only changed one evil for another, and maybe not even the lesser evil.

IMO he has not the right to decide who lives and who dies just because he thinks his decision will lead to a better tomorrow. But then again, one can say that about all Assassins. And that is where my problem starts. Both sides are wrong.

In AC3 I was for the Templars. Maybe not for Johnson or Hickey, but for Charles Lee and Haytham at least. I mean we were at the other side, right? We were Haytham shortly. And we know that from the other side you see a complete opposite of what the Assassins see. And from that perspective, it seems to make sense.

Maybe they would have been in Templar control in the end. But would that really be so bad? Do you think it would have been worse than being slaughtered by the very people they helped (or at least Connor helped) becoming independent?

I don't know, I just think there is 2 ways of seeing it. And in the end Connor, even if he started and tried to make things right, to unite Templars and Assassins, decided to go the way of killing them all. Sure, he had his objections. But he was quick to throw them away and "do it for the greater good".
As all Assassins have. But does that make them better than the Templars? Does that make them the good guys? Or does it only make them one site of a broken coin, as guilty as the other side, doing the wrong things for the right reasons?
Well, of course GW did crap in his rule and so did every other president after him, but that's the whole point...the Assassins fight the Templars for the very hope they have in humanity. Connor's final exchange with Haytham personifies this. Connor's words personify the Creed. "To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

That is precisely what Connor did. he ensured that people remained the shepherds of their own civilization (i.e Colonists being responsible for their future), but Connor soon found out that the next leader made atrocities...so what? "We must live with their consequences, glorious or tragic" Assassins ensure that the future remains free...out of Templar control...led by humanity...They must live with EVERY consequence...good or bad, because they're free...they hope that all of this will fade one day and that through freedom, humanity will ensure peace. on its own.

But that's exactly what i'm trying to say, the ambiguity of the conflict is NOT who's right, it's about BOTH parties aiming for good with questionable means. This isnt a discussion about who's right or wrong, it's about Connor struggling with the side he chose, which you yourself admitted he did.

How does Lee choking a young boy, tarnishing and insulting his culture and lifestyle and then threatening him make any moral sense from ANY side? Assassin or Templar?

you're straying away from the original discussion, this is not about Connor making the right decisions or whether not the Templars would'v been better.

Quick to throw it away? mate, he struggled with ideas of unity, murder and alliance...his choices were based on his stubborn character, true, he ended up choosing the Assassin side, but that's because at heart, he IS the Creed...he came to personify it with EVERYTHING he did. AGAIN, this is not an argument about who was right and who wrong....it's pretty factual that BOTH are in the wrong one way or another..

Shahkulu101
03-09-2014, 04:17 AM
Well, of course GW did crap in his rule and so did every other president after him, but that's the whole point...the Assassins fight the Templars for the very hope they have in humanity. Connor's final exchange with Haytham personifies this. Connor's words personify the Creed. "To say that nothing is true, is to realize that the foundations of society are fragile, and that we must be the shepherds of our own civilization. To say that everything is permitted, is to understand that we are the architects of our actions, and that we must live with their consequences, whether glorious or tragic."

That is precisely what Connor did. he ensured that people remained the shepherds of their own civilization (i.e Colonists being responsible for their future), but Connor soon found out that the next leader made atrocities...so what? "We must live with their consequences, glorious or tragic" Assassins ensure that the future remains free...out of Templar control...led by humanity...They must live with EVERY consequence...good or bad, because they're free...they hope that all of this will fade one day and that through freedom, humanity will ensure peace. on its own.

But that's exactly what i'm trying to say, the ambiguity of the conflict is NOT who's right, it's about BOTH parties aiming for good with questionable means. This isnt a discussion about who's right or wrong, it's about Connor struggling with the side he chose, which you yourself admitted he did.

How does Lee choking a young boy, tarnishing and insulting his culture and lifestyle and then threatening him make any moral sense from ANY side? Assassin or Templar?

you're straying away from the original discussion, this is not about Connor making the right decisions or whether not the Templars would'v been better.

Quick to throw it away? mate, he struggled with ideas of unity, murder and alliance...his choices were based on his stubborn character, true, he ended up choosing the Assassin side, but that's because at heart, he IS the Creed...he came to personify it with EVERYTHING he did. AGAIN, this is not an argument about who was right and who wrong....it's pretty factual that BOTH are in the wrong one way or another..

Beautifully put. I think Connor's struggle is on the whole the struggle of the Assassin's. Compromise for the Creed - for beliefs of freedom and liberty. A staunch conviction to all these things. And no matter how grave the personal torment, how large the sacrifices - the Assassin's endure, persist and live by the Creed, for the Creed. Whether inadvertent, or through strict adherence, or a bit of both. Connor himself falls into the latter - most would. Personal goals are what propel people towards the Creed.

I really hate how under-appreciated the rich moral tone in this series is. From fans, critics and 'journalists' alike.

Fatal-Feit
03-09-2014, 04:55 AM
Though why do you do that? :D

Just because I have a completely different view of things and a different perspective on them? :)
Just because my opinions and perceptions do not line up with yours?

That's what you get when you derail the thread with convoluted topics but approach it with a very narrow perspective. Like I said, I have a difficult time believing you actually sat there and played these games, reading from your POV. Especially with the AC:3 topic in this thread.

It's like we're in a discussion about Breaking Bad and you're the one guy saying from your perspective or POV, BB is about a guy who turns from a vigilante into a good guy. lol

Never said that. Where did I say Edward had revenge on his mind? :confused: Please read my post again.
I said Edward and Ezio both moved rather towards personal goal throughout AC2 and AC4 respectively, not that they both had revenge on their mind.

Ezio => Revenge
Edward => Pirating, Wealth to afford a better live, Searching his place in the world

You didn't but you're setting them in the same category in terms of goal, which was abundant, IMO. Edward had the Creed early in his doorstep and the story was too different from Ezio in terms of the Assassins/Templar and aim so other than a set goal of revenge, I don't see any other relevance to be worth mentioning.


You know you sit on your high ross their, thinking you are the expert on all things AC and no other opinion counts.

I've never once called myself a hardcore fan or expert on anything AC. I simply debate and discuss topics I'm interested in, whether you agree with me or not. If I'm wrong, I admit it and if I disagree, I dispute it. I've done that plenty of times on this thread and many others. I will only get occasionally nitpicky towards people who does or had done it like yourself.


I did never said they didn't have personal motivations, I just said the focus was more on the Creed and the fight against the Templars as opposed to AC4 and AC2 where the focus was more on the personal goals of Ezio and Edward respectively.

Just a statement btw, no negativity or positivity intended.

But that's when you're wrong again. Edward's story was built around the Creed. About the Creed. And for the Creed. The Creed wasn't shoved in like AC:2. That is AC:IV for you.

AC:3 wasn't focused on the Creed either. In AC:3, we were going by the Assassin's sworn duty of protecting the people, not the custom.


And Revelation IMO was a personal struggle between Ezio and the Assassins/ the Creed. He began to ask why he does what he does, what this fight with the Templars is for, etc, etc.

Ezio in Revelations had no doubts about the Creed or the Assassins. He only wanted to fill in the blanks the best he can. As you've said, what are the fights with the Templar for.


Not at all.

Edward did never emotionally struggle with the Creed or fight for justice. He was confronted with it and didn't share it, was between the Templars and Assassins, that is right. But not in the way I hope to see it in one of the next games. It's just a personal wish though, nothing to take too seriously.

As for Connor, he has his struggles with it, sure, but they were very short and he was always rather on the Assassins side. The only reason he really was "in-between" Templars and Assassins (if you want to call it that way) was that he thought he might be able to make peace with them, and because he personally wished to connect with his father. But again, that was a short period.

As for this protagonist, I actually would wish for a protagonist who goes back and forth between the groups, is on different sides in different situations, always trying to be just but often having problems with it, struggling with it because there is so much moral grey and every perspective has it's advantages and disadvantages, it's weakpoints in the end. And that he comes to a conclusion then in the end of the game. (Kind of like Edward, but rather with the protagonist being more involved with the Assassins and Templars from the get go and during all of the game here and there. ).

Anyway, it's hard to describe.


This is exactly what I mean by the first part. I can't fathom how you came to these conclusion if you played the games. We also already have these story discussion but you simply choose to ignore my points. So I ask you, why bother bringing it up again? You're derailing the thread as it is and I have no desire to write you another wall of text only to have you ignore the thread again and bring it up days later, lol.



As for your comments, no offense really, but please look that you are not so harsh, because as far as I can tell you did understand me wrong in several points and again started to "ask yourself if I ever played the game" and such things. That is not very nice really. I know what happened in them, I played them, most of them not too long ago. And just because I have different opinions and perspectives that you might sometimes not understand or understand wrong doesn't mean that I haven't played the games or that I am stupid or something like that.

That is not a nice experience for me to read such things.

You say that, but what you bring into the discussion gives me a different opinion. For example, in the past threads, you said that AC:3 and AC:IV had done nothing with the Assassins, Templars and the Creed, while the Ezio Trilogy had. And today you're telling me, AGAIN, that AC:IV wasn't about a man who's crossed between the two sides, their philosophies, and the Creed throughout his story. There's also a few other nitpicky reads in the past of yours that I didn't bother to discuss. So I can't detract it if I don't mean it, sorry.

Also, I don't see why you're so offended. You're the guy who called people idiots for wanting a more comfortable experience when playing their video games-- that topic of simplifying controls, lol.

This discussion wasn't suppose to be personal but if you like, we can discuss this in a private chat so we don't derail the thread anymore.

Dome500
03-09-2014, 05:15 AM
No, no. All good.

I had so many heated discussions about all kinds of things . Let's just agree to disagree. I have my view of things - you have yours.
I don't want to argue on a personal level. It's okay.

I can see you do not get where I am coming from, at least from my POV, since you seem to misinterpret what I am trying to say.

Also, I never said anyone was an idiot. I don't do things like that. Really. Everyone has his opinion and that's okay.

jdowny
03-09-2014, 02:52 PM
Man, arguing with you is actually exhausting. This is what I don't understand - you say you've mentioned things a million times before when you have either only mentioned them once, or right at the start of a very long thread, or haven't mentioned them at all. Your posts are often unclear, which leads to a lot of confusion, yet when people question you about them you start to get angry and annoyed, as though the people you're discussing with are stupid. It's not exactly the best form of debate. I'm going to try and wind down this discussion, I hope you will too, because a lot of this seems to be either down to misunderstandings (which will take a long time to try and unravel), or opinion, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.


However the difference is, it actually conveyed a lot of what Assassin's Creed 1 had and what the next 5+ sequels also diminished. References like Altair and his codex are just references. Hardly the game.

But it's in the game. You can't just dismiss that. Out of curiosity, what did IV convey in AC 1 that the other games diminished?


But the difference is that AC:2 relied heavily on it and most of it isn't very related to the protagonist's cause or the Assassins'. Ezio did more piracy in AC:2 than you had with Edward's who's a Pirate in AC:IV. And it was the sequel to AC:1.

Neither was the flag collecting in the first game. Doing this isn't related to the Assassins' cause or Altair's cause, yet it's still part of the game because they're collectibles. You seem to be relying heavily on the fact that Ezio collected a lot of money from chests in his time as evidence that he wasn't much of an assassin. But then you take that as canon - fair enough, I don't. We disagree on that.


By the way. Nice try with the quote, but it was a response to your reply that brought up the other titles first.

I didn't - by saying that no other game improved on the previous as much as AC II, I'm referring only to AC II. I'm not bringing other examples into my argument. They may be implied, but implying isn't an argument. You brought up other examples by saying they all had that appeal that AC II didn't. But again, we disagree on this.


Altair was raised as a murderer and with principles, thus his stone-cold nature was self explanatory including other things.--Similar to Connor, Edward, and the others. They have a goal, they have their principles, and they have their lives already set from betrayal, hardship, misfortune, and death.

So did Ezio. His family was betrayed and father and brothers murdered. That sounds like betrayal, hardship, misfortune and death. So therefore Ezio's stone-cold nature is entirely justified.

I'm just saying that a lot of the arguments you mention against AC II were already there in AC. Okay, you can say that AC II was the start of certain traits - no arguments there, it was - but should we place more blame on a game because it began these traits? I myself don't think so. I would place more blame on the games that followed these traits. Perhaps this is where we disagree.

But I think a lot of this has got way out of hand. I suspect, and I may be wrong about this, that you are coming from the point of view that many people think AC II is perfect and without flaws. Perhaps you think I'm one of these people, who will try and defend this 'perfect' game. I'm not. I've never thought it was a perfect game. But I still think it's up there close to the top. I can give you my reasons why if you like, like I've given my reasons why I both agree and disagree with the OP - who stated that the more he plays AC II the more he's disappointed by it. I disagree with him on that. I'm not denying it has flaws. But to me its flaws aren't big enough to give me feelings of disappointment.

That's about all I can think to say on the matter. We're arguing mostly over opinions here. Agree to disagree?

AssassinHMS
03-09-2014, 03:19 PM
Indeed, I don't think any one AC game was bad...I go back to each depending on my mood. Feel nostalgic for home, I'd go play AC I and ACR. feel like walking through beautiful streets and hear amazing music, I play AC II. Feel like commanding a Brotherhood and leading Assassins, I play ACB. Feel like being a predator in the trees, I play AC III.

Feel like playing an AC game with good gameplay, hmm...

An AC with strong stealth mechanics, where I can plan missions beforehand, where I feel immersed in that world and not above it. An AC that rewards my intelligence and challenges me with missions that require patience, skill and luck.

Maybe I'm asking for too much.
An AC game where I can unnequip weapons, hmm...

Shahkulu101
03-09-2014, 03:37 PM
Feel like playing an AC game with good gameplay, hmm...

An AC with strong stealth mechanics, where I can plan missions beforehand, where I feel immersed in that world and not above it. An AC that rewards my intelligence and challenges me with missions that require patience, skill and luck.

Maybe I'm asking for too much.
An AC game where I can unnequip weapons, hmm...

M was simply listing the immersive qualities of each game. There was no need to be passive aggressive - M more than most is aware of the series shortcomings. Every game has superficial elements whether they are challenging or not. If Revelations was challenging, the sheer beauty of the city would still be enough to subdue most - yes?

Try bringing your rhetoric into places where it is actually relevant next time. And before you get on my back, I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say.

AssassinHMS
03-09-2014, 03:55 PM
M was simply listing the immersive qualities of each game. There was no need to be passive aggressive - M more than most is aware of the series shortcomings. Every game has superficial elements whether they are challenging or not. If Revelations was challenging, the sheer beauty of the city would still be enough to subdue most - yes?

Try bringing your rhetoric into places where it is actually relevant next time. And before you get on my back, I don't necessarily disagree with everything you say.

Oh, I know. I wasn't trying to attack any comment. Some may think AC tries to please everyone which isn't true. Ubisoft makes no effort to please those who like AC's core or those who like to play good games (with strong gameplay) which should be their primary targets.

Anyway, I was just venting some of the anger I feel towards Ubisoft but I'll try to bring my rhetoric into places where it is more relevant.
Sorry to bother.

Fatal-Feit
03-09-2014, 06:58 PM
Man, arguing with you is actually exhausting. This is what I don't understand - you say you've mentioned things a million times before when you have either only mentioned them once, or right at the start of a very long thread, or haven't mentioned them at all. Your posts are often unclear, which leads to a lot of confusion, yet when people question you about them you start to get angry and annoyed, as though the people you're discussing with are stupid. It's not exactly the best form of debate. I'm going to try and wind down this discussion, I hope you will too, because a lot of this seems to be either down to misunderstandings (which will take a long time to try and unravel), or opinion, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

That's about all I can think to say on the matter. We're arguing mostly over opinions here. Agree to disagree?

We're going in circles so we might as well agree to disagree on everything.

It gets annoying when people want me to repeat things or re:quote stuff that's been said. There's a 7 pages worth of extra data to support my points. If people're too lazy to go through it then why bother arguing? It's more exhausting on my end to keep saying the same damn thing only to have to repeat it only to have to repeat it only to repeat myself and only to have to bring it up again because someone's confused, lol.

If I appear to act as though you're stupid, that's not my intention. It's more of less because you're taking opinions and criticisms harsher than it's suppose to be. You're trying to debunk everything which is impossible. If someone doesn't enjoy beating up husbands or gathering collectibles, you don't bring up other games and say ''Well dey doo dat tooz''. It's not about the other games, it's about Assassin's Creed 2. I can't stress that out enough.





[edit] I will apologize if I offended you in any way, though. I'll take the blame for leaving you to dig into other threads or topics just to support my points. Am lazy myself, you know.

jdowny
03-09-2014, 08:29 PM
If they're asking you to repeat yourself if might be because your posts weren't clear enough - it's not their fault for not getting what you meant. We don't have to disagree on everything you know, we agreed on some things :)

But anyway, I apologise as well. No hard feelings.

roostersrule2
03-10-2014, 09:51 AM
All I see and hear is AC2 discrediting.

Megas_Doux
03-10-2014, 01:33 PM
Interesting, very interesting indeed!

AC II has some my favorite details in the series like the uber awesome soundtrack, the beautiful UNESCO World Heritage Italian cities, The eerie subject 16 glyphs and my long time favorite Assassin tombs. Elements yet to be surpassed. In terms of the story, while pretty cliche, it accomplishes to deliver a very engaging effect to most who played it. Besides that, it also increased the "Sand box values" like collectibles. That more or less dull, and customization-check the previous point- were TOTALLY absent in AC I, a cardinal sin for a game of its nature, speaking of AC I.

Now, with that being said, AC II suffers in my book of a pretty boring combat and a linear story lacking of almost ANY grey area values. In terms of the assassinations and overall gameplay, the "freedom" was reduced from the previous game, but more variety was added and along with that, some really epic moment came without losing much of the original one, like most of their predecessors did, and I am looking at you AC III. Then there is Ezio, a character that may have an "easy" , but very likeable choice, some thing that on the other hand, is not easy to accomplish.


Summarizing I think AC II is a VERY solid game, a GREAT game, one I could understand why is the most beloved one my "most" of the people, one however is not a personal favorite in the series neither in the story area- ACI and ACII take the spot-, nor gameplay and overall environment in which AC IV leads.

rob.davies2014
03-10-2014, 03:22 PM
For me the fact that you cannot replay memories really puts me off going back to the game. I'd love to just jump into the story at any point but all I can do is start from the beginning over and over again. I was really surprised this feature wasn't included and that Ubisoft didn't release a patch to make it possible.

Dome500
03-10-2014, 04:50 PM
I think the problem here is that all the people here experience the series in a different way. Some might change their opinions if they heared the POV of other people (which I do once in a while), some might not at all understand or even misunderstand what the other party is saying. In the end we all have our very personal experience of how the different AC's are, and they change a little bit every time we play.

Some might detect patterns other do not, some might interpret too much into a situation while others find that very situation lacking. Some might see things others do not.

It's all about your personal experience. And since we are all individuals there is very little aside from game lore that can be proven as fact. It's in this case rather an impression you personally have of a game, situation or series in general.

So let's try to be respectful and polite too each other, even if we do not always have the same opinions or feelings about a thing, or if we misunderstand someone.
It often comes down to out very own POV which others do not absolutely share.

Just wanted to say this.
I hope you don't mind.

Assassin_M
03-10-2014, 05:00 PM
I think the problem here is that all the people here experience the series in a different way. Some might change their opinions if they heared the POV of other people (which I do once in a while), some might not at all understand or even misunderstand what the other party is saying. In the end we all have our very personal experience of how the different AC's are, and they change a little bit every time we play.

Some might detect patterns other do not, some might interpret too much into a situation while others find that very situation lacking. Some might see things others do not.

It's all about your personal experience. And since we are all individuals there is very little aside from game lore that can be proven as fact. It's in this case rather an impression you personally have of a game, situation or series in general.

So let's try to be respectful and polite too each other, even if we do not always have the same opinions or feelings about a thing, or if we misunderstand someone.
It often comes down to out very own POV which others do not absolutely share.

Just wanted to say this.
I hope you don't mind.
It's not a problem when people have opinions and different views about different elements of a game (Duh), but when someone tries their absolute best to discredit what you're saying, like someone who starts with "hahahaha lololo", or brings up something like "oh, but that's in other games too" then it becomes annoying and frustrating...

When threads like this for AC III are made and someone just DARES argue with the OP that AC III wasn't THAT bad, everyone jumps on them and says "oh my godzzz, look at the stooopid, uncivilized AC III and connor fanz, zey is so obnoxious" this double standard is very annoying.

It's a subtle way of saying that AC II CANNOT be unliked by someone. It's the type of crap that happened sometime after AC IV was released. Some made threads about not really liking AC IV and EVERYONE started making fun of them...I hope AC IV does not become another god that people worship here

Dome500
03-10-2014, 05:13 PM
"oh, but that's in other games too"

Well, I think that special case depends on the situation.
Does the person do this to discredit what you are saying or does he say that to mention one should keep in mind that from that perspective the game can be criticized, but that this is a general problem of the franchise/series.

Anyway, I can understand why this can also be annoying sometimes.


When threads like this for AC III are made and someone just DARES argue with the OP that AC III wasn't THAT bad, everyone jumps on them and says "oh my godzzz, look at the stooopid, uncivilized AC III and connor fanz, zey is so obnoxious" this double standard is very annoying.

I was never a fan of making a game completely bad, I agree. I think it's often an opinion and therefore one has to absolutely state that this is a personal opinion and not a fact.

I think a problem is also often that moods and tone can not be that conveyed through text, therefore it's problematic to get the right tone on an internet forum...


It's a subtle way of saying that AC II CANNOT be unliked by someone.

I don't see it that way.


Some made threads about not really liking AC IV and EVERYONE started making fun of them...I hope AC IV does not become another god that people worship here

I think it is already, but that is hard to avoid in such big AAA franchises.

Assassin_M
03-10-2014, 05:28 PM
Well, I think that special case depends on the situation.
Does the person do this to discredit what you are saying or does he say that to mention one should keep in mind that from that perspective the game can be criticized, but that this is a general problem of the franchise/series.

Anyway, I can understand why this can also be annoying sometimes.
It's obvious why a person would say that as an "argument" to a person's opinion of why they don't like the game or think it's disappointing. it's sole purpose is to try and discredit a complaint "oh it's in every game, so your point is invalid"Problem being part of the general series or not, it's a problem in that specific game, I still don't see how citing that a problem in the specified game is also in other games is a solid argument.




I was never a fan of making a game completely bad, I agree. I think it's often an opinion and therefore one has to absolutely state that this is a personal opinion and not a fact.
It's the internet, this is inevitable. Anonymity guarantees that you'll be insulted for daring to speak your mind out, but i'm talking about this forum. Many people here are level-minded and can have healthy discussions, but it's just some certain members who make it a chore to try and say anything here without being made to feel dumb or idiotic.



I don't see it that way.
Well of course, like you said...different points of view.




I think it is already, but that is hard to avoid in such big AAA franchises.
We're not quite there yet, I think...you wont get insulted too hard if you diss AC IV, BUT praise AC II

Dome500
03-10-2014, 05:37 PM
Like you said, it's the internet. It's a huge problem.

Though for me personally for example if someone insults me on a fourm this is not half as bad as if someone insults me face-to-face.
It just has less value on the internet, due to anonymity, do you know what I mean?

RinoTheBouncer
03-10-2014, 09:54 PM
If the AC franchise is relevant today, itís because of AC2 and Ezio, thatís first. AC2 modern day might not have much but at least itís more than just being a faceless, voiceless floating camera.

However, I do agree that there were a lot of stories that were brought up and never continued. I felt like ACII is more like the table of contents for a book that failed to address the listed contents in the table. Itís like the book was left unfinished and the table of contents is being accused of lying while in fact, itís not itís fault, itís the fault of the writers who didnít continue what they promised.

A lot of ideas were brought up, a lot of loose ends never got tied in the end and until today, more stuff are brought to the table and now Ubisoft doesnít even know from where to start. Every time they try to start fresh and they bring up more questions and people keep wondering about the past ones. Just pick up from where the past left off and then bring something new...

Farlander1991
03-10-2014, 10:08 PM
So many things to read, so little time...


If the AC franchise is relevant today, it’s because of AC2 and Ezio, that’s first.

Define relevancy. Both AC and ACII have sold almost 11 million copies in retail (digital numbers aren't tracked). AC1 received an 80% critical reception in average (sure, AC2 has received 80-90 across different platforms, but that doesn't diminish AC1). All the iconic elements of the AC series are introduced in AC1. So what criteria, other than your own subjective preference (which, you know, I don't have anything against subjective preferences), do you define how relevant the AC franchise is? That Ezio as a character got more positive reception and spin-off titles in forms of ACB and ACR? How would their absence make the franchise any less relevant than it was?

Dome500
03-10-2014, 11:12 PM
So many things to read, so little time...



Define relevancy. Both AC and ACII have sold almost 11 million copies in retail (digital numbers aren't tracked). AC1 received an 80% critical reception in average (sure, AC2 has received 80-90 across different platforms, but that doesn't diminish AC1). All the iconic elements of the AC series are introduced in AC1. So what criteria, other than your own subjective preference (which, you know, I don't have anything against subjective preferences), do you define how relevant the AC franchise is? That Ezio as a character got more positive reception and spin-off titles in forms of ACB and ACR? How would their absence make the franchise any less relevant than it was?

Also the series is neither old enough nor has enough parts to actually judge which game had the most relevance.
Once we are going into NR. 5 I one could judge, wouldn't it be for the fact that the franchise does not exist long enough to actually say what is relevant and what not, because 1. not enough time has passed and 2. a lot of huge plot-lines and stories throughout the series have either not been concluded yet or not continued at all.

It is hard to see any main plot-line within the franchise and the definition of how important which story element is is often only defined by the person talking about it and his or her personal preferences and perceptions.

That is the problem.

The franchises story is leading nowhere at the moment. It was way to inconsistent and it's whole point is actually only to show several historical eras and explore different philosophies and concepts of live and society.

Fatal-Feit
03-10-2014, 11:23 PM
It's not a problem when people have opinions and different views about different elements of a game (Duh), but when someone tries their absolute best to discredit what you're saying, like someone who starts with "hahahaha lololo", or brings up something like "oh, but that's in other games too" then it becomes annoying and frustrating...

When threads like this for AC III are made and someone just DARES argue with the OP that AC III wasn't THAT bad, everyone jumps on them and says "oh my godzzz, look at the stooopid, uncivilized AC III and connor fanz, zey is so obnoxious" this double standard is very annoying.

It's a subtle way of saying that AC II CANNOT be unliked by someone. It's the type of crap that happened sometime after AC IV was released. Some made threads about not really liking AC IV and EVERYONE started making fun of them...I hope AC IV does not become another god that people worship here

This is basically how I feel about the mass majority of the threads on this forum, lol. You can discredit AC:3, but not AC:2.

The mass majority of fans here have made their own sort of law
*If someone credits AC:3, someone has to come in and discredit it.
*If someone discredits AC:2, someone has to come in and credit it.

Basically you can win with AC:2, but not AC:3 and that is what ticks me off.

I personally do not see that problem with AC:IV. It's more of a whole problem of it's own, regarding AC:2.

SixKeys
03-10-2014, 11:55 PM
All the iconic elements of the AC series are introduced in AC1.

Not exactly. AC1 was an entirely different experience from AC2 and subsequent sequels. AC2 introduced upgrading your homebase, character customization/upgrades (which was automatic in AC1), glyph puzzles (only briefly teased at the end of AC1) and vast conspiracies. Remember, in AC1 the Templars weren't presented as some sort of secret sect bent on world domination, but a widely known and respected group whom the assassins simply happened to oppose and whose goal was world peace. Al Mualim wasn't even a Templar, just a rogue working towards his own goals.

AC2 opened up the series to the masses, that's undeniable. It wasn't the slow, often philosophical exercise in ambience that AC1 was, but fast-paced, colorful and fun, in the sense that it had more variety in mission design and a Hollywood-style script. I think it's fair to say AC2 defined the direction of the series on the whole and the elements that spring to most people's minds when they hear the name Assassin's Creed.



Basically you can win with AC:2, but not AC:3 and that is what ticks me off.

That's just an accurate reflection of reality, brah.



Kidding. :p But I actually feel the opposite. For a while at least it was popular to go around bashing AC2 and Ezio to the ground, but as soon as someone dared to criticize AC3, the Connor fans would jump in telling you why your opinion was utterly wrong. It seems to have calmed down a bit for the time being, maybe because people are focusing on AC5's announcement news instead of past games.

Fatal-Feit
03-11-2014, 12:13 AM
But I actually feel the opposite. For a while at least it was popular to go around bashing AC2 and Ezio to the ground, but as soon as someone dared to criticize AC3, the Connor fans would jump in telling you why your opinion was utterly wrong. It seems to have calmed down a bit for the time being, maybe because people are focusing on AC5's announcement news instead of past games.

It probably has. Because since I've started using the forums, this was the only thread that aims to tackle AC:2, IIRC.

Assassin_M
03-11-2014, 02:45 AM
Not exactly. AC1 was an entirely different experience from AC2 and subsequent sequels. AC2 introduced upgrading your homebase, character customization/upgrades (which was automatic in AC1), glyph puzzles (only briefly teased at the end of AC1) and vast conspiracies. Remember, in AC1 the Templars weren't presented as some sort of secret sect bent on world domination, but a widely known and respected group whom the assassins simply happened to oppose and whose goal was world peace. Al Mualim wasn't even a Templar, just a rogue working towards his own goals.

AC2 opened up the series to the masses, that's undeniable. It wasn't the slow, often philosophical exercise in ambience that AC1 was, but fast-paced, colorful and fun, in the sense that it had more variety in mission design and a Hollywood-style script. I think it's fair to say AC2 defined the direction of the series on the whole and the elements that spring to most people's minds when they hear the name Assassin's Creed.
Actually, the conspiracies were always in AC I. The Templar order. the Brotherhood of knights during the crusades was just another cover. Just like the Barbarigo and the Pazzi family in AC II, Just like the Borgia and the Papacy in ACB, just like the Byzantines in ACR. The Templars were always the secret sect bent on world domination that it started as.

How did it open AC up to the masses? AC I sold 8 million, AC II sold arguably the same amount and ACB sold a bit more, so what are you basing this on?



For a while at least it was popular to go around bashing AC2 and Ezio to the ground
See, this is what ticks me off...."it was cool to criticize AC2" it makes it sound like a hipster thing, like something that's not worth time. a fad or the new toy for kiddies to chew on, like it's not something valid. it's this underlying tone i'm talking about...it's not straight to the face, but it's subtle...just pokes from under the table.

SixKeys
03-11-2014, 03:42 AM
Actually, the conspiracies were always in AC I. The Templar order. the Brotherhood of knights during the crusades was just another cover. Just like the Barbarigo and the Pazzi family in AC II, Just like the Borgia and the Papacy in ACB, just like the Byzantines in ACR. The Templars were always the secret sect bent on world domination that it started as.

I'll concede this point just because you've probably played all the games many more times than I have and know every bit of dialogue by heart. :p I guess it didn't feel that way because in AC1 the Templars went around wearing a massive cross on their armor, broadcasting their allegiance to the world.


How did it open AC up to the masses? AC I sold 8 million, AC II sold arguably the same amount and ACB sold a bit more, so what are you basing this on?

I'm talking about "casualizing" the games. AC1 was experimental in many ways and received a lukewarm reception at release, even if it sold well. AC2 took the safe route and went for the GTA-esque popular appeal. The same formula carried through the entire Ezio trilogy and the sales numbers continued to climb.


See, this is what ticks me off...."it was cool to criticize AC2" it makes it sound like a hipster thing, like something that's not worth time. a fad or the new toy for kiddies to chew on, like it's not something valid. it's this underlying tone i'm talking about...it's not straight to the face, but it's subtle...just pokes from under the table.

I don't mind the threads that are serious discussions about what some people consider the shortcomings of AC2, like this one. I may not always agree, but I can appreciate a good dissection. The threads I'm talking about were basically "Let's all talk about how zomgz deep and misunderstood Connor is compared to that ugly, clichť, no-good womanizer Ezio! Also everyone who disagrees just didn't understand AC3". That leaves no room for other opinions or discussion.

Assassin_M
03-11-2014, 03:50 AM
I'll concede this point just because you've probably played all the games many more times than I have and know every bit of dialogue by heart. :p I guess it didn't feel that way because in AC1 the Templars went around wearing a massive cross on their armor, broadcasting their allegiance to the world.
I actually sometimes surprise myself with how much I remember :|
I can see where you're coming from regarding the more public appearance.



I'm talking about "casualizing" the games. AC1 was experimental in many ways and received a lukewarm reception at release, even if it sold well. AC2 took the safe route and went for the GTA-esque popular appeal. The same formula carried through the entire Ezio trilogy and the sales numbers continued to climb.
Eh, wouldn't call it lukewarm, but I see your point. Thanks for explaining.



I don't mind the threads that are serious discussions about what some people consider the shortcomings of AC2, like this one. I may not always agree, but I can appreciate a good dissection. The threads I'm talking about were basically "Let's all talk about how zomgz deep and misunderstood Connor is compared to that ugly, clichť, no-good womanizer Ezio! Also everyone who disagrees just didn't understand AC3". That leaves no room for other opinions or discussion.
Maybe it's because i'v been on YT a lot lately that I feel so looked down upon >_> but I agree, I just dislike the discrediting of valid opinions. (Yeah, i confess now that my post in that one Connor thread that you thought was me being crazy and trolling, was actually me being rational :p)

Fatal-Feit
03-11-2014, 05:22 AM
I'm talking about "casualizing" the games. AC1 was experimental in many ways and received a lukewarm reception at release, even if it sold well. AC2 took the safe route and went for the GTA-esque popular appeal. The same formula carried through the entire Ezio trilogy and the sales numbers continued to climb.

And in doing so, severely and gradually lowered the standards for the franchise. Which in my opinion, is nothing to be proud of for the 2nd sequel.

RinoTheBouncer
03-11-2014, 09:37 AM
So many things to read, so little time...



Define relevancy. Both AC and ACII have sold almost 11 million copies in retail (digital numbers aren't tracked). AC1 received an 80% critical reception in average (sure, AC2 has received 80-90 across different platforms, but that doesn't diminish AC1). All the iconic elements of the AC series are introduced in AC1. So what criteria, other than your own subjective preference (which, you know, I don't have anything against subjective preferences), do you define how relevant the AC franchise is? That Ezio as a character got more positive reception and spin-off titles in forms of ACB and ACR? How would their absence make the franchise any less relevant than it was?

I donít mean to discredit ACI but ACII is one of the very few rare sequels that actually do as good or better than the original. Ezioís trilogy if anything, made many fans like me stick to the franchise. I know Iím not the standard for AC fans but ACII fixed a lot of stuff we didnít like about ACI like the repetitive missions for example and preserved the interesting atmosphere, the feeling and everything we loved about the original. The story was expanding and getting bigger and people welcomed it. It was also the basis for two other sequels.

However, and without any bias, I believe the other ACs are selling because theyíre sequels to ACII. Itís like ACII instilled the love of AC in fans hearts that was sparked by ACI that I doubt anybody wouldíve been so much into AC these days if it wasnít for the major success of the first two games. The second game borrowed nothing from the first one, neither the protagonist nor the setting yet it managed to deliver something original and powerful and I believe thatís how fans like me who liked the first one adored the second and just couldnít pass Brotherhood which was also good and then AC:R which was short yet perfect.

TO_M
03-11-2014, 08:15 PM
However, and without any bias, I believe the other ACs are selling because they’re sequels to ACII. It’s like ACII instilled the love of AC in fans hearts that was sparked by ACI that I doubt anybody would’ve been so much into AC these days if it wasn’t for the major success of the first two games. The second game borrowed nothing from the first one, neither the protagonist nor the setting yet it managed to deliver something original and powerful and I believe that’s how fans like me who liked the first one adored the second and just couldn’t pass Brotherhood which was also good and then AC:R which was short yet perfect.

"Without any bias" and calling AC:R "perfect" do not mix.

AC:R (imo) was terrible, it is one of two AC games that I haven't fully replayed because i couldn't bring myself to do it. (Never attempted with AC;R and stopped about halfway through with AC:3)

More on-topic: While yes AC 2 did have several changes/improvements that were for the betterment of the franchise it also has multiple faults which looking back have had a negative influence on the other installments (again imo)

SixKeys
03-11-2014, 08:20 PM
And in doing so, severely and gradually lowered the standards for the franchise. Which in my opinion, is nothing to be proud of for the 2nd sequel.

That's a matter of opinion, I think. I can see both sides of the argument. AC2's accessibility meant sacrificing some of the more ponderous aspects of the first game, so if you loved AC1 and wanted more of the same, you might be disappointed by AC2. I was, in a way, because I didn't expect such a drastic change in tone, but came to appreciate both games for what they were. On the other hand, AC1 was by no means perfect and the more casual approach of AC2 meant keeping the series alive, as there were some aspects that almost nobody enjoyed in AC1. (The repetition, flag-collecting for no reward, AltaÔr's American accent, etc.)

I disagree that AC2 "severely and gradually" lowered the standards for the franchise. Gradually doesn't even apply, because it was the first sequel, and gradual means a slow change over an extended period of time. Severely? Again, arguable, depending on your standards. One person may prefer AC1's slow-paced assassin simulator and another may appreciate the lively and colorful world of AC2. AC's standards wouldn't have been damaged if the sstudio had followed through on its original plan of a trilogy. It was stretching the story and the same formula to ACB and ACR that lowered the standards of the franchise, IMO.

Assassin_M
03-11-2014, 08:54 PM
That's a matter of opinion
He did point that out:p

Fatal-Feit
03-12-2014, 03:38 AM
That's a matter of opinion, I think. I can see both sides of the argument. AC2's accessibility meant sacrificing some of the more ponderous aspects of the first game, so if you loved AC1 and wanted more of the same, you might be disappointed by AC2. I was, in a way, because I didn't expect such a drastic change in tone, but came to appreciate both games for what they were. On the other hand, AC1 was by no means perfect and the more casual approach of AC2 meant keeping the series alive, as there were some aspects that almost nobody enjoyed in AC1. (The repetition, flag-collecting for no reward, AltaÔr's American accent, etc.)

I'm pretty sure people weren't upset about AC:2's attempt in making the franchise more accessible and less repetitive. The problem I have in general was how they went about it. So many features and quests just felt slammed into the series and was utterly irrelevant. Making it casual is one thing, but it doesn't mean they couldn't have gone about it a different way without sacrificing too much. I'm more than certain with all of the redundant quests, they could have given something like the Creed more justice.


I disagree that AC2 "severely and gradually" lowered the standards for the franchise. Gradually doesn't even apply, because it was the first sequel, and gradual means a slow change over an extended period of time. Severely? Again, arguable, depending on your standards. One person may prefer AC1's slow-paced assassin simulator and another may appreciate the lively and colorful world of AC2. AC's standards wouldn't have been damaged if the sstudio had followed through on its original plan of a trilogy. It was stretching the story and the same formula to ACB and ACR that lowered the standards of the franchise, IMO.

Debunking word from word aside, it's not the sequel's fault that the franchise's standards have changed. It's still AC:2's because despite the improvements over the first, AC:2 was the one that started the new derailments of the series. I guess I could have used the highlighted words as a better example. But in regards to my point, AC:2 created the new standards for the franchise. New combat oriented gameplay and RPG elements. New chases and parkouring sequences. Less philosophical vendettas and more personal dramas or feuds. New varied missions like beating up unfaithful husbands or running errands. AC:2 made these new story and gameplay elements very frequent and plentiful, washing over the original's. Even without AC:B and AC:R as sequels, AC:2's undermining of the first game is still apparent. So whether if AC:3 came into the picture as the conclusion to the trilogy, 2 spin-offs later or not, it probably would have had the same results.

shobhit7777777
03-12-2014, 07:01 AM
I was initially disappointed when AC2 radically changed the game's structure.

I felt that Ubi threw the baby out with the bath water by completely stripping the franchise of the whole investigate-plan-assassinate-escape loop. AC1 was conceptually an assassin sim...the successors were third person action-adventure titles

Yeah, the game was repetitive and had its flaws, but on a conceptual level I feel that they could've made it work...instead they went a complete 180 and overreacted. AC2 has some elements that I absolutely abhorred and felt that it was a grossly casualized and made pedestrian with cliched, boring BS - All the Tomb Raider stuff and open world tropes

So yeah, I was initially really disappointed that the Assassin sim fantasy had been breached

But

After playing the game I realized that the game was a far superior and vastly improved Assassin gameplay experience...on a mechanical level.

AC2 not only improved every pillar - IMO - it set the standard for the following titles

- Accessible and functional blending groups
- NPC manipulation
- Hiring factions for greater tactical flexibility
- Greater arsenal

The next stroke of genius - which I've always maintained is what sustained the series for me - was the addition of Assassin Sandboxes - Templar Dens and Borgia Towers...in the following games...since then this micro-sandbox concept has popped up in Far Cry 3...where it was the single most engaging aspect about the game..so much so that Ubi released a patch to reset outposts so that players could replay them

If you take AC2 and its "children"....you have some of the best, most systemic and open ended gameplay oppurtunities in the franchise

Yeah, the main narrative and the mission structure were not the assassin sim concept of the first one....but just playing around in the dens and towers has been the highlight of the series.

It is when you stalk around a Templar Lair, planning your strike...when you feel like a proper assassin...more so than in the first game.


So yeah.....while AC2 shat on a lot of the things I loved, it also brought in some awesomeness...which balances it out in the end. Ezio tips the scales, and makes it a fun game

pirate1802
03-12-2014, 07:10 AM
It is when you stalk around a Templar Lair, planning your strike...when you feel like a proper assassin...more so than in the first game.

This so much. I loved the templar dens to death in ACR. Loved the complete freedom in planning your attack. :D

RinoTheBouncer
03-12-2014, 12:19 PM
"Without any bias" and calling AC:R "perfect" do not mix.

AC:R (imo) was terrible, it is one of two AC games that I haven't fully replayed because i couldn't bring myself to do it. (Never attempted with AC;R and stopped about halfway through with AC:3)

More on-topic: While yes AC 2 did have several changes/improvements that were for the betterment of the franchise it also has multiple faults which looking back have had a negative influence on the other installments (again imo)

Well just because I love AC:R so much, doesnít mean Iím biased towards it.
I think itís a matter of a personal opinion in this case. The game was a bit shorter and straight to the point and more about concluding Ezioís story than anything. The setting was beautiful and even the Desmondís Journey missions were really interesting because they had a lot of story value in them. Iím not a fan of FPS but this was really well made.

Back to ACII. I bet ACII, like any other game, has itís pros and cons, but I personally love it very much and so does the majority of the AC fan base. Of course, thereís no right or wrong in liking a game. But I personally believe that it set the foundations of the franchise and was more about the Assassins than it is about historical tourism.

Dome500
03-12-2014, 04:54 PM
I was initially disappointed when AC2 radically changed the game's structure.

I felt that Ubi threw the baby out with the bath water by completely stripping the franchise of the whole investigate-plan-assassinate-escape loop. AC1 was conceptually an assassin sim...the successors were third person action-adventure titles

Yeah, the game was repetitive and had its flaws, but on a conceptual level I feel that they could've made it work...instead they went a complete 180 and overreacted. AC2 has some elements that I absolutely abhorred and felt that it was a grossly casualized and made pedestrian with cliched, boring BS - All the Tomb Raider stuff and open world tropes

So yeah, I was initially really disappointed that the Assassin sim fantasy had been breached

But

After playing the game I realized that the game was a far superior and vastly improved Assassin gameplay experience...on a mechanical level.

AC2 not only improved every pillar - IMO - it set the standard for the following titles

- Accessible and functional blending groups
- NPC manipulation
- Hiring factions for greater tactical flexibility
- Greater arsenal

The next stroke of genius - which I've always maintained is what sustained the series for me - was the addition of Assassin Sandboxes - Templar Dens and Borgia Towers...in the following games...since then this micro-sandbox concept has popped up in Far Cry 3...where it was the single most engaging aspect about the game..so much so that Ubi released a patch to reset outposts so that players could replay them

If you take AC2 and its "children"....you have some of the best, most systemic and open ended gameplay oppurtunities in the franchise

Yeah, the main narrative and the mission structure were not the assassin sim concept of the first one....but just playing around in the dens and towers has been the highlight of the series.

It is when you stalk around a Templar Lair, planning your strike...when you feel like a proper assassin...more so than in the first game.


So yeah.....while AC2 shat on a lot of the things I loved, it also brought in some awesomeness...which balances it out in the end. Ezio tips the scales, and makes it a fun game

Yeah it's kind of a double-edged sword.

On the one hand there are lots of things AC2 threw out the window which I really missed - like said Investigation phases and Assassin simulator feeling.
But on the other hand it also added a lot mechanically and in terms of side missions (for me personally).

Though I have to say that I do not like how AC became more and more scripted again, at least that's my feeling. Maybe it was always that way, idk. But I think the best they can do in the next games is to give the player more freedom in how he wants to accomplish something, be it a side mission, a side activity or a main mission. Give him at least 2 choices: Stealth or Combat (maybe a third one with "non-lethal", something I really liked in AC4) and give us a lot of paths to do it. In an open world game this should not be too hard. They just have to make sure that the restrictions they set upon a mission are not too tight. The less de-synchronizations the better IMO. This concept has to be reduced heavily and the creative freedom should be expanded by leaving the player more choice, actively supporting both Stealth and Combat in each main and side mission/activity and loosening the restrictions.

Sorry, I know this was a little OT, it just came to me and I thought I had to mention it.

Anyway.
Bottom Line: No Assassins Creed is perfect. They all added good stuff, bad stuff and redundant stuff, they all removed good stuff, bad stuff and redundant stuff, some had more problems (technical and mechanical) then others, story is a matter of perspective.

Ezio_-_Auditore
02-08-2017, 07:47 PM
Because Ezio wrote about in his diary, which was preserved in the Assassin's archive, later stole by Daniel and so the Templars discovered about it too, thanks to it, Abstergo tried to relieve Ezio's memories by way of Subject 16, Clay, but Clay was descendent of a bastard son of Ezio who was born long before Ezio ever reached the Vault, so Lucy, who was secretly a Templar, used Desmond to secretly search the genetic memory of Ezio and uncover the truth about the Vault and the prophecy.

Just stumbled on this thread, and I realized that the first time Lucy mentions the Vault is before Ezio finds out about it in Desmond's reliving Ezio's Memory of it. Now you mentioned that Lucy knew about it because of Ezio's diary, but Desmond himself should have known nothing about this "vault", yet he responds to Lucy saying "so you're after the Codex and the Vault" (AC 2, Sequence 7, Memory 1). How on earth did Desmond know what the Vault was?

VoldR
02-09-2017, 05:46 AM
1. NOTHING happens in the modern day main Assassin vs. Templar and their satellite plotline.
Don't think there's much they could do without the need to return to the animus.

AC1 - kidnapped, seeking locations of other Apples
AC2 - Escape and intended to do training. Only after learning S. 16 left them msg they explored and found there's a second Apple to be found.

Abstergo chase them out.

AC:B - found Ezio's Apple and the location of the vault (Leonardo DLC)

AC:R - After falling into a coma, he explore more and learn "what he has to do" in the Vault they're heading towards following the coordinates found in the DLC

AC3 - Seeking batteries, to activate the machine to save the worldÖ
To me It's never about stopping the templars apparently. Just saving the world first. That's Desmond's role.


2. Subject 16's puzzles that connect tons of historical events and people to the Assassin vs. Templar conflict it feels like this has set up a trend where soon enough you can't find anything that doesn't have direct connection to Assassins/Templars
I always believe they're not all facts but hypotheses of 16's even if it's 80-90% correct.

Hard not to think there's a fingerprint all around the world with them traveling across the world in history. The British went almost everywhere back then. No doubt templars have sent a candidate or two along with the explorers. Even the far corner of Malaysia have some British influence.


even the backstory of a fictional character (Edward got the farm he lived in burned due to a Templar plot, long before he went to the Caribbean and actually met Templars, seriously?!)
Where was that stated may I ask?
As far as I know, he's wife place where he's staying is still up and running. He went off to join the Navy Privateers to earn $$

It was short lived when the war ended and he got laid offÖ turning pirate after leaving his wife, never divorced, iirc.

Mere circumstances rather than a plot against him personally.


3. In AC2 we go through Ezio's memories... because?
First merely for training
Than to learn what 16 has hidden, which lead to the vault being discovered.

Which is I believe is Minerva's intention & plan. That's how things work when someone else plan out something by making a connection to what the subject will be doing in their everyday life. If she didn't leave a msg all Desmond would be doing is to learn and fight a losing battle because it would lead them away from the vault and the earth will be doom.


Sure, later down the line both Assassins and Templars want to find Ezio's apple (which, btw, was heavily implied to be Altair's lost apple in AC2
I keep hearing that but where was this mentioned?

I made a present day only video and don't recall any mentions of it. May have missed it. Could u help point that out? Thanks
https://youtu.be/XNJyqqWlr6k
[/QUOTE]

Farlander1991
02-09-2017, 08:18 AM
Wow, this is an old thread :D


Don't think there's much they could do without the need to return to the animus.

AC1 - kidnapped, seeking locations of other Apples
AC2 - Escape and intended to do training. Only after learning S. 16 left them msg they explored and found there's a second Apple to be found.

Abstergo chase them out.

AC:B - found Ezio's Apple and the location of the vault (Leonardo DLC)

AC:R - After falling into a coma, he explore more and learn "what he has to do" in the Vault they're heading towards following the coordinates found in the DLC

AC3 - Seeking batteries, to activate the machine to save the world…
To me It's never about stopping the templars apparently. Just saving the world first. That's Desmond's role.

Assassin's Creed 1 establishes our goal as stopping the Templars from launching the satellite. Templars are seeking other Apples because Altair's one they had was destroyed, and they need one to put into the satellite so they could take control over people's minds with it. The satellite launch date was 21st December 2012. The end of the world is metaphorical. Subject 16s writings in the game mention not just the end of the world, but the beginning of a new one and a new world order - clearly referencing what's going to happen if Templar's succeed.

In AC2 that plotline is not progressed at all, and at the very end of the game another one was introduced - literal end of the world. ACB tried to juggle the two goals by making it so the same thing is needed to stop both the solar flare and the Templars, but then the games pushed aside the Templar plot entirely and focused on the solar flare, moving resolution of what started the entire series into an email in AC3.

AC1 had an AvT plot both in historical and modern times. AC2 transformed the modern AvT plot with an interesting twist on the supposed prophecy into a literal end of the world, squandering the potential of what could be told if AC1's main storyline would've been properly continued.


Where was that stated may I ask?

In the AC4 novel.

Basically, in the novel Edward had dealings with Templars and hated them. Even though he didn't know they were Templars specifically, that ruins the whole point of the AC4 arc which is supposed to be about a total outsider getting swapped in the AvT conflict.

Also the novel states that Caroline's father is a Templar >_<


First merely for training
Than to learn what 16 has hidden, which lead to the vault being discovered.

Training is a ****ty plot reason because it doesn't actually advance the plot and can happen in parallel to anything. My point was that AC2 doesn't move the established modern day storyline forward until the very ending twist, where it decides to introduce a second main plotline for the game. That's not good story structure, and the fact that AC2 didn't advance the plot at all means that other games had to deal with trying to resolve both.


I keep hearing that but where was this mentioned?

It wasn't mentioned directly which is why the team could get away with this huge retcon.

However, if you look at AC1/AC2 in context of them being the only games out there:
1. The Apple in AC2 is in the same container as the Apple in AC1.
2. The Apple in AC2 is located in Cyprus, and Altair's codex pages we collect tell us about recapturing Cyprus on one page and about hiding the Apple in a vault in another.
3. AC Bloodlines is about Altair recapturing Cyprus and actually seeing that vault.

This is the gist of it to net get into details, but basically, while the words 'this is Altair's Apple' are not uttered, everything in the games is connected in such a way to show - this is one and the same Apple.

Which brings to a huge problem when ACB was released. Since they found the Apple that was in Ezio's possession. Which was Altair's Apple. Which was destroyed before AC1 and wasn't supposed to exist anymore.

So ACR, a game that wasn't supposed to exist for a long time in the first place and was made in less than a year, was used to retcon this inconsistency, by making Altair hide an Apple in Masyaf and spreading rumours that he hid it on Cyprus, like we were thinking in AC2.

Only that really makes the Templars plans weird - so the Templars have Altair's codex and based on its information find where the Apple is, it's Cyprus, Altair didn't hide an Apple there, but Templars go to Cyprus and happen to find one anyway? Wat? >_<

All in all, my point is, it's not that there's no 'explanation' or 'justification' for things happening in the game, my point is that if you look at how the modern day is structured, a lot of things were clearly created either on the fly or changed on the fly. It wouldn't have been so messy had there actually been a proper plan of what modern day is supposed to be throughout the game series.

VoldR
02-09-2017, 03:01 PM
I never did bothered with the novels anyway, :)

I find the altair apple part interesting.
Yes Abstergo got it in the end but not from cyprus or masyaf...

Not to dig up old footage of 16's research on who has the same apple number before Abstergo did, but reading through the wikia, apparently the apple has been used by various people before Abstergo.

So someone else found it first beforehand.

So 16's research in AC2 itself states its been moving around from one person to another before AC:R and AC:B released.

Now knowing where the latest writers decided to put it "Masyaf"

I wonder who have the means and why, to get the apple. How they open the vault.
What internet does a British Queen have in Masyaf or someone else.
:)

RinoTheBouncer
02-09-2017, 03:31 PM
The more I play the Ezio trilogy and especially the last time I did with The Ezio Collection, the more I get disappointed with the direction the franchise took since ACIV and Unity.

While there are valid weakness points that you mentioned about ACII, I still think that whatever came after ACIII wasn't even close as good as anything that came with ACIII and before. ACIV was great, yes. But it had a huge part missing and Unity as a whole, while it was visually stunning and highly promising as a concept, it was just gameplay with no complete story, even with the obvious connection between Rogue and Unity. Syndicate was better since it showed CGI modern day cutscenes, yet it still missed the charm, the mystery and the involvement with the lore that we had in ACIII, Ezio's trilogy and ACI.