PDA

View Full Version : What made AC2 and his fictional story a success?



RafaelAuditore.
08-25-2014, 11:05 PM
Why assassin's creed 2 was such a great game? What made it a success?

Why the story of AC2 was so good and engaging?

In your opinion, do you think Unity can be as good as AC2? What is your expectation?

MasterAssasin84
08-25-2014, 11:11 PM
AC Unity will wipe the floor with AC2 !!!

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 11:14 PM
I don't think AC:2 was such a great game. Its success came from mainstreaming the series. Story became black and white, character depth was replaced with lovable cliches, and open-ended stealth assassinations was replaced by linear sequences with tonnes of combat and parkour.

For me, the story wasn't good or engaging. That wasn't why I enjoyed it the game. I enjoyed the game for being a game. --> Good pacing, level structures, and mindless fun.

In my opinion, Unity will definitely be better than AC:2, even if it disappoints. The series so far have gone back to focusing on the original core pillars in terms of gameplay, and expanded upon it with more than just tools. And as evident in the last few installments, the story is morally grey with intriguing characters with lots of depth on both the Templar and Assassin's sides again.

RinoTheBouncer
08-25-2014, 11:24 PM
ACII was the best because it has the interesting, likable character, the original new gameplay and drastic improvements and larger world compared to the great but repetitive and limited repayablity of ACI, not to mention how the story picked up where ACI left off and it expanded much more on it. I think that’s probably why. I love it because we got Ezio and of course because of the modern day and First Civilization mythology. That’s actually why I love AC. I don’t care for historical settings much, but Ezio stood out and he was the first of his kind in the franchise and a very remarkable character among other games as well.

I believe Edward tried to be Ezio and couldn’t and now Arno is obviously trying to be Ezio and they did admit that saying that he’s definitely more like Ezio than Connor. But those aren’t working like Ezio did because he was the original one. I think AC:Unity won’t be bad, the Elise and Arno story seems to be interesting enough but I don’t think any game will surpass the creative brilliance, the entertainment and the originality of ACII and it’s 2 sequels.

Megas_Doux
08-25-2014, 11:29 PM
Well.....

It is no secret that AC II is the most critically aclaimed game in the series, it is always included in any top list of the past generation of games and it is the AC that ranks the highest. However I am not particularly fond of its story, since I prefer the grey ones, but one cannot deny that its narrartive is very good and Ezio is a character that will be remembered for years to come., being featured in a lot of non AC media.. Also, AC II gets away with criticism other AC´s are torched for.

Now, why???? Despite all the cliches and flaws, he is likeable in regards of the industry standarts and he was the first to be like that in a very popular franchise. Beside, his VA is one of the most recognized ones and he did a GREAT job.


PD Ezio is not my favorite assassin.

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 11:33 PM
Now, why???? Despite all the cliches and flaws, he is likeable in regdrs of the industry standarts.

Well, it's hard NOT to like a character who've been part of a well acclaimed franchise for about 3 years and with 4 games.

wvstolzing
08-25-2014, 11:34 PM
Story became black and white, character depth was replaced with lovable cliches, and open-ended stealth assassinations was replaced by linear sequences with tonnes of combat and parkour.

All of that sounds like a description of AC1 to me.

Not that it doesn't apply to AC2 as well.

Shahkulu101
08-25-2014, 11:35 PM
ACII was the best because it has the interesting, likable character, the original new gameplay and drastic improvements and larger world compared to the great but repetitive and limited repayablity of ACI, not to mention how the story picked up where ACI left off and it expanded much more on it. I think that’s probably why. I love it because we got Ezio and of course because of the modern day and First Civilization mythology. That’s actually why I love AC. I don’t care for historical settings much, but Ezio stood out and he was the first of his kind in the franchise and a very remarkable character among other games as well.

I believe Edward tried to be Ezio and couldn’t and now Arno is obviously trying to be Ezio and they did admit that saying that he’s definitely more like Ezio than Connor. But those aren’t working like Ezio did because he was the original one. I think AC:Unity won’t be bad, the Elise and Arno story seems to be interesting enough but I don’t think any game will surpass the creative brilliance, the entertainment and the originality of ACII and it’s 2 sequels.

Edward wasn't trying to be Ezio, I actually struggle to find similar personality traits between the two...

Edward was his own, superbly written character. Certainly more human and interesting than Godzio.

Namikaze_17
08-25-2014, 11:52 PM
I personally never understood that myself. It's story was black and white as an Oreo...same with for the protagonist that arguably stayed the same in two of his three games...it's side characters were very cliche and forgettable at best, Ezio's "development" was all over the place, his motivation was meh, the Templars were F'N ******* that had no depth or morals to them. MD portions were boring, Ezio's tragedy didn't faze him...other than that, I thought the gameplay was alright.
But the story to me just felt there. I don't understand why Casuals overrate the **** out of the game though...

But otherwise I say M's links in his Sig should tell the story. ;)

SixKeys
08-25-2014, 11:54 PM
I don't think AC:2 was such a great game. Its success came from mainstreaming the series. Story became black and white, character depth was replaced with lovable cliches, and open-ended stealth assassinations was replaced by linear sequences with tonnes of combat and parkour.

I agree with this entirely. And yet, I think those things simply worked. Despite how different the experience feels when compared to AC1 (which I still prefer), I think the simplistic story and characters gave us easily identifiable and memorable archetypes which gave them broad appeal.

Replaying some of AC3's missions, I can appreciate that its characters were more morally ambiguous and not as easily defined. The dialogue was also more complex, in some ways. But the characters' portrayal was so nuanced and so much up for interpretation that I couldn't really form an attachment to them. Just look at all the Connor haters vs. Connor fans and all the various reasons they give why he was a good or bad character. Haytham was arguably the most cliché character in the cast (suave, charismatic and aloof Brit), and what happened? He became the fan favorite, even among people who otherwise hated the game. Sometimes clichés simply work. Especially in a medium like video games where uncanny valley is ever-looming and you need an effective way to communicate to your audience who to root for. An actor can give a harrowing performance, but much is lost in translation because current mo-cap tech is still limited and can't capture every fine nuance of emotion in their faces.

In contrast, AC2 had objectively the worst graphics in the series so far, but the characters were written in such broad strokes that we instantly knew, as if by instinct, who the "good guys" and "bad guys" were. This black-and-white approach may have been disappointing after AC1, and even detrimental to the franchise overall, since the next several games depended on simply repeating the AC2 formula without adding much of substance. But I do believe it was the right decision at the time, due to the limitations of mo-cap, to create characters that were easily likable or despicable. Simplifying the story allowed the devs to focus on polishing the mechanics. For example, tailing missions in AC2 were never frustrating because they were focused on immersion instead of being treated as a mini-game. Players could easily follow the conversations whilst still feeling like an assassin - story and gameplay complimented each other. Whereas in AC3 tailing became a frustrating and immersion-breaking mini-game of keeping your assassin inside a moving circle. Unless you're good at multi-tasking, it was easy to miss relevant story-related information and some decent dialogue. Story (plot-advancing dialogue) and gameplay were treated as separate elements and in the end, neither ended up being fun (in this particular instance of game design).

Sorry to bring up AC3 in a non-related topic, but I think the comparisons are relevant. AC3 did have more moral ambiguity and depth than AC2, which is why it may seem strange that people seem to prefer the more cliché approach of AC2. The key differences, IMO, are the uncanny valley - AC2 had simpler graphics, so exaggerated animations and personalities were needed - and AC3's difficulties in marrying gameplay with story.

Fatal-Feit
08-25-2014, 11:59 PM
I agree with this entirely. And yet, I think those things simply worked. Despite how different the experience feels when compared to AC1 (which I still prefer), I think the simplistic story and characters gave us easily identifiable and memorable archetypes which gave them broad appeal.

Replaying some of AC3's missions, I can appreciate that its characters were more morally ambiguous and not as easily defined. The dialogue was also more complex, in some ways. But the characters' portrayal was so nuanced and so much up for interpretation that I couldn't really form an attachment to them. Just look at all the Connor haters vs. Connor fans and all the various reasons they give why he was a good or bad character. Haytham was arguably the most cliché character in the cast (suave, charismatic and aloof Brit), and what happened? He became the fan favorite, even among people who otherwise hated the game. Sometimes clichés simply work. Especially in a medium like video games where uncanny valley is ever-looming and you need an effective way to communicate to your audience who to root for. An actor can give a harrowing performance, but much is lost in translation because current mo-cap tech is still limited and can't capture every fine nuance of emotion in their faces.

In contrast, AC2 had objectively the worst graphics in the series so far, but the characters were written in such broad strokes that we instantly knew, as if by instinct, who the "good guys" and "bad guys" were. This black-and-white approach may have been disappointing after AC1, and even detrimental to the franchise overall, since the next several games depended on simply repeating the AC2 formula without adding much of substance. But I do believe it was the right decision at the time, due to the limitations of mo-cap, to create characters that were easily likable or despicable. Simplifying the story allowed the devs to focus on polishing the mechanics. For example, tailing missions in AC2 were never frustrating because they were focused on immersion instead of being treated as a mini-game. Players could easily follow the conversations whilst still feeling like an assassin - story and gameplay complimented each other. Whereas in AC3 tailing became a frustrating and immersion-breaking mini-game of keeping your assassin inside a moving circle. Unless you're good at multi-tasking, it was easy to miss relevant story-related information and some decent dialogue. Story (plot-advancing dialogue) and gameplay were treated as separate elements and in the end, neither ended up being fun (in this particular instance of game design).

Sorry to bring up AC3 in a non-related topic, but I think the comparisons are relevant. AC3 did have more moral ambiguity and depth than AC2, which is why it may seem strange that people seem to prefer the more cliché approach of AC2. The key differences, IMO, are the uncanny valley - AC2 had simpler graphics, so exaggerated animations and personalities were needed - and AC3's difficulties in marrying gameplay with story.

I agree with everything here, but I don't think AC:3 was a great example. IMO. Besides story, the gameplay was an expansion upon AC:2's mainstreaming success. AC:IV's tailing and such would have been better.

Actually I take that back. --That last paragraph finally clicked in my head.

Namikaze_17
08-26-2014, 12:00 AM
Oh, and this thing about Edward & Arno "trying" to be Ezio is bogus IMO.

Ezio's not my fav, but at least he's original...there's only one him and that's what I like.

Edward is original to me as well...I saw his character strictly for what he was, and not a standard for Ezio...

And I don't think Arno should try to be Ezio 2.0 as well...he should stand on his own morals, decisions, actions, etc as his own Man/ Character and not try to live to be another Assassin to entertain the Masses.

SixKeys
08-26-2014, 12:05 AM
I agree with everything here, but I don't think AC:3 was a great example. IMO. Besides story, the gameplay was an expansion upon AC:2's mainstreaming success. AC:IV's tailing and such would have been better.

AC4's tailing was based on AC3's model, so they were exactly the same. AC4 just had even more of them and made the circle slightly bigger. AC2's tailing missions (in the form of stealing letters) were closer to AC2's model. You find the target, listen to a conversation, then follow him whilst watching his body language to anticipate his level of suspicion. If he gets too far, the mission desynchronizes and you have to start over.

LoyalACFan
08-26-2014, 12:47 AM
@OP

Because it was a well-paced, sweeping story with memorable (if somewhat archetypal) characters, in arguably the most beautiful setting this series has produced. AC2 is like a good James Bond movie from the '60s; yeah, the hero is something of a caricature and the villains are stupidly evil, but it's an exciting adventure nonetheless. I don't think it's the best AC story (it trails AC1, ACR, and AC4) but I thoroughly enjoyed it the first time I played it and every time since.

Dev_Anj
08-26-2014, 01:41 AM
Why assassin's creed 2 was such a great game? What made it a success?

Why the story of AC2 was so good and engaging?

In your opinion, do you think Unity can be as good as AC2? What is your expectation?

I think that AC2 was neither a great game, nor did it have an engaging story. I think a lot of its appreciation comes from how it simplified the mechanics of the original, and then added a bunch of superfluous mission types in the name of "variety", as well as the setting. The story was riddled with a lot of amateur mistakes, and honestly is pretty cringe worthy at times.

Here's Shamus Young's article showing AC 2's story flaws:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14305

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 01:45 AM
My favorite type of thread. AC II's story was pretty average, like Fatal said. It replaced all the complexities of AC I with mainstream cliches--Mission system, one dimensional villains and characters with exaggerated personalities.

I'll just paste my best post ever here:

Quite frankly, I think AC II is over-rated. Whether it be by casuals on YT and FB or some hardcore fans, I think it's HUGELY overrated and so is Ezio. I like Ezio, don't get me wrong but he's very one dimensional...he's the typical Hollywood hero--the James Bond and Mary Sue of the franchise and I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

AC II's story was marred by plethora of writing pitfalls, plot-holes and inconsistencies while the Gameplay loop has not really evolved from AC I as people make it seem. I will talk about 5 elements of AC II: Level design, mechanics, Open world (meaning activities, story and aesthetics (setting, atmosphere and soundtrack)
Please do not mistake me for a hater or just some random bum, I really do love the series AND all the AC games but liking something does not negate criticizing it.

-in terms of level design, AC II was decent, the missions were not as open as the Assassinations from AC I but they were decent in that they were all really variable but unfortunately the missions started becoming REALLY repetitive beginning from sequence 7. Meet faction leader, rescue faction soldiers, scatter faction soldiers around, end, rinse and repeat. it was a pretty annoying loop and it lasted for 4 sequences--the Idea behind it was fine once imo but it wasn't enough to really make use of the various gadgets the game gives you like bombs and poison--those would be REALLY fun to tinker with the AI.
Some other missions were really boring and mundane too like the carnival missions. I am an Assassin, I should be out in the field investigating, tailing, assassinating not playing ribbons and capture the flag.
Sequence 13, though was probably my favorite ever in that game in terms of level design. 9 Savonarola targets, positioned really well, surrounded by great archetypes and you can approach how you like. What made AC I great right there.

-Now we come to mechanics. AC has a loop that consists of 3 core elements--navigation, combat and stealth. AC II is top notch in navigation. responsive controls, fast parkour if only marred by a few platforming glitches and bugs and the inconsistent guard detection and AI on rooftops.
Combat was terrible in AC II, though. it was slowed down from AC I because the developers decided to shorten the time between combo kills and the initiating animation. The numerous swords and their stats had no compromise on the battles whatsoever, they were just aesthetic--It didn't matter how many blocks speed had or block had, every sword, knife,hammer and axe was the exact same--the throwing dust at an enemy was really pointless because the attack initiative with the enemy AI is non-existent which makes the battle slow as it is so the mechanic is only there to make the battle EVEN SLOWER. Armor is meaningless because the game is easy as chuck, medicine makes no sense because you never really need it because AGAIN the combat is easy as hell and the amount of health lost is proportionate the number of squares you have, meaning that no matter how much armor you, the amount of damage you take is only proportionate to the amount of health you have and every other weapon is also pointless because the Hidden blade was OP as hell.
The stealth mechanics improvements were not enough for AC II...the assassinating from hiding spot does not work unless the guard is positioned directly there, there's no way to call a guard to you and there's no way to alert them to your presence to lure them. it was basically AC I with a few pointless touches.

-The open world activities of AC II were hit and miss for me. I LOVED the Tombs, Glyphs, Assassination contracts BUT i hated races, beating husbands up and courier missions. For the the races, they just felt unnecessary...I had timed platforming puzzles in the shape of tombs, I don't need them reskinned around the city for no reason.
For the husbands, why would some random woman who i NEVER met stop a random guy who's armored to the teeth and tell him her marital problems and ask him to beat up her husband? it's non-sensical.
For the couriers, it's just dumb--again, we already have timed platforming puzzles, I don't need them again, not to mention the idiocy of thinking that Ezio actually wasted his time for this...oh hey, let me just delay my revenge mission to deliver your letters.

-Storywise for AC II....ugh, where do I even begin? this is my least favorite part to talk about because I really love this game and I thought the story was bad...just bad but this is my honest opinion supported with facts from the source material.

I look back at my time with AC II's story....confusedly, to say the least. I wonder aloud, what happened? what the hell happened with Ezio and his story? it starts well enough untillllll.....sequence 6...barely--nice setup, cool historical conspiracies but then I realize that from the antagonists to the motivation of the hero, there really isn't much....there. The antagonists are a bunch of empty vessels at best and cartoonish, mustache twirling villains at worst. they had no redeeming value--They were cruel, power hungry, dishonorable, corrupt and brutal and that completely removed the grey area in the conflict that made AC I's narrative so great and engaging. AC I made us question our side and our motives because it showed us the other side (templars) talk about their motivations and goals..in AC II, that whole layer was gone..completely gone.
About Ezio, our revenge is finished with the death of Uberto, which is all well and good-- Ezio continues to join the fight because the Pazzi were his enemies and they had a personal hand in his father's death; cool but then earlier he and Mario discuss Giovanni's work and Ezio "takes it up" with no reason or explanation as to why he's suddenly so willing to take responsibility when 5 minutes ago he was going to escape Italy with the remainder of his family.

Going back to Ezio's unexplained sudden "maturity", Ezio really has no reason to fight the Templars in Venice...or Templars at all, for that matter since he makes it pretty clear that he's only after revenge by pursuing Rodrigo. The quest is thus minimized to a list of names on a sheet of paper that Ezio has to eliminate....uhhh why? because his uncle told him so although AGAIN, it was shown that Ezio never really cared for the dribble that his uncle talked about in the office about the Codex pages and Giovanni's work. We are then left with a story of a repoman....except instead of taking your stuff, he stabs you in the face. It's literally nothing more, Ezio said it himself to Salviati who questions why he wants to kill him--Ezio says "Sorry, friend...you are on my list...that seals your fate" That's all there is to it.

The biggest cluster**** and a minimized example of why AC II's writing is so bad and contrived is sequence 9--the carnival sequence. Ezio is told by Teodora (a reskinned Paola) that he needs a mask to enter the Carnival, a golden mask that can only be won in the Carnival games and that he cannot forge nor steal one because each mask is numbered...Ezio plays all these games and wastes all this time only to have the victory be given to Dante...and then Ezio is told to steal it...woah ahhh, wasn't each Mask numbered? WHY DIDN'T HE STEAL IT FROM THE BEGINNING?? why go through all this crap? It rendered EVERYTHING we worked for in that sequence pointless and to top things off, Paola is inside the party....with no Mask...matter of fact, no one else inside the party is wearing a mask..thus making the whole Mask story an awkward plot device placed there as an excuse for supposed story line progression.

Many of the alliances that Ezio makes throughout the story make absolutely no sense--There's no way that a 20 something kid who was betrayed by a close family friend would be so huggy huggy and friendly with EACH and EVERY person he meets, it just doesn't make any sense. He's all friendly with Paola and leaves his mom and his sister with her when SHE'S A PROSTITUTE AND COULD HAVE BEEN PAYED BY THE TEMPLARS TO MURDER THEM. He's all friendly with Antonio when he's suspicious as hell "we know all about you Ezio and we know your name too lol" and why in god's name would Ezio friggin risk getting killed or imprisoned on his FIRST DAY in Venice--during his revenge vendetta--by helping Rosa? oooooh the lady in distress plot device and we all know how ***** Ezio is because that makes sense, right? Ezio spends the next 5 years helping Antonio...5 years to assassinate ONE target and then the script strips all that away when Grimaldi says "the Assassin has been here for weeks" No, man....no, I haven't, I'v been here for years.

This brings me to the Revelation that EVERYONE Ezio has met and allied with was an Assassin (The cast of characters that was just a copy and paste from each other with not a single interesting one apart from La Volpe)....yaaaaaay, surpriiiiiiiise, I wont speak about how contrived and nonsensical this is but how in the hell is shoving Machiavelli in there in any way relevant? He was friggin 19 and he was supposed to be some big boss.....WHAT?
Ezio's motivations are also another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great.
Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle.
Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game...we're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands...no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No..."I thought i was beyond this but i'm not" is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then..."killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"--WHAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? how does this make any sense?

Not to mention that the modern was COMPLETELY thrown to the side and no progression happened AT ALL. We only see Desmond and the team TWICE during the whole game and the second time, we see Altair too so not only is Desmond thrown to the side but he has to share his screen time with Altair in a COMPLETELY unnecessary scene that does nothing for the plot. The bleeding effect plot point was already teased in the start and fully shown during his training so why add that Altair portion?

Can Unity beat AC II? I hope so...it wont be hard.

rprkjj
08-26-2014, 01:52 AM
I think that AC2 was neither a great game, nor did it have an engaging story. I think a lot of its appreciation comes from how it simplified the mechanics of the original, and then added a bunch of superfluous mission types in the name of "variety", as well as the setting. The story was riddled with a lot of amateur mistakes, and honestly is pretty cringe worthy at times.

Here's Shamus Young's article showing AC 2's story flaws:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14305

Every mechanic that was in AC1 was in AC2. Beat ups, tails, eavesdropping, everything including assassination, combat and freerunning, which we got more options for.

I think AC2 was successful for the likeable protagonist, great atmosphere, beautiful setting, larger historical aspect, assassin tombs, and answering questions or following up on plot points from AC1. Sites like X-Play gave AC2 a 4 out of 5 but still nominated it for GOTY. For all it's flaws, the overall experience shined through.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 01:53 AM
I think that AC2 was neither a great game, nor did it have an engaging story. I think a lot of its appreciation comes from how it simplified the mechanics of the original, and then added a bunch of superfluous mission types in the name of "variety", as well as the setting. The story was riddled with a lot of amateur mistakes, and honestly is pretty cringe worthy at times.

Here's Shamus Young's article showing AC 2's story flaws:

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14305
Let me just paste the entire post here:

So the end of Assassin’s Creed 2 is the big moment where you don’tassassinate people? At the big ending, both protagonists pass on obvious and easy chances to kill Borgia and Vidic. Letting those creeps live will obviously lead to misery in the future, but Desmond and Ezio are slaves to this idiot plot.
I am giving Assassin’s Creed 2 my Goldun Riter Awward for storytelling. I realize this award might be somewhat controversial. I’ve only given it twice before. Does this game deserve to stand alongside Champions Online and Fable 2 as titles with laughably idiotic writing? Is it really that bad? Is it really worse than Fallout 3?
I think so. I’m not really faulting the game for the business with the alien artifact, or the fact that everyone from Eli Whitney to Elvis Presley was apparently a Templar. Yes, those ideas seemed kind of cornball at times, but I think those elements are a fine starting point. In the right hands, that can work. No, the problems with Assassin’s Creed 2 are thus:


The tone is all over the place. We see an entire family hung in public, including a small boy, as the beginning of Ezio’s character arc. This does not fit with carneval, or “it’s-a me!” or any of the other absurd, lighthearted moments. The opening screams to the player, “I am a dark and gritty game! Take me seriously!” Then it begins undermining that setup and turns the whole thing into a farce. And yet it still expects us to sit through a bunch of mustache-twirling exposition on the part of the bad guys. You can have a grounded game that demands to be taken seriously. (Heavy Rain, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect.) You can have a zany game where fun comes first. (Saint’s Row 2, Serious Sam, Overlord.) You should be very, very careful when mixing these elements, in order to avoid making a joke of your own world. (See also (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1670).)
The writers cheat like crazy. Here we have a game where you can excuse most videogame contrivances with “animus did it”. Additionally, the Pieces of Eden provide them with a convenient magic Macguffin that can do anything required by the plot. Finally, the idea that “The Templars write history as it suits them” gives the writers freedom to change historical details that don’t fit their pre-determined story. This is writing on Easy Mode. Yet the writers repeatedly introduced preposterous events that couldn’t be explained by the animus, altered history, or alien technology.The scene where the Spaniard beats ALL OF THE ASSASSINS in a swordfight and then kicks Ezio and runs away is so shockingly, offensively contrived that I am still dumbfounded. That scene is far worse than the moment in Fallout 3 where Dad commits suicide to keep his broken dehumidifier from falling into the hands of people who want to fix it. There is layer upon layer of nonsense in this sequence.


The egg is transported via parkour?
Then the egg is put into a parade for delivery?
Delivery takes place in a public place, and not a fortified one?
Borgia is able to keep up with Ezio in a swordfight?
Borgia produces mooks from nowhere?
Everyone Ezio has ever known just happens to arrive at the same time, here, at this moment, despite them not being part of the plan?
And they’re all assassins?
And they’re apparently useless against one fat old guy?
And Borgia manages to hold off everyone, despite being surrounded? Even useless non-assassins ought to be able to stab him in the back.
And then Borgia manages to ESCAPE, despite being surrounded?
Nobody even TRIES to chase him?

This is a childish hackjob from start to end. I can’t believe this was written, approved, and put into production. Shameful.
And this ending sequence is just as ridiculous.

Ezio is a gigantic Black Hole Mary Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackHoleSue). He’s a super being who somehow became the most accomplished assassin in history without any real training. He’s fabulously, effortlessly rich. Women throw themselves at him everywhere he goes. He advises Leonardo Da Vinci on how to be a better inventor. He’s the first man to fly. Then at the end, we learn that all of his friends are secretly assassins, only they didn’t tell him because they were trying to… guide him? Somehow? The point is: It’s all about YOU, Ezio! You’re the only one everybody thinks about. The only one who can accomplish anything. Your friends don’t have lives of their own. When you’re not around, all they talk about is you. You’re so important they form a secret conspiracy within their already-secret society, the sole purpose of which was to give you as much of the limelight as possible.
Ezio’s doesn’t have a character arc, he has a flat line that suddenly lurches downward at the end. Ezio begins the game as a privileged, spoiled, womanizing, self-important punk. Over the course of the game he transforms into an arrogant ******* who murders people because he’s angry. Then he finally gets a chance to behave like an assassin and kill a dangerous and important Templar, but he decides not to because he doesn’t feel like it anymore. It’s all about him, and since his revenge is sated he no longer cares. This guy was never an assassin. He was just a murderer.And they decided to make two more games starring this reprehensible *******?

The bad guys were comical evil villains with no goal. The first game gave us some nice philosophical ideas to play with. Would you use force to prevent war? Would you bend people to your will to MAKE a more peaceful, harmonious society? Vidic proposed some interesting ideas in the first game. His portrayal gave the Templars an understandable yet thoroughly distasteful worldview. We could understand what they were doing, even as we fought to oppose them.In Assassin’s Creed 2, I didn’t see any of that. The bad guys were just Bad People. What was Borgia’s goal? Yes, he did all those things in order to become pope and gain access to the vault, but why? Just to play around with it? Did he want to use it for something in particular? Or did he want it simply because it was powerful? It doesn’t matter. He’s the most cardboard type of villain: He killed your family, left you to die, and then tried to conquer the world. Because.
I wouldn’t mind this so much is the first game hadn’t been so much better.

It would be one thing if the story was a small part of a larger experience. I don’t hold Oblivion or Fallout 3 to the same standards, because the story in those games is very small compared to the massive world of freeform roaming, leveling, crafting, looting, collecting, and dungeon-diving. You can skip dialog and get back to the gameplay if you’re in a hurry. (Although I’m always adamant that those games should do much better. I mean, there’s never a reason for the writing to be crappy, just like there’s never a reason to make a horrible interface.) But in Assassin’s Creed 2, the plot drives the gameplay. You’ll spend most of your time executing the missions given to you in those un-skippable cutscenes, and so the actions you’re taking need to make sense and move you towards an established goal. The lesson here is simple: If you’re going to write dreck, don’t put your story on a silver platter and shine a spotlight on it.
Most of all, I’m giving Assassin’s Creed 2 the Goldun Riter Awwardbecause this company and this series could have done so much better. These contrivances could have been painted over with just a bit of forethought. This is a plot ruined by set-piece driven design, and then further crippled by lazy writing. The first game may have a few issues with the writing (although I can’t think of any right now) but it was a far more coherent piece of work. This company is capable of doing better. They didn’t. So now they get this:

Megas_Doux
08-26-2014, 02:16 AM
The thing is that despite its flaws, AC II gets away with stuff other AC´s dont and remains the most critically aclaimed game in the series.

I think because Ezio is likeable, the setting is beautiful -despite its not so good graphics- and the soundtrack is one of the best ever. OH and the Mysteries/conspiracies it had in the form of the gyphs.

rprkjj
08-26-2014, 02:24 AM
My favorite type of thread. AC II's story was pretty average, like Fatal said. It replaced all the complexities of AC I with mainstream cliches--Mission system, one dimensional villains and characters with exaggerated personalities.

I'll just paste my best post ever here:

Quite frankly, I think AC II is over-rated. Whether it be by casuals on YT and FB or some hardcore fans, I think it's HUGELY overrated and so is Ezio. I like Ezio, don't get me wrong but he's very one dimensional...he's the typical Hollywood hero--the James Bond and Mary Sue of the franchise and I just don't see what all the fuss is about.

AC II's story was marred by plethora of writing pitfalls, plot-holes and inconsistencies while the Gameplay loop has not really evolved from AC I as people make it seem. I will talk about 5 elements of AC II: Level design, mechanics, Open world (meaning activities, story and aesthetics (setting, atmosphere and soundtrack)
Please do not mistake me for a hater or just some random bum, I really do love the series AND all the AC games but liking something does not negate criticizing it.

-in terms of level design, AC II was decent, the missions were not as open as the Assassinations from AC I but they were decent in that they were all really variable but unfortunately the missions started becoming REALLY repetitive beginning from sequence 7. Meet faction leader, rescue faction soldiers, scatter faction soldiers around, end, rinse and repeat. it was a pretty annoying loop and it lasted for 4 sequences--the Idea behind it was fine once imo but it wasn't enough to really make use of the various gadgets the game gives you like bombs and poison--those would be REALLY fun to tinker with the AI.
Some other missions were really boring and mundane too like the carnival missions. I am an Assassin, I should be out in the field investigating, tailing, assassinating not playing ribbons and capture the flag.
Sequence 13, though was probably my favorite ever in that game in terms of level design. 9 Savonarola targets, positioned really well, surrounded by great archetypes and you can approach how you like. What made AC I great right there.

-Now we come to mechanics. AC has a loop that consists of 3 core elements--navigation, combat and stealth. AC II is top notch in navigation. responsive controls, fast parkour if only marred by a few platforming glitches and bugs and the inconsistent guard detection and AI on rooftops.
Combat was terrible in AC II, though. it was slowed down from AC I because the developers decided to shorten the time between combo kills and the initiating animation. The numerous swords and their stats had no compromise on the battles whatsoever, they were just aesthetic--It didn't matter how many blocks speed had or block had, every sword, knife,hammer and axe was the exact same--the throwing dust at an enemy was really pointless because the attack initiative with the enemy AI is non-existent which makes the battle slow as it is so the mechanic is only there to make the battle EVEN SLOWER. Armor is meaningless because the game is easy as chuck, medicine makes no sense because you never really need it because AGAIN the combat is easy as hell and the amount of health lost is proportionate the number of squares you have, meaning that no matter how much armor you, the amount of damage you take is only proportionate to the amount of health you have and every other weapon is also pointless because the Hidden blade was OP as hell.
The stealth mechanics improvements were not enough for AC II...the assassinating from hiding spot does not work unless the guard is positioned directly there, there's no way to call a guard to you and there's no way to alert them to your presence to lure them. it was basically AC I with a few pointless touches.

-The open world activities of AC II were hit and miss for me. I LOVED the Tombs, Glyphs, Assassination contracts BUT i hated races, beating husbands up and courier missions. For the the races, they just felt unnecessary...I had timed platforming puzzles in the shape of tombs, I don't need them reskinned around the city for no reason.
For the husbands, why would some random woman who i NEVER met stop a random guy who's armored to the teeth and tell him her marital problems and ask him to beat up her husband? it's non-sensical.
For the couriers, it's just dumb--again, we already have timed platforming puzzles, I don't need them again, not to mention the idiocy of thinking that Ezio actually wasted his time for this...oh hey, let me just delay my revenge mission to deliver your letters.

-Storywise for AC II....ugh, where do I even begin? this is my least favorite part to talk about because I really love this game and I thought the story was bad...just bad but this is my honest opinion supported with facts from the source material.

I look back at my time with AC II's story....confusedly, to say the least. I wonder aloud, what happened? what the hell happened with Ezio and his story? it starts well enough untillllll.....sequence 6...barely--nice setup, cool historical conspiracies but then I realize that from the antagonists to the motivation of the hero, there really isn't much....there. The antagonists are a bunch of empty vessels at best and cartoonish, mustache twirling villains at worst. they had no redeeming value--They were cruel, power hungry, dishonorable, corrupt and brutal and that completely removed the grey area in the conflict that made AC I's narrative so great and engaging. AC I made us question our side and our motives because it showed us the other side (templars) talk about their motivations and goals..in AC II, that whole layer was gone..completely gone.
About Ezio, our revenge is finished with the death of Uberto, which is all well and good-- Ezio continues to join the fight because the Pazzi were his enemies and they had a personal hand in his father's death; cool but then earlier he and Mario discuss Giovanni's work and Ezio "takes it up" with no reason or explanation as to why he's suddenly so willing to take responsibility when 5 minutes ago he was going to escape Italy with the remainder of his family.

Going back to Ezio's unexplained sudden "maturity", Ezio really has no reason to fight the Templars in Venice...or Templars at all, for that matter since he makes it pretty clear that he's only after revenge by pursuing Rodrigo. The quest is thus minimized to a list of names on a sheet of paper that Ezio has to eliminate....uhhh why? because his uncle told him so although AGAIN, it was shown that Ezio never really cared for the dribble that his uncle talked about in the office about the Codex pages and Giovanni's work. We are then left with a story of a repoman....except instead of taking your stuff, he stabs you in the face. It's literally nothing more, Ezio said it himself to Salviati who questions why he wants to kill him--Ezio says "Sorry, friend...you are on my list...that seals your fate" That's all there is to it.

The biggest cluster**** and a minimized example of why AC II's writing is so bad and contrived is sequence 9--the carnival sequence. Ezio is told by Teodora (a reskinned Paola) that he needs a mask to enter the Carnival, a golden mask that can only be won in the Carnival games and that he cannot forge nor steal one because each mask is numbered...Ezio plays all these games and wastes all this time only to have the victory be given to Dante...and then Ezio is told to steal it...woah ahhh, wasn't each Mask numbered? WHY DIDN'T HE STEAL IT FROM THE BEGINNING?? why go through all this crap? It rendered EVERYTHING we worked for in that sequence pointless and to top things off, Paola is inside the party....with no Mask...matter of fact, no one else inside the party is wearing a mask..thus making the whole Mask story an awkward plot device placed there as an excuse for supposed story line progression.

Many of the alliances that Ezio makes throughout the story make absolutely no sense--There's no way that a 20 something kid who was betrayed by a close family friend would be so huggy huggy and friendly with EACH and EVERY person he meets, it just doesn't make any sense. He's all friendly with Paola and leaves his mom and his sister with her when SHE'S A PROSTITUTE AND COULD HAVE BEEN PAYED BY THE TEMPLARS TO MURDER THEM. He's all friendly with Antonio when he's suspicious as hell "we know all about you Ezio and we know your name too lol" and why in god's name would Ezio friggin risk getting killed or imprisoned on his FIRST DAY in Venice--during his revenge vendetta--by helping Rosa? oooooh the lady in distress plot device and we all know how ***** Ezio is because that makes sense, right? Ezio spends the next 5 years helping Antonio...5 years to assassinate ONE target and then the script strips all that away when Grimaldi says "the Assassin has been here for weeks" No, man....no, I haven't, I'v been here for years.

This brings me to the Revelation that EVERYONE Ezio has met and allied with was an Assassin (The cast of characters that was just a copy and paste from each other with not a single interesting one apart from La Volpe)....yaaaaaay, surpriiiiiiiise, I wont speak about how contrived and nonsensical this is but how in the hell is shoving Machiavelli in there in any way relevant? He was friggin 19 and he was supposed to be some big boss.....WHAT?
Ezio's motivations are also another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great.
Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle.
Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game...we're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands...no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No..."I thought i was beyond this but i'm not" is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then..."killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"--WHAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? how does this make any sense?

Not to mention that the modern was COMPLETELY thrown to the side and no progression happened AT ALL. We only see Desmond and the team TWICE during the whole game and the second time, we see Altair too so not only is Desmond thrown to the side but he has to share his screen time with Altair in a COMPLETELY unnecessary scene that does nothing for the plot. The bleeding effect plot point was already teased in the start and fully shown during his training so why add that Altair portion?

Can Unity beat AC II? I hope so...it wont be hard.

I'm sorry, but we got a lot more options for assassination than AC1. Altair could low-profile assassinate, high-profile assassinate, throwing knife or air assassinate. In AC2, we could assassinate from benches, wells, haystack, from greater heights, from ledges, multiple people at once with throwing knives, 2 people at once, air assassinate 2 people at once, poison, or kill with a hidden gun. I don't see how some of those requiring the enemy come to you deduct from that (considering they purposely designed missions so guard paths would usually intersect with hiding places). And then there's plenty that don't require that, methods that actually involve you getting into position: ledges, double assassinations, poison, hidden gun, or multiple knife throws. They're not just useless touches, they directly make assassination a more interesting and enjoyable experience.

I also believe Ezio takes up his fathers mantle after getting a taste when he kills Vieri, or because he couldn't leave his uncle hanging. Probably both. Paola was Ezio's maids sister. Their maid seemed to be close, and stayed with them through their hardship. Paola also shows Ezio the burn. She also helped Ezio blend into crowds, which would have been pointless if she was some double agent. I also see no reason why it's weird for Ezio to help Rosa. She was attacking the palace of his enemy and demonstrated some cool parkour skills. Plus, you said it yourself, Ezio is a ladies' man with an eye for damsels like Caterina. Like I said, Rosa was in the direct employ of Antonio who might've had a romantic connection with her and Ezio saved her, plus Rosa and the other thieves were raiding the palace of a Templar, so it was obvious Antonio could care less what they think.

As for Machiavelli, it wouldn't be the first time AC took liberty with dates. Plus other than Leonardo, there were no historical figure good guys. Also, sure, what transpired during the modern day segments weren't really eventful, but the cliffhanger at the end had bigger implications than anything else before. Other then that, I pretty much agree.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 02:49 AM
I'm sorry, but we got a lot more options for assassination than AC1. Altair could low-profile assassinate, high-profile assassinate, throwing knife or air assassinate. In AC2, we could assassinate from benches, wells, haystack, from greater heights, from ledges, multiple people at once with throwing knives, 2 people at once, air assassinate 2 people at once, poison, or kill with a hidden gun. I don't see how some of those requiring the enemy come to you deduct from that (considering they purposely designed missions so guard paths would usually intersect with hiding places). And then there's plenty that don't require that, methods that actually involve you getting into position: ledges, double assassinations, poison, hidden gun, or multiple knife throws. They're not just useless touches, they directly make assassination a more interesting and enjoyable experience.
Except assassinating from benches is EXTREMELY rare because there're no missions that has guards walking towards benches not to mention that even when there IS a guard coming, he's accompanied by his buddies which makes it impossible to assassinate without being put into combat. See, this whole assassinating from hiding point is pointless when you can only do it if the game makes it painfully obvious that you can. Hey, leap of faith and look there's this guard STANDING RIGHT THERE..it's no fun because it's linear.
Double assassinations are superficial and just make the game easier, Poison does not work as they had advertised it (poison one and have him kill a target for you), The hidden gun is a reskinned throwing knife that's fancy looking and historically stunning. This is what I mean uninspired changes that seem awesome on the outside but they really just lack depth.


I also believe Ezio takes up his fathers mantle after getting a taste when he kills Vieri, or because he couldn't leave his uncle hanging.
He was willing to 5 minutes ago, what changed? He got rid of Vieri for Mario, he owes him nothing to be honest.


Probably both. Paola was Ezio's maids sister. Their maid seemed to be close, and stayed with them through their hardship. Paola also shows Ezio the burn.She also helped Ezio blend into crowds, which would have been pointless if she was some double agent.
Should have still been A BIT distrustful and wary and what the heck was that burn anyway? it was never explained. I didn't say she SHOULD have been, i'm saying Ezio should have been less huggy huggy with her, I mean...she tells to go to Leo's and a guard conveniently follows him there? I actually thought Paola was the one who sent the guard and set a trap for Ezio.


I also see no reason why it's weird for Ezio to help Rosa. She was attacking the palace of his enemy and demonstrated some cool parkour skills. Plus, you said it yourself, Ezio is a ladies' man with an eye for damsels like Caterina. Like I said, Rosa was in the direct employ of Antonio who might've had a romantic connection with her and Ezio saved her, plus Rosa and the other thieves were raiding the palace of a Templar, so it was obvious Antonio could care less what they think.
She was a thief and she was raiding a palace, I wonder why this thief is raiding this palace...this thief..raiding a palace, such a mystery. That even makes it sound more dumb. So...Ezio's willing to risk everything to save some hot chick? Ezio knew nothing of Antonio at this point


As for Machiavelli, it wouldn't be the first time AC took liberty with dates. Plus other than Leonardo, there were no historical figure good guys. Also, sure, what transpired during the modern day segments weren't really eventful, but the cliffhanger at the end had bigger implications than anything else before. Other then that, I pretty much agree.
Bartolomeo? Lorenzo? Agostino?

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 02:50 AM
http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=14305
I have never seen a place where AC II is so widely hated...it's heaven.

SixKeys
08-26-2014, 02:57 AM
Let me just paste the entire post here:

So the end of Assassin’s Creed 2 is the big moment where you don’tassassinate people? At the big ending, both protagonists pass on obvious and easy chances to kill Borgia and Vidic. Letting those creeps live will obviously lead to misery in the future, but Desmond and Ezio are slaves to this idiot plot.
I am giving Assassin’s Creed 2 my Goldun Riter Awward for storytelling. I realize this award might be somewhat controversial. I’ve only given it twice before. Does this game deserve to stand alongside Champions Online and Fable 2 as titles with laughably idiotic writing? Is it really that bad? Is it really worse than Fallout 3?
I think so. I’m not really faulting the game for the business with the alien artifact, or the fact that everyone from Eli Whitney to Elvis Presley was apparently a Templar. Yes, those ideas seemed kind of cornball at times, but I think those elements are a fine starting point. In the right hands, that can work. No, the problems with Assassin’s Creed 2 are thus:


The tone is all over the place. We see an entire family hung in public, including a small boy, as the beginning of Ezio’s character arc. This does not fit with carneval, or “it’s-a me!” or any of the other absurd, lighthearted moments. The opening screams to the player, “I am a dark and gritty game! Take me seriously!” Then it begins undermining that setup and turns the whole thing into a farce. And yet it still expects us to sit through a bunch of mustache-twirling exposition on the part of the bad guys. You can have a grounded game that demands to be taken seriously. (Heavy Rain, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Arkham Asylum, Mass Effect.) You can have a zany game where fun comes first. (Saint’s Row 2, Serious Sam, Overlord.) You should be very, very careful when mixing these elements, in order to avoid making a joke of your own world. (See also (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=1670).)
The writers cheat like crazy. Here we have a game where you can excuse most videogame contrivances with “animus did it”. Additionally, the Pieces of Eden provide them with a convenient magic Macguffin that can do anything required by the plot. Finally, the idea that “The Templars write history as it suits them” gives the writers freedom to change historical details that don’t fit their pre-determined story. This is writing on Easy Mode. Yet the writers repeatedly introduced preposterous events that couldn’t be explained by the animus, altered history, or alien technology.The scene where the Spaniard beats ALL OF THE ASSASSINS in a swordfight and then kicks Ezio and runs away is so shockingly, offensively contrived that I am still dumbfounded. That scene is far worse than the moment in Fallout 3 where Dad commits suicide to keep his broken dehumidifier from falling into the hands of people who want to fix it. There is layer upon layer of nonsense in this sequence.

The egg is transported via parkour?
Then the egg is put into a parade for delivery?
Delivery takes place in a public place, and not a fortified one?
Borgia is able to keep up with Ezio in a swordfight?
Borgia produces mooks from nowhere?
Everyone Ezio has ever known just happens to arrive at the same time, here, at this moment, despite them not being part of the plan?
And they’re all assassins?
And they’re apparently useless against one fat old guy?
And Borgia manages to hold off everyone, despite being surrounded? Even useless non-assassins ought to be able to stab him in the back.
And then Borgia manages to ESCAPE, despite being surrounded?
Nobody even TRIES to chase him?

This is a childish hackjob from start to end. I can’t believe this was written, approved, and put into production. Shameful.
And this ending sequence is just as ridiculous.
Ezio is a gigantic Black Hole Mary Sue (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlackHoleSue). He’s a super being who somehow became the most accomplished assassin in history without any real training. He’s fabulously, effortlessly rich. Women throw themselves at him everywhere he goes. He advises Leonardo Da Vinci on how to be a better inventor. He’s the first man to fly. Then at the end, we learn that all of his friends are secretly assassins, only they didn’t tell him because they were trying to… guide him? Somehow? The point is: It’s all about YOU, Ezio! You’re the only one everybody thinks about. The only one who can accomplish anything. Your friends don’t have lives of their own. When you’re not around, all they talk about is you. You’re so important they form a secret conspiracy within their already-secret society, the sole purpose of which was to give you as much of the limelight as possible.
Ezio’s doesn’t have a character arc, he has a flat line that suddenly lurches downward at the end. Ezio begins the game as a privileged, spoiled, womanizing, self-important punk. Over the course of the game he transforms into an arrogant ******* who murders people because he’s angry. Then he finally gets a chance to behave like an assassin and kill a dangerous and important Templar, but he decides not to because he doesn’t feel like it anymore. It’s all about him, and since his revenge is sated he no longer cares. This guy was never an assassin. He was just a murderer.And they decided to make two more games starring this reprehensible *******?
The bad guys were comical evil villains with no goal. The first game gave us some nice philosophical ideas to play with. Would you use force to prevent war? Would you bend people to your will to MAKE a more peaceful, harmonious society? Vidic proposed some interesting ideas in the first game. His portrayal gave the Templars an understandable yet thoroughly distasteful worldview. We could understand what they were doing, even as we fought to oppose them.In Assassin’s Creed 2, I didn’t see any of that. The bad guys were just Bad People. What was Borgia’s goal? Yes, he did all those things in order to become pope and gain access to the vault, but why? Just to play around with it? Did he want to use it for something in particular? Or did he want it simply because it was powerful? It doesn’t matter. He’s the most cardboard type of villain: He killed your family, left you to die, and then tried to conquer the world. Because.
I wouldn’t mind this so much is the first game hadn’t been so much better.

It would be one thing if the story was a small part of a larger experience. I don’t hold Oblivion or Fallout 3 to the same standards, because the story in those games is very small compared to the massive world of freeform roaming, leveling, crafting, looting, collecting, and dungeon-diving. You can skip dialog and get back to the gameplay if you’re in a hurry. (Although I’m always adamant that those games should do much better. I mean, there’s never a reason for the writing to be crappy, just like there’s never a reason to make a horrible interface.) But in Assassin’s Creed 2, the plot drives the gameplay. You’ll spend most of your time executing the missions given to you in those un-skippable cutscenes, and so the actions you’re taking need to make sense and move you towards an established goal. The lesson here is simple: If you’re going to write dreck, don’t put your story on a silver platter and shine a spotlight on it.
Most of all, I’m giving Assassin’s Creed 2 the Goldun Riter Awwardbecause this company and this series could have done so much better. These contrivances could have been painted over with just a bit of forethought. This is a plot ruined by set-piece driven design, and then further crippled by lazy writing. The first game may have a few issues with the writing (although I can’t think of any right now) but it was a far more coherent piece of work. This company is capable of doing better. They didn’t. So now they get this:

I agree with points 3-5. I disagree about point 1, the tone. It's laughable to suggest AC2 tries to present itself as a dark and gritty game just because of the hanging scene. Everything prior to that scene is clearly light-hearted and colorful. You're racing with your brother, beating up your sister's cheating boyfriend while throwing clever quips and listening to your mother embarrass you with talk of va-jayjays. That's like saying Indiana Jones was attempting to be dark and gritty because it had Nazis in it. The humor and adventure happens despite the darkness. That's exactly why AC2 feels so much like a Hollywood movie. You said it yourself: it feels like James Bond. The hero is witty and charming even in the most life-threatening, absurd situations, the villains are cheesy, the locations are romanticized (save for Forlí, perhaps) and the writers do cheat sometimes to stretch out the climax. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with all this because it feels more like a loving tribute to old Hollywood movies as opposed to just lazy writing due to lack of originality. Heck, Ezio was literally swinging on chandeliers a few times. That's classic Erroll Flynn. They're playing with established tropes, not claiming to have reinvented the wheel. I think a lot of people - especially cynical game journalists, who are used to exactly the types of games that try to take themselves too seriously and think they're being dark and gritty - appreciated the cornball plot for being unabashedly fun. Do the characters and their motivations stand up for critical scrutiny in terms of realism? Not really, but as long as the gameplay is engaging, a lot of people are willing to overlook story flaws, just like we don't nitpick our favorite movies for plotholes as long as they're entertaining.

Namikaze_17
08-26-2014, 03:00 AM
I have never seen a place where AC II is so widely hated...it's heaven.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MWymhGi7XM&feature=youtube_gdata_player

*Sobs* It is...

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 03:12 AM
I agree with points 3-5. I disagree about point 1, the tone. It's laughable to suggest AC2 tries to present itself as a dark and gritty game just because of the hanging scene. Everything prior to that scene is clearly light-hearted and colorful. You're racing with your brother, beating up your sister's cheating boyfriend while throwing clever quips and listening to your mother embarrass you with talk of va-jayjays. That's like saying Indiana Jones was attempting to be dark and gritty because it had Nazis in it. The humor and adventure happens despite the darkness. That's exactly why AC2 feels so much like a Hollywood movie. You said it yourself: it feels like James Bond. The hero is witty and charming even in the most life-threatening, absurd situations, the villains are cheesy, the locations are romanticized (save for Forlí, perhaps) and the writers do cheat sometimes to stretch out the climax. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with all this because it feels more like a loving tribute to old Hollywood movies as opposed to just lazy writing due to lack of originality. Heck, Ezio was literally swinging on chandeliers a few times. That's classic Erroll Flynn. They're playing with established tropes, not claiming to have reinvented the wheel. I think a lot of people - especially cynical game journalists, who are used to exactly the types of games that try to take themselves too seriously and think they're being dark and gritty - appreciated the cornball plot for being unabashedly fun. Do the characters and their motivations stand up for critical scrutiny in terms of realism? Not really, but as long as the gameplay is engaging, a lot of people are willing to overlook story flaws, just like we don't nitpick our favorite movies for plotholes as long as they're entertaining.
To be honest, being all happy and smiling 5 minutes after you witnessed your family hang was cringe-worthy. It's also more about the hanging of a 12 year old rather than the hanging in general--I also think it's okay if the game established a playful tone in the beginning and that's what he's saying but then when the tone changes, it's not engaging when silly lighthearted moments are thrown all over the place.

The lighthearted moments instead of feeling organic and genuinely pleasant, they're silly, forced and cringe-worthy. What's the point of showing Ezio stroking breasts after killing a guy, for example?

rprkjj
08-26-2014, 03:47 AM
Except assassinating from benches is EXTREMELY rare because there're no missions that has guards walking towards benches not to mention that even when there IS a guard coming, he's accompanied by his buddies which makes it impossible to assassinate without being put into combat. See, this whole assassinating from hiding point is pointless when you can only do it if the game makes it painfully obvious that you can. Hey, leap of faith and look there's this guard STANDING RIGHT THERE..it's no fun because it's linear.
Double assassinations are superficial and just make the game easier, Poison does not work as they had advertised it (poison one and have him kill a target for you), The hidden gun is a reskinned throwing knife that's fancy looking and historically stunning. This is what I mean uninspired changes that seem awesome on the outside but they really just lack depth.


He was willing to 5 minutes ago, what changed? He got rid of Vieri for Mario, he owes him nothing to be honest.


Should have still been A BIT distrustful and wary and what the heck was that burn anyway? it was never explained. I didn't say she SHOULD have been, i'm saying Ezio should have been less huggy huggy with her, I mean...she tells to go to Leo's and a guard conveniently follows him there? I actually thought Paola was the one who sent the guard and set a trap for Ezio.


She was a thief and she was raiding a palace, I wonder why this thief is raiding this palace...this thief..raiding a palace, such a mystery. That even makes it sound more dumb. So...Ezio's willing to risk everything to save some hot chick? Ezio knew nothing of Antonio at this point


Bartolomeo? Lorenzo? Agostino?

Double assassinations are superficial?

wut.

In the sense they look cool, sure, and I guess they do make the game a bit easier ( even though we never saw 2 guards arranged beside each other in AC1 making avoiding detection impossible), but really? It's simply another option for assassination that doesn't affect difficulty, thus making assassination better. And does it really feel linear when you wait for a guard on patrol to come around? You could just run up to him and kill him, but using the hiding place automatically hides the body as well as being simply another option. Also, a poisoned guard can kill people. He flails his weapon about and kills people near to him, and also acts as a distraction. That's twice as much depth as any of AC1's assassinations. Also, here are the differences between the hidden gun and the throwing knives:

Hidden gun can 1-shot kill anything.
It alerts everyone nearby.
It takes time to charge.
You can't use multiple shot at once.

Seriously, did you even use it? The historical aspect is just a bonus.

No, Ezio doesn't really owe Mario anything. But Mario is family, and is being hunted by the same people who killed Ezio's family. It'd be a **** move if he had left, considering he could have kept Claudia and Maria perfectly safe in the villa. Also, Leonardo explains that the guards usually harass him, plus Ezio being a wanted man and Leonardo being seen with him and his mother might have subdued the initial suspicions.

And yes, it's obvious that Rosa wanted money, but obviously not from a templar ally. They're far lesser known than Machiavelli, save for Medici, but Machiavelli is the only renowned historical assassin.

RafaelAuditore.
08-26-2014, 03:51 AM
I've never seen AC2 be criticized in such a negative way! I impressed myself, I'm really enjoying this discução, the arguments are very good, tomorrow I will give my opinion in more detail.

Ureh
08-26-2014, 04:43 AM
Cause AC2 came out after AC1, and seemingly addressed most of the complaints from the critics of the first. It was basically the antithesis of AC1 which is what appeals to most folks. Ezio's basically the opposite of Altair, combat was easier, you could double assassinate, do all those special assassination moves, blend almost everywhere, romantic setting, Leo, gondolas, lots of female characters, etc.

rprkjj
08-26-2014, 04:54 AM
Cause AC2 came out after AC1, and seemingly addressed most of the complaints from the critics of the first. It was basically the antithesis of AC1 which is what appeals to most folks. Ezio's basically the opposite of Altair, combat was easier, you could double assassinate, do all those special assassination moves, blend almost everywhere, romantic setting, Leo, gondolas, lots of female characters, etc.

This too.

Sabuto78
08-26-2014, 05:23 AM
Lmao, I hope yall atleast read the books it fills in on a lot of the offscreen moments and goes into more detail of Ezio as a character which were cut from the game.Example

"To be honest, being all happy and smiling 5 minutes after you witnessed your family hang"

It was more like a month not 5 minutes lmao. I could go on but nobody got time for all these "tldr's"

@topic: Ac2 was such a success cause people were really pulled into the story and the character developments/Weapon developments and the city was a lot of fun to explore. This aint Astronomy. Ac4 was the opposite a success because the game was just so much fun a.k.a. naval battles/exploring the sea/islands/multi pistols bang bang.

R.I.P.- Ezio The God

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 06:47 AM
Double assassinations are superficial?

wut.

In the sense they look cool, sure, and I guess they do make the game a bit easier ( even though we never saw 2 guards arranged beside each other in AC1 making avoiding detection impossible), but really? It's simply another option for assassination that doesn't affect difficulty, thus making assassination better.
Then it's superficial. Guards are set up in such a way that allows to double assassinate. Every mission is like this--see, this is the problem with AC II. it introduces all these concepts on paper but it's linear as hell. "Jump here ooooh look, 2 guards standing together--double CHING" there's no contextual observation of surroundings--a good example of double blade-guard placement would be "Hey, there is this one guard--he's walking all the place and oh look, there is this one other guard who's walking all over the place--here's the kicker, they pass by each other--find that moment and double assassinate them" That's when it becomes less superficial and more player driven. That's when it actually matters.


And does it really feel linear when you wait for a guard on patrol to come around? You could just run up to him and kill him, but using the hiding place automatically hides the body as well as being simply another option. Also, a poisoned guard can kill people. He flails his weapon about and kills people near to him, and also acts as a distraction. That's twice as much depth as any of AC1's assassinations.
No, it's not linear but like I said, it's rare and it's PAINFULLY obvious which path the game wants you to take..there's no other way to assassinate the guy but from the hiding spot conveniently placed here--it's so rare that dynamic moments occur where a guard breaks off from the patrol to check a hiding spot or a guard patrolling with more than one way to assassinate.
Nah, a poison guard can HIT people--can he kill them? no--I tried that little bit from the Gamescom demo where Lorenzo gives you a mission to kill a guy in the market without killing him yourself and I tried poisoning his bodyguard and the man never came up to him and check was what was wrong and even when the guard FINALLY landed a hit, the man only faltered but did not die. The distraction concept would be if I was at a safe distance...but i can't be, so a distraction is really rather pointless when you're in a restricted area and want the guards to turn away from facing you so you can pass discreetly.


Also, here are the differences between the hidden gun and the throwing knives:

Hidden gun can 1-shot kill anything.
It alerts everyone nearby.
It takes time to charge.
You can't use multiple shot at once.
The throwing knife was a one shot to kill everything too except the guards in Venice for some reason--the reason the hidden gun is introduced is not only contrived but it makes the whole mechanic feel gamey. The hidden gun was not a reaction to an introduced archetype of enemy, no..they decided we want the hidden gun...what to do to make it different from the knives? make the guards in Venice need two knives to die YES, genius.
It doesnt take time to charge at all, to be honest.


Seriously, did you even use it? The historical aspect is just a bonus.
I did, only when the game made it painfully obvious I had to or told me to--because from sequence 8 (when the gun is introduced), there're no situations that can logically call for the use of the gun without being detected other than the game explicitly telling you to use it.


No, Ezio doesn't really owe Mario anything. But Mario is family, and is being hunted by the same people who killed Ezio's family. It'd be a **** move if he had left, considering he could have kept Claudia and Maria perfectly safe in the villa. Also, Leonardo explains that the guards usually harass him, plus Ezio being a wanted man and Leonardo being seen with him and his mother might have subdued the initial suspicions.
He wasn't being hunted by anybody--the only guy giving him trouble was Vieri and Ezio took care of that. The Templars didn't even think much of him and left his fate to a 17 year old.
The guards usually harassed Leo because he has been in Jail before--so the blending lessons were COMPLETELY pointless then? and the guards eventually tailed Ezio? that said, why didnt the guard just search his house, if he's so sure that being close to the family would mean that Leo is hiding something? surely, the first thing to do is hide him in his place.


And yes, it's obvious that Rosa wanted money, but obviously not from a templar ally.
Why not? lol and how would Ezio know this? How would Ezio even know that Rosa knows what a Templar is? The whole attack was idiotic anyway--who the hell came up with the genius plan to raid a heavily guarded palace in broad daylight?? who planned this?


They're far lesser known than Machiavelli, save for Medici, but Machiavelli is the only renowned historical assassin.
Historical character still shoved in for no reason...he's the leader for god's sake...a boss...and he was 19.


Lmao, I hope yall atleast read the books it fills in on a lot of the offscreen moments and goes into more detail of Ezio as a character which were cut from the game.Example
If you need a book or other piece of media to tell you things for a game, then that game failed to tell you a plot point--which makes the writing faulty.


"To be honest, being all happy and smiling 5 minutes after you witnessed your family hang"

It was more like a month not 5 minutes lmao. I could go on but nobody got time for all these "tldr's"
it took Ezio a month to get to Paola's house? lol..and it's funny how you took JUST this and "explained it" then think that yaaaay, everything else crap in AC II is now gone. If you have something to say or a counter, say it--it's an internet forum, you do nothing BUT read and type.


@topic: Ac2 was such a success cause people were really pulled into the story and the character developments/Weapon developments and the city was a lot of fun to explore. This aint Astronomy. Ac4 was the opposite a success because the game was just so much fun a.k.a. naval battles/exploring the sea/islands/multi pistols bang bang.
Nah, it's more because the series was mainstreamed with any sort of potential introduced in AC I thrown to the wayside in favor of reaching a more broad audience.

Awesome haha

http://simonferrari.com/2009/12/29/assassins-creed-2-0-out-of-5-stars/

Farlander1991
08-26-2014, 07:17 AM
I have a few posts on my blog about ACII.
Sequence 9 (http://stanislavcostiuc.com/2013/11/01/assassins-creed-ii-sequence-9/)
Plot Pacing (http://stanislavcostiuc.com/2013/11/05/assassins-creed-ii-plot-pacing/)
Still haven't gotten around to writing that Sequence 10 post, don't know when that will happen.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:35 AM
I didn't know destructoid gave AC II such a low score lol

http://www.destructoid.com/review-assassin-s-creed-2-155807.phtml

Sesheenku
08-26-2014, 08:28 AM
I don't even care about the story, I just wanted to stab people in the face and then jump away like a ninja.

AC2 was good for me cause it provided a bit more refinement in that game play and a touch more variety. Parkour was made more enjoyable and while the assassinations tended to be more linear I didn't really think about it cause although part of the ride was usually roller coaster, you dropped off at a point in some of them and could approach slightly different. Worse than AC1 in that regard but since everything else is better it was hard to notice it.

AC was a series still trying to find its legs at the time, so they tried AC2 with a more cinematic and typical action game approach and it worked, so they kept it up. Can't blame em. Problem with linear actions games is that they easily get repetitive, especially when you have four games in a row that play VERY similar.


I didn't know destructoid gave AC II such a low score lol

http://www.destructoid.com/review-assassin-s-creed-2-155807.phtml

I don't always agree with Mr.Sterling but he's a sharp man. I greatly enjoy his series "The Jimquisition"

As for that review I do rather agree with it.

My favorite

"It just would have been so much better without the pretentious sci-fi stuff. It's really nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is."

IKR?

"conforming to Ubisoft's "one button does ten thousand things" approach to development."

Heheheh!

wvstolzing
08-26-2014, 10:40 AM
I would've expected better from Jim Sterling on this one.

Landruner
08-26-2014, 11:12 AM
Why assassin's creed 2 was such a great game? What made it a success?

Why the story of AC2 was so good and engaging?

In your opinion, do you think Unity can be as good as AC2? What is your expectation?

Without AC2 and its main Character Ezio that franchise will have died after AC1 - Ezio became legendary Iconic over shadowing Altair (that like Connor did not really get a chance to expand) - They is something "magic" about the 2 first games that I can't explain (even ACB had a bit of it too) - Something that had been missing in the franchise ever since.


I don't even care about the story, I just wanted to stab people in the face and then jump away like a ninja.

AC2 was good for me cause it provided a bit more refinement in that game play and a touch more variety. Parkour was made more enjoyable and while the assassinations tended to be more linear I didn't really think about it cause although part of the ride was usually roller coaster, you dropped off at a point in some of them and could approach slightly different. Worse than AC1 in that regard but since everything else is better it was hard to notice it.

AC was a series still trying to find its legs at the time, so they tried AC2 with a more cinematic and typical action game approach and it worked, so they kept it up. Can't blame em. Problem with linear actions games is that they easily get repetitive, especially when you have four games in a row that play VERY similar.



I don't always agree with Mr.Sterling but he's a sharp man. I greatly enjoy his series "The Jimquisition"

As for that review I do rather agree with it.

My favorite

"It just would have been so much better without the pretentious sci-fi stuff. It's really nowhere near as clever as it thinks it is."

IKR?

"conforming to Ubisoft's "one button does ten thousand things" approach to development."

Heheheh!

Actually that AC2 review was accurate about what does not work in that Franchise - Ubisoft should have use those critics as a template for working them and correcting what is finally the recurrent critics that we (as fans) repproach the most to the developers ever year they make a new one.

Sushiglutton
08-26-2014, 11:36 AM
Imo the key to AC2's success was the choice of setting. The Italian renaissance is such an incredibly rich setting which brings so much to all aspects of the game including the story. You get the Catholic church with its mysticism, symbolism and conspiracies. You get la familia with its strong bounds, honor, vendettas. Tou get colorful personalities, passion, beauty. You get Machiavelli type of cynical, brutal, scheming leaders.

I just think it's the most fascinating culture in the world. It creates this epic sense of.. I dunno.. it's like life, but just more colorful/intense. That's why the Godfather 1-2 (different variation of the culture obv) are considered two of the best movies ever and that's why AC2 is special.

Farlander1991
08-26-2014, 01:00 PM
Sudden question that appeared in my head. Was there a particular reason for Ezio to don a guard's uniform to carry the Apple and take it to Rodrigo? What prevented from tailing from the rooftops (like he has already done several times), air assassinating the **** out of Rodrigo once the guy is located, and then retrieving the Apple from the heavy chest (that the guards can barely run with), i.e. following the core gameplay mechanics rather than a contrived one-off change of uniform?

Sesheenku
08-26-2014, 01:36 PM
Without AC2 and its main Character Ezio that franchise will have died after AC1 - Ezio became legendary Iconic over shadowing Altair (that like Connor did not really get a chance to expand) - They is something "magic" about the 2 first games that I can't explain (even ACB had a bit of it too) - Something that had been missing in the franchise ever since.



Actually that AC2 review was accurate about what does not work in that Franchise - Ubisoft should have use those critics as a template for working them and correcting what is finally the recurrent critics that we (as fans) repproach the most to the developers ever year they make a new one.

Duh, I said that ;P

The quotes I pasted were my favorite criticisms.


Sudden question that appeared in my head. Was there a particular reason for Ezio to don a guard's uniform to carry the Apple and take it to Rodrigo? What prevented from tailing from the rooftops (like he has already done several times), air assassinating the **** out of Rodrigo once the guy is located, and then retrieving the Apple from the heavy chest (that the guards can barely run with), i.e. following the core gameplay mechanics rather than a contrived one-off change of uniform?

Or I don't know.... USE HIS GUN. Lol I mean seriously, game could have ended right there. All Ezio had to do was shoot Rodrigo right in the head.

Hell... he could have probably done that to his face right before battle, Rodrigo wouldn't have known it was possible to have a fire arm in your bracer.

wvstolzing
08-26-2014, 01:57 PM
Or I don't know.... USE HIS GUN. Lol I mean seriously, game could have ended right there. All Ezio had to do was shoot Rodrigo right in the head.

Not when the gun takes 5 seconds to aim, though.

RinoTheBouncer
08-26-2014, 01:58 PM
Edward wasn't trying to be Ezio, I actually struggle to find similar personality traits between the two...

Edward was his own, superbly written character. Certainly more human and interesting than Godzio.

He might have been different but they definitely tried to bring someone who sounds more like Ezio than Altair or Connor. Ezio simply cannot be copied. He’s special and he was original at his time. Even if they make a clone of him in a new game, he won’t be as interesting as before. But I mean that they tried to replicate the fun, reckless, womanizer that was in Ezio, in Edward and it didn’t work like it did for Ezio.

Fatal-Feit
08-26-2014, 03:04 PM
Or I don't know.... USE HIS GUN. Lol I mean seriously, game could have ended right there. All Ezio had to do was shoot Rodrigo right in the head.

Hell... he could have probably done that to his face right before battle, Rodrigo wouldn't have known it was possible to have a fire arm in your bracer.

Ehhh, that's more or less a problem I had with almost every one of Ezio's targets in his trilogy. The missions would have you parkour through a long terrain or other crap, but then when you reach the target, Ezio doesn't do an assassination. (but whenever he does a proper one, it ends up failing and you have a combat sequence - ei; Rodrigo and Shakulu) However, most of the time he would jump into the center of the stage and declare the Templars or other baddies to stop what they are doing, which ends up in a reckless chase and combat sequence.

To this day, I still wonder why fans rarely mentions it, but blames Connor for not a proper Assassin when he did to it Hickey and Charles in comparison to Ezio's 30+ targets.

Ureh
08-26-2014, 04:32 PM
Sudden question that appeared in my head. Was there a particular reason for Ezio to don a guard's uniform to carry the Apple and take it to Rodrigo? What prevented from tailing from the rooftops (like he has already done several times), air assassinating the **** out of Rodrigo once the guy is located, and then retrieving the Apple from the heavy chest (that the guards can barely run with), i.e. following the core gameplay mechanics rather than a contrived one-off change of uniform?

I guess Ezio didn't really know where the Spaniard was and where the apple would've ended up. The final destination might've been inside a building or something then he probably wouldn't be able to air assassinate from the rooftop. Also he probably wanted to get in close for a personal (almost guaranteed) kill. He's really lucky that all the other Assassins were following him though otherwise he wouldn't have made it out of there alive.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 04:38 PM
I guess Ezio didn't really know where the Spaniard was and where the apple would've ended up. The final destination might've been inside a building or something then he probably wouldn't be able to air assassinate from the rooftop. Also he probably wanted to get in close for a personal (almost guaranteed) kill. He's really lucky that all the other Assassins were following him though otherwise he wouldn't have made it out of there alive.
The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds. The guy who was delivering the Apple was followed by Ezio...and Mario...and La Volpe...and Antonio...and Bartolomeo...and Machiavelli...and Teodora...and Paola and he couldn't see any of them? nor did Ezio see any of them? How did Rodrigo manage to escape from 8 people when he's a fat old bastard? Why did nobody chase him?

I think we can all agree that AC II was a success for mainstream, superficial reasons.

ze_topazio
08-26-2014, 05:01 PM
The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it sounds. The guy who was delivering the Apple was followed by Ezio...and Mario...and La Volpe...and Antonio...and Bartolomeo...and Machiavelli...and Teodora...and Paola and he couldn't see any of them? nor did Ezio see any of them? How did Rodrigo manage to escape from 8 people when he's a fat old bastard? Why did nobody chase him?

Assassin's Creed http://www.narutoforums.com/images/smilies/series2/kruemelmonster.gif



There was no point in chasing Rodrigo, they could easily find him again, the first time only took 20 years after all.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 05:12 PM
Assassin's Creed http://www.narutoforums.com/images/smilies/series2/kruemelmonster.gif
it's usually just one guy following though....not 8.




There was no point in chasing Rodrigo, they could easily find him again, the first time only took 20 years after all.
I guess you're right.

aL_____eX
08-26-2014, 05:14 PM
I guess Ezio didn't really know where the Spaniard was and where the apple would've ended up. The final destination might've been inside a building or something then he probably wouldn't be able to air assassinate from the rooftop. Also he probably wanted to get in close for a personal (almost guaranteed) kill. He's really lucky that all the other Assassins were following him though otherwise he wouldn't have made it out of there alive.
You mean on all the rooftops which he couldn't use because he didn't know where to go etc. :cool:

Like ze said: That's AC logic.

Dev_Anj
08-26-2014, 06:40 PM
Not really, but as long as the gameplay is engaging, a lot of people are willing to overlook story flaws, just like we don't nitpick our favorite movies for plotholes as long as they're entertaining.

While this is an understandable human trait, it also comes in the way of actually trying to analyse any form of media.

Then again, analyzing a creative product without feeling anything for it generally makes for a dull, predictable analysis.

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 06:43 PM
While this is an understandable human trait, it also comes in the way of actually trying to analyse any form of media.

Then again, analyzing a creative product without feeling anything for it generally makes for a dull, predictable analysis.
Yeah, i never understood the excuse for "if there's something good, you ignore all the crap" and if you're analyzing something that's popular, you get called a nitpicker or just given some weird label like "nerd" for wanting to study and getting good grades. I suppose it's just the insecurity of the user "oh that person is actually intelligent? better give them a derogatory label to make myself feel better about the crap i'm doing"

Dev_Anj
08-26-2014, 06:47 PM
...Everything prior to that scene is clearly light-hearted and colorful.

Even the moments where his father gets imprisoned, they imply guards misbehaving with his family and doing terrible things with his mother, he has to fight off some guards, and not to mention how he's forced to hide in a brothel afterwards?

Sushiglutton
08-26-2014, 07:01 PM
I love to how the community is coming together to help M perfect his sig!

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:05 PM
I love to how the community is coming together to help M perfect his sig!
it's so touching, i'm saving them all in folders and making word documents out of them. Some will just be linked to, while i'll take quotes i liked a lot and put it as a picture instead of the flag.

Sushiglutton
08-26-2014, 07:14 PM
it's so touching, i'm saving them all in folders and making word documents out of them. Some will just be linked to, while i'll take quotes i liked a lot and put it as a picture instead of the flag.

It will be your Mona Lisa!

Assassin_M
08-26-2014, 07:20 PM
It will be your Mona Lisa!
indeed it will be--all the pieces just coming together to form the perfect picture--a picture that looks at you no matter where you are.

I shall be called Meonardo Da Ubi Forums

EmbodyingSeven5
08-26-2014, 09:19 PM
Why assassin's creed 2 was such a great game? What made it a success?

Why the story of AC2 was so good and engaging?

In your opinion, do you think Unity can be as good as AC2? What is your expectation?

my opinion is probably really biased because AC 2 was my second open world game. and my first was risen. I don't really have a pure favorite but I thought AC 2s story was better than 3

MakimotoJin
08-26-2014, 10:39 PM
Well I played AC2 a long time ago,and when I play it again,I see that it isn't a "special" AC,well at least in my opinion.
I liked AC2 just like the first one,and the third,and all the other ones.I don't see anything different.

rprkjj
08-26-2014, 11:31 PM
Then it's superficial. Guards are set up in such a way that allows to double assassinate. Every mission is like this--see, this is the problem with AC II. it introduces all these concepts on paper but it's linear as hell. "Jump here ooooh look, 2 guards standing together--double CHING" there's no contextual observation of surroundings--a good example of double blade-guard placement would be "Hey, there is this one guard--he's walking all the place and oh look, there is this one other guard who's walking all over the place--here's the kicker, they pass by each other--find that moment and double assassinate them" That's when it becomes less superficial and more player driven. That's when it actually matters.


No, it's not linear but like I said, it's rare and it's PAINFULLY obvious which path the game wants you to take..there's no other way to assassinate the guy but from the hiding spot conveniently placed here--it's so rare that dynamic moments occur where a guard breaks off from the patrol to check a hiding spot or a guard patrolling with more than one way to assassinate.
Nah, a poison guard can HIT people--can he kill them? no--I tried that little bit from the Gamescom demo where Lorenzo gives you a mission to kill a guy in the market without killing him yourself and I tried poisoning his bodyguard and the man never came up to him and check was what was wrong and even when the guard FINALLY landed a hit, the man only faltered but did not die. The distraction concept would be if I was at a safe distance...but i can't be, so a distraction is really rather pointless when you're in a restricted area and want the guards to turn away from facing you so you can pass discreetly.


The throwing knife was a one shot to kill everything too except the guards in Venice for some reason--the reason the hidden gun is introduced is not only contrived but it makes the whole mechanic feel gamey. The hidden gun was not a reaction to an introduced archetype of enemy, no..they decided we want the hidden gun...what to do to make it different from the knives? make the guards in Venice need two knives to die YES, genius.
It doesnt take time to charge at all, to be honest.


I did, only when the game made it painfully obvious I had to or told me to--because from sequence 8 (when the gun is introduced), there're no situations that can logically call for the use of the gun without being detected other than the game explicitly telling you to use it.


He wasn't being hunted by anybody--the only guy giving him trouble was Vieri and Ezio took care of that. The Templars didn't even think much of him and left his fate to a 17 year old.
The guards usually harassed Leo because he has been in Jail before--so the blending lessons were COMPLETELY pointless then? and the guards eventually tailed Ezio? that said, why didnt the guard just search his house, if he's so sure that being close to the family would mean that Leo is hiding something? surely, the first thing to do is hide him in his place.


Why not? lol and how would Ezio know this? How would Ezio even know that Rosa knows what a Templar is? The whole attack was idiotic anyway--who the hell came up with the genius plan to raid a heavily guarded palace in broad daylight?? who planned this?


Historical character still shoved in for no reason...he's the leader for god's sake...a boss...and he was 19.


If you need a book or other piece of media to tell you things for a game, then that game failed to tell you a plot point--which makes the writing faulty.


it took Ezio a month to get to Paola's house? lol..and it's funny how you took JUST this and "explained it" then think that yaaaay, everything else crap in AC II is now gone. If you have something to say or a counter, say it--it's an internet forum, you do nothing BUT read and type.


Nah, it's more because the series was mainstreamed with any sort of potential introduced in AC I thrown to the wayside in favor of reaching a more broad audience.

Awesome haha

http://simonferrari.com/2009/12/29/assassins-creed-2-0-out-of-5-stars/

You can double assassinate any 2 people standing next to each other, so your scenario is plausible. But I do suppose you're right, the game purposely positions guards to maximize the effectiveness of the hiding places. And I don't have a problem with that, AC1 did the exact same thing. I don't find it painfully obvious, just clear what my best course of action is. I'm pretty sure if you back someone to a wall, poisoning someone cornering him would kill him. And the distraction can lure guards to hiding places, it also draws them from their posts when they're guarding codex pages and other places.

I'm actually pretty sure it takes a while for the gun to charge, and just because it may not be as useful as the throwing knife doesn't mean they're the same thing. Like you said, guards take 2 throwing knives, 1 gun shot.The guard was probably just being a ****, like most guards that get dialogue. Rosa's Templars ally probably wouldn't have appreciate it, so that's why not. And if she didn't know what a Templars was, that's another reason Ezio has nothing to fear from the thieves. Machiavelli wasn't necessarily shoved in for no reason, like I explained.

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 12:00 AM
You can double assassinate any 2 people standing next to each other, so your scenario is plausible. But I do suppose you're right, the game purposely positions guards to maximize the effectiveness of the hiding places. And I don't have a problem with that, AC1 did the exact same thing. I don't find it painfully obvious, just clear what my best course of action is. I'm pretty sure if you back someone to a wall, poisoning someone cornering him would kill him. And the distraction can lure guards to hiding places, it also draws them from their posts when they're guarding codex pages and other places.
My problem with that is that people are treating it as some revolutionary concept when it's really not--instead of one guard placed somewhere for you to assassinate, there're two guards and ooop you have two hidden blades. It doesn't feel like a necessity, the guard placement for them is not dynamic at all.
AC I didn't do the same thing, though...what AC I does is simplistic without saying it's an evolution--AC II is as simplistic as AC I while saying "hey, this is better than AC I"
The best course of action is the only course of action, though..
oh suuuure, lets waste time to contrive a wonky gameplay mechanic to back someone to a wall (The AI backs away when hit, mind you) not to mention the unnecessarily tedious task of making sure they're EXACTLY in the right place.
That's all just fooling around in free roam, though...that's fun in all open world games but in the story mode and side missions--when the level design does not encourage nor make the gadgets work properly-- it's a problem.


I'm actually pretty sure it takes a while for the gun to charge
I'm pretty sure it doesn't:p


and just because it may not be as useful as the throwing knife doesn't mean they're the same thing. Like you said, guards take 2 throwing knives, 1 gun shot.
Like I explained, it's unnecessary..the hidden gun should be a reaction to an idea, not the other way around--oh, we want gun, what do we do? make guards in Venice need two knives to die..it's gamey and uninspired.


The guard was probably just being a ****, like most guards that get dialogue.
What?


Rosa's Templars ally probably wouldn't have appreciate it, so that's why not.
what Templar ally?


And if she didn't know what a Templars was, that's another reason Ezio has nothing to fear from the thieves.
My point was Ezio had no business saving Rosa, Templar ally or not..he was on a mission to find and assassinate Emilio, why waste time and endanger prison or death to save a couple of thieves? They stole money from him so why bother saving a thief who was going to steal from ANOTHER person? this isnt about trust or not, this is about priorities and that scene right there only serves to enhance Ezio's "ohohohohoh such ladies man" persona.


Machiavelli wasn't necessarily shoved in for no reason, like I explained.
that's the reason? really? we need a good guy? that's literally shoving a historical character for no reason..Mario was there, Volpe was there--they would'v made fine leaders, there was no need for Machiavelli.

rprkjj
08-27-2014, 12:18 AM
My problem with that is that people are treating it as some revolutionary concept when it's really not--instead of one guard placed somewhere for you to assassinate, there're two guards and ooop you have two hidden blades. It doesn't feel like a necessity, the guard placement for them is not dynamic at all.
AC I didn't do the same thing, though...what AC I does is simplistic without saying it's an evolution--AC II is as simplistic as AC I while saying "hey, this is better than AC I"
The best course of action is the only course of action, though..
oh suuuure, lets waste time to contrive a wonky gameplay mechanic to back someone to a wall (The AI backs away when hit, mind you) not to mention the unnecessarily tedious task of making sure they're EXACTLY in the right place.
That's all just fooling around in free roam, though...that's fun in all open world games but in the story mode and side missions--when the level design does not encourage nor make the gadgets work properly-- it's a problem.


I'm pretty sure it doesn't:p


Like I explained, it's unnecessary..the hidden gun should be a reaction to an idea, not the other way around--oh, we want gun, what do we do? make guards in Venice need two knives to die..it's gamey and uninspired.


What?


what Templar ally?


My point was Ezio had no business saving Rosa, Templar ally or not..he was on a mission to find and assassinate Emilio, why waste time and endanger prison or death to save a couple of thieves? They stole money from him so why bother saving a thief who was going to steal from ANOTHER person? this isnt about trust or not, this is about priorities and that scene right there only serves to enhance Ezio's "ohohohohoh such ladies man" persona.


that's the reason? really? we need a good guy? that's literally shoving a historical character for no reason..Mario was there, Volpe was there--they would'v made fine leaders, there was no need for Machiavelli.

I dont think people are treating it like its revolutionary, just that it's a good addition and improves assassination, which it does. The guards are dynamic, they patrol. And with more ways to lure like thieves, throwing coins or poisoning someone, there's a lot of ways you could line some guards up for a double kill. And the best course of action is never the only course of action. It's an open world game with mostly open-ended missions for you to play with using a lot more tools than AC1. There's always plenty courses of action. The guard being a **** was my reason for the guard roughing Leonardo up rather then just checking his place.

The Templar I'm talking about is a hypothetical one that would only exist if Rosa hadn't attacked a templar's palace, thus disproving that the thieves had any connection to the Templars and that Ezio had any reason to worry about them. Also, Ezio has done way riskier things than rescuing a woman from some guards and gotten away with it. And yes, that scene does serve to demonstrate Ezio's character. Just like the scene where Connor talks with Norris about girls. Pointless? Almost, if it weren't for characterization.

Brotherhood was also supposed to be a part of AC2, they probably left Machiavelli in there because he would still be relevant in a later game.

Shahkulu101
08-27-2014, 12:39 AM
He might have been different but they definitely tried to bring someone who sounds more like Ezio than Altair or Connor. Ezio simply cannot be copied. He’s special and he was original at his time. Even if they make a clone of him in a new game, he won’t be as interesting as before. But I mean that they tried to replicate the fun, reckless, womanizer that was in Ezio, in Edward and it didn’t work like it did for Ezio.

Ezio was never really reckless, and Edward never womanised anybody throughout the entirety of Black Flag. They advertised him to be like Ezio after the Connor debacle but in reality he was nothing like that.

Fatal-Feit
08-27-2014, 12:57 AM
Ezio was never really reckless, and Edward never womanised anybody throughout the entirety of Black Flag. They advertised him to be like Ezio after the Connor debacle but in reality he was nothing like that.

Ezio was very reckless. Those many, many combat/chase sequences are still burnt into my mind.

Of course, unless you're not about how he executes his missions, then I agree. Between Ezio and Edward, they were reckless in their own way. Edward was not very reckless during his missions, or whatever priorities, but his goals were. Ezio on the other hand was very,very reckless with his missions, but his main goals weren't.

SixKeys
08-27-2014, 12:58 AM
Even the moments where his father gets imprisoned, they imply guards misbehaving with his family and doing terrible things with his mother, he has to fight off some guards, and not to mention how he's forced to hide in a brothel afterwards?

Like I said, the fun and the adventure happens despite the darkness. Have you ever seen Back to the Future? The goofy and kind-hearted Doc Brown gets shot by terrorists in front of his best friend, a teenage boy, within the first 15 minutes (spoilers :p ). Does that mean the movie is gritty and dark? Hell no. That one dramatic scene sets off the rest of the movie which is anything but grim. That's the point I'm trying to make: AC2 is like a Hollywood movie. It plays with clichés, it has only a small amount of drama to offset the light-hearted tone of the rest of the game.

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 12:58 AM
I dont think people are treating it like its revolutionary, just that it's a good addition and improves assassination, which it does. The guards are dynamic, they patrol. And with more ways to lure like thieves, throwing coins or poisoning someone, there's a lot of ways you could line some guards up for a double kill. And the best course of action is never the only course of action. It's an open world game with mostly open-ended missions for you to play with using a lot more tools than AC1. There's always plenty courses of action. The guard being a **** was my reason for the guard roughing Leonardo up rather then just checking his place.
Oh please no, people treat everything about AC II as revolutionary, don't even go there. The guards patrol in groups of 5 or 4--that serves nothing for the stealth because you'll be detected anyway so what difference does it make, one guard or two? no difference.
The thing is, the AI is VERY vague in AC. if you throw coins, the whole group goes to pick up--if you poison someone, the whole group goes to investigate--if you make thieves lure, why would you want to assassinate the guards? they're gone, do whatever you came to do then--it's like I said, to make it work, you have to use a contrived method rather than a tactical gameplay element.
in AC II, it is the only course because that's what the game tells you--any other way would be either tedious or contrived and again, like I said the level design of AC II makes no room for innovative gadget or tool use apart from when the game explicitly tells you to use the tools and gadgets "shoot that guy" "use smoke bombs" etc...input should be like this "you COULD use smoke bombs" "you COULD use the gun" how do you accomplish this? subtle hints like the investigations from AC I and the soon to be awesome blackboxes in AC: Unity.

So the guard just happens to me some sadistic *****? how lucky for Ezio.


The Templar I'm talking about is a hypothetical one that would only exist if Rosa hadn't attacked a templar's palace, thus disproving that the thieves had any connection to the Templars and that Ezio had any reason to worry about them.
Again, like I said..it's not about trust.


Also, Ezio has done way riskier things than rescuing a woman from some guards and gotten away with it.
riskier things that are relevant to HIS MISSION--Rosa and the thieves only HAPPEN to be relevant to his mission. It's forced and it's cliche hollywood writing.


And yes, that scene does serve to demonstrate Ezio's character. Just like the scene where Connor talks with Norris about girls. Pointless? Almost, if it weren't for characterization.
Because we'v seen other scenes where Connor interacts with girls? the difference between those scenes is that we'v been already told that Ezio is a ladies man yadda yadda--They showed it with Cristina, they showed it with the courtesans, they showed it with with that woman in Forli and they showed it with Caterina..okay, we get it, he's ***** all the time--it was like beating a dead horse by then, it was silly.


Brotherhood was also supposed to be a part of AC2, they probably left Machiavelli in there because he would still be relevant in a later game.
Which it wasn't, my point stands.

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 01:06 AM
Like I said, the fun and the adventure happens despite the darkness. Have you ever seen Back to the Future? The goofy and kind-hearted Doc Brown gets shot by terrorists in front of his best friend, a teenage boy, within the first 15 minutes (spoilers :p ). Does that mean the movie is gritty and dark? Hell no. That one dramatic scene sets off the rest of the movie which is anything but grim. That's the point I'm trying to make: AC2 is like a Hollywood movie. It plays with clichés, it has only a small amount of drama to offset the light-hearted tone of the rest of the game.
To be honest, the game is a part of a series. You know how dark the first game is--it's like Saints Row suddenly released a serious game with a serious story. AC II sets a tone at the start where the Templars are winning a war and that they're not even that much of a threat--then throughout the game, there's no consistent tone, if it's a light hearted game, what about all these dark conspiracies being spun? world ending? the premise of AC II is not light hearted, that's what the writer meant about the game telling the player to take it seriously but for some reason, Ezio's story is light hearted and silly.

The back to the future example does not work because it has a light hearted premise, it's a comedy. AC is not a comedy.

SixKeys
08-27-2014, 01:26 AM
The back to the future example does not work because it has a light hearted premise, it's a comedy. AC is not a comedy.

Not comedy, adventure. Just like Indy Jones, Star Wars, basically any classic 70s and 80s blockbuster movies that, I guarantee you, the writers of AC grew up watching. I still maintain that the reason Altaïr, Ezio and Desmond all had the same face wasn't because of technical limitations or Animus BS, it was a nod to BTTF where all of Marty's ancestors/male relatives looked exactly like him. Star Wars (the original trilogy, and especially A New Hope) hardly has a light-hearted premise - the fate of the galaxy is at stake, planets getting blown up - but it still maintains a mostly light-hearted tone throughout. By light-hearted I don't mean pure comedy, I mean entertaining, like Leia and Han's bickering, the gang's constant brushes with death, the iconic villains, the action etc. You have some dark scenes like the deaths of Luke's foster parents, but before things get too depressing, the movie moves on to more entertaining things. Ezio's journey is the classic hero's journey. If everything that happens to him throughout the game seems awfully convenient, just look at Luke.

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 01:40 AM
Not comedy, adventure. Just like Indy Jones, Star Wars, basically any classic 70s and 80s blockbuster movies that, I guarantee you, the writers of AC grew up watching. I still maintain that the reason Altaïr, Ezio and Desmond all had the same face wasn't because of technical limitations or Animus BS, it was a nod to BTTF where all of Marty's ancestors/male relatives looked exactly like him. Star Wars (the original trilogy, and especially A New Hope) hardly has a light-hearted premise - the fate of the galaxy is at stake, planets getting blown up - but it still maintains a mostly light-hearted tone throughout. By light-hearted I don't mean pure comedy, I mean entertaining, like Leia and Han's bickering, the gang's constant brushes with death, the iconic villains, the action etc. You have some dark scenes like the deaths of Luke's foster parents, but before things get too depressing, the movie moves on to more entertaining things. Ezio's journey is the classic hero's journey. If everything that happens to him throughout the game seems awfully convenient, just look at Luke.
I see what you're saying--I guess I just felt let down by the tone previously set by the first game and how realistic it all felt. Even the concept of a those who came before wasn't as "cartoony" as it became in AC II. It was intriguing and interesting but here I am going on again, i'll just concede to your points and lament in my disappointment at the fact that AC I's tone is just a memory now.....or hope that Unity can somehow salvage the tone set by AC I.

Dev_Anj
08-27-2014, 02:14 AM
Like I said, the fun and the adventure happens despite the darkness. Have you ever seen Back to the Future?

No. I get your point though, and I agree that it has a very James Bond feel about it. I just think that the flaws aren't forgivable for me.

Also as far as tonal inconsistency is concerned, you should check this game: http://freebirdgames.com/to_the_moon/

The whole game is about fulfilling the wish of a dying person who's lived a tragic life, yet one of the main characters keeps joking during the interludes, at the annoyance of his companion. I'd like to see you try it and tell me what you think of it.

pirate1802
08-27-2014, 07:01 AM
He might have been different but they definitely tried to bring someone who sounds more like Ezio than Altair or Connor. Ezio simply cannot be copied. He’s special and he was original at his time. Even if they make a clone of him in a new game, he won’t be as interesting as before. But I mean that they tried to replicate the fun, reckless, womanizer that was in Ezio, in Edward and it didn’t work like it did for Ezio.

I'm sorry but if you use those traits to say Edward was an Ezio clone then you must agree that Connor was an Altair clone.In more ways than one. Also Ezio himself was a copy of other characters at other places so..

RinoTheBouncer
08-27-2014, 09:55 AM
I'm sorry but if you use those traits to say Edward was an Ezio clone then you must agree that Connor was an Altair clone.In more ways than one. Also Ezio himself was a copy of other characters at other places so..

Nobody said Edward was Ezio clone, but it was kinda obvious that they wanted to bring someone who feels and sounds more like Ezio after they brought Connor who wasn’t received very positively. Connor was indeed a more serious character like Altair but that doesn’t make him a clone. Altair didn’t have Connor’s recklessness and naiveté and Connor didn’t have the wits of Altair.

pirate1802
08-27-2014, 10:11 AM
Nobody said Edward was Ezio clone, but it was kinda obvious that they wanted to bring someone who feels and sounds more like Ezio

And how is Edward more like Ezio? Because he is a quote-unquote charming womanizer? There are as many differences between the two, perhaps more which people seem to ignore.


Connor was indeed a more serious character like Altair but that doesn’t make him a clone. Altair didn’t have Connor’s recklessness and naiveté and Connor didn’t have the wits of Altair.

And yet both saw their parent killed before their eyes, and both were NOT womanizers! (trait used to draw similarity between Edward and Ezio the most) Seems pretty clonish to me. :rolleyes:

RinoTheBouncer
08-27-2014, 10:28 AM
And how is Edward more like Ezio? Because he is a quote-unquote charming womanizer? There are as many differences between the two, perhaps more which people seem to ignore.



And yet both saw their parent killed before their eyes, and both were NOT womanizers! (trait used to draw similarity between Edward and Ezio the most) Seems pretty clonish to me. :rolleyes:

If you see them as clones, so be it. Haha

roostersrule2
08-27-2014, 11:30 AM
Why is this thread neccesary?

Everyone knows AC2 and Ezio wipe the floor with anything else AC related past, present and future. Repetitive Creed 1 was *** with a monotone American Syrian in the 12th century at the helm. Bruvahood was just a sheep and trying to be AC2. Lack-of-revelations was just AC2 with a walking stick. Cutscene creed 3 is the worst thing in existence, barring it's lead of course, Con-Hur. Then Pirates Creed came along full with yarrs and arrs trying to be AC2 with ships and with it's protagonist Scissorhands trying to be God, I mean Ezio.

MrHandsss
08-27-2014, 12:20 PM
Well I know I enjoyed the story in AC II because I gave a damn about what was happening. Desmond and his friends had to stop a very real and interesting threat that was unfolding and it was a brand new setting in the animus with a character that was just great.

As much as I loved the animus setting in Black Flag, I am NOT one of those people who thinks the games should just be these segments. I want to also care about the present day sections. I didn't care at all though about being a nameless employee in first person and I hated that I was no longer really with the assassins or doing anything productive, it felt like. Even Juno is kinda stuck right now, so there's no need to be quick and rush. AC 1 all the way to 3 had everyone pressed for time, rushing against a clock.

I doubt I'm going to care much in Unity either. I DON'T want to play as "myself". I want there to be another character with an identity i can observe and play as and I want there to be a real sense of urgency again.

GunnerGalactico
08-27-2014, 12:22 PM
And how is Edward more like Ezio? Because he is a quote-unquote charming womanizer? There are as many differences between the two, perhaps more which people seem to ignore.



]And yet both saw their parent killed before their eyes, and both were NOT womanizers! (trait used to draw similarity between Edward and Ezio the most) Seems pretty clonish to me. :rolleyes:

@ pirate

I think it was because of the trailer (the one with two women lying in bed) that most people in general got the wrong impression of Edward and called him an Ezio clone.

ACfan443
08-27-2014, 03:55 PM
Why is this thread neccesary?

Everyone knows AC2 and Ezio wipe the floor with anything else AC related past, present and future. Repetitive Creed 1 was *** with a monotone American Syrian in the 12th century at the helm. Bruvahood was just a sheep and trying to be AC2. Lack-of-revelations was just AC2 with a walking stick. Cutscene creed 3 is the worst thing in existence, barring it's lead of course, Con-Hur. Then Pirates Creed came along full with yarrs and arrs trying to be AC2 with ships and with it's protagonist Scissorhands trying to be God, I mean Ezio.

I lost it at 'lack-of-revelations was just AC2 with a walking stick'.
10/10.

dm2626
08-27-2014, 04:52 PM
I think it had a lot to do with the original game director fine tuning his artistic vision similarly to what Bryan Singer managed to do with X2.

ze_topazio
08-27-2014, 05:09 PM
Why is this thread neccesary?

Everyone knows AC2 and Ezio wipe the floor with anything else AC related past, present and future. Repetitive Creed 1 was *** with a monotone American Syrian in the 12th century at the helm. Bruvahood was just a sheep and trying to be AC2. Lack-of-revelations was just AC2 with a walking stick. Cutscene creed 3 is the worst thing in existence, barring it's lead of course, Con-Hur. Then Pirates Creed came along full with yarrs and arrs trying to be AC2 with ships and with it's protagonist Scissorhands trying to be God, I mean Ezio.

This post is hilarious. ;)





























and most of it actually true.

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 05:15 PM
Well I know I enjoyed the story in AC II because I gave a damn about what was happening. Desmond and his friends had to stop a very real and interesting threat that was unfolding and it was a brand new setting in the animus with a character that was just great.
The game itself did not give a damn about what was happening in the modern day.

Kakuzu745
08-27-2014, 07:01 PM
AC2 is just the point where the series went mainstream big time.

I only hope Unity has that special "something" that made me enjoy AC1 and Revelations so much...and form what it seems, it will have it.

SlyTrooper
08-27-2014, 07:25 PM
AC2 is just the point where the series went mainstream big time.

I only hope Unity has that special "something" that made me enjoy AC1 and Revelations so much...and form what it seems, it will have it.

I don't think Revelations had a special something, but each to their own.

MakimotoJin
08-27-2014, 08:31 PM
So I guess this thread just became "let's hate on AC2".The game has some problems,but so did Super Mario Bros.My opinion is that AC1-ACR was the beginning.And....please don't hate me,but I loved AC3.Just as I loved Sonic Adventure and Super Mario Sunshine.
Now,let's all embrace Ubisoft and wait for it new ACs.Or not.Free world.

Hans684
08-27-2014, 08:36 PM
^It's rear to have a "let's hate AC2 thread", it's just bringing balance.

SlyTrooper
08-27-2014, 09:18 PM
^It's rear to have a "let's hate AC2 thread", it's just bringing balance.

Will I be brutally murdered if I say that AC2 is my second favourite AC after ACIV?

Kakuzu745
08-27-2014, 09:30 PM
Well that is what happens when you create a post asking if Unity will be at the same level of AC2 implying AC2 was some sort of godlike game. Most of the people started to like AC because of that game...that does not mean there is some sort of consensus that this is the best game of the franchise.

As Sly replied to me...to each their own,but people should not assume there is a consensus around this...

SlyTrooper
08-27-2014, 09:52 PM
Well that is what happens when you create a post asking if Unity will be at the same level of AC2 implying AC2 was sort some of godlike game. Most of the people started to like AC because of that game...that does not mean there is some sort of consensus that this is the best game of the franchise.

As Sly replied to me...to each their own,but people should not assume there is a consensus around this...

Spoken like a true koala. Be careful; such intellectual posts cannot go unpunished. :)

http://giffiles.alphacoders.com/130/1301.gif

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 10:14 PM
So I guess this thread just became "let's hate on AC2".The game has some problems,but so did Super Mario Bros.My opinion is that AC1-ACR was the beginning.And....please don't hate me,but I loved AC3.Just as I loved Sonic Adventure and Super Mario Sunshine.
Now,let's all embrace Ubisoft and wait for it new ACs.Or not.Free world.
When someone comes in speaking of an average game as the standard of greatness, then we'll call them out on it...

AC II should NEVER be looked at as a standard for important things:
-One dimensional villains
-Poor writing
-cliche characterization
-average level design
-mainstreaming of the franchise
-lack of modern day progression
-stagnant economic system

DavisP92
08-27-2014, 10:18 PM
When someone comes in speaking of an average game as the standard of greatness, then we'll call them out on it...

AC II should NEVER be looked at as a standard for important things:
-One dimensional villains
-Poor writing
-cliche characterization
-average level design
-mainstreaming of the franchise
-lack of modern day progression
-stagnant economic system

add diminished graphics and idiotic combat (the hidden blade fighting really irks me)

SlyTrooper
08-27-2014, 10:20 PM
When someone comes in speaking of an average game as the standard of greatness, then we'll call them out on it...

AC II should NEVER be looked at as a standard for important things:
-One dimensional villains
-Poor writing
-cliche characterization
-average level design
-mainstreaming of the franchise
-lack of modern day progression
-stagnant economic system

Can I ask you something? Is Unity an improvement for you? I'm genuinely curious because it seems more like AC1 than AC2.

Kakuzu745
08-27-2014, 10:23 PM
Spoken like a true koala. Be careful; such intellectual posts cannot go unpunished. :)


Hahahahaha you made my day with the koala

DavisP92
08-27-2014, 10:25 PM
Can I ask you something? Is Unity an improvement for you? I'm genuinely curious because it seems more like AC1 than AC2.

not answering for him, and i know you didn't ask me. but i think that the series was at it's best with AC1. Yea each had improvements that the first didn't. but they also lost what made the first one great.

So with Unity being closer to AC1, that's a huge improvement to me

Assassin_M
08-27-2014, 10:30 PM
Can I ask you something? Is Unity an improvement for you? I'm genuinely curious because it seems more like AC1 than AC2.
From what it sounds like, it's a DEFINITE improvement. it's going back to the roots of the first game while taking the GOOD mainstream aspects that were introduced in the rest of the series like in-depth customization. The level design seems to have taken AC I's approach of "here, playground, run around" instead of AC II's approach of R*'s faulty and archaic mission design, only this time it's heaps expanded on--if I had one complaint, it'd be finding your own in a mission instead of a cutscene showing you what you can do (a bare outline like "10 entrances" "10 exits" "1 special assassination" should be enough) just the focus on innovative level design is more of an improvement than any of the last 4 games combined, not to mention the reworking of the core elements. I'm not completely sold on combat yet, though...it LOOKS the same as ever, i'm assuming i'll need to play it myself to understand what the change was.


add diminished graphics and idiotic combat (the hidden blade fighting really irks me)
That too, yes..god, the combat was terrible and the graphics were ugly

SlyTrooper
08-27-2014, 11:04 PM
From what it sounds like, it's a DEFINITE improvement. it's going back to the roots of the first game while taking the GOOD mainstream aspects that were introduced in the rest of the series like in-depth customization. The level design seems to have taken AC I's approach of "here, playground, run around" instead of AC II's approach of R*'s faulty and archaic mission design, only this time it's heaps expanded on--if I had one complaint, it'd be finding your own in a mission instead of a cutscene showing you what you can do (a bare outline like "10 entrances" "10 exits" "1 special assassination" should be enough) just the focus on innovative level design is more of an improvement than any of the last 4 games combined, not to mention the reworking of the core elements. I'm not completely sold on combat yet, though...it LOOKS the same as ever, i'm assuming i'll need to play it myself to understand what the change was.
That too, yes..god, the combat was terrible and the graphics were ugly

I think the main change to the combat will come from us not being able to counter kill enemies, new moves like dodge & heavy attack, the fact that enemies attack at once & because Arno can't take as much damage as in previous games, even when wearing good armour.

Kakuzu745
08-27-2014, 11:16 PM
From what it sounds like, it's a DEFINITE improvement. it's going back to the roots of the first game while taking the GOOD mainstream aspects that were introduced in the rest of the series like in-depth customization. The level design seems to have taken AC I's approach of "here, playground, run around" instead of AC II's approach of R*'s faulty and archaic mission design, only this time it's heaps expanded on--if I had one complaint, it'd be finding your own in a mission instead of a cutscene showing you what you can do (a bare outline like "10 entrances" "10 exits" "1 special assassination" should be enough) just the focus on innovative level design is more of an improvement than any of the last 4 games combined, not to mention the reworking of the core elements. I'm not completely sold on combat yet, though...it LOOKS the same as ever, i'm assuming i'll need to play it myself to understand what the change was.


Gotta admit I read your post and got excited about Unity.

I really hope Amancio and the team focused on these elements to make a truly great and epic game.

Dev_Anj
08-28-2014, 01:37 AM
Can I ask you something? Is Unity an improvement for you? I'm genuinely curious because it seems more like AC1 than AC2.

Oh definitely. It looks like they are taking cues from Deus Ex for the level design, which is a good thing, and the levels also seem to have more actual complexity besides "you can climb everything" and "Animus walls block you here". They seem to be focusing more on letting the player plan out approaches instead of trying to follow a cinematic script and forcing them through typical American film set pieces. The freerunning also sounds promising. The stealth seems a bit shallow though and combat looks good, but I'm afraid it may not have changed that much. Still, the higher emphasis on social stealth and planned approaches to sandbox levels sounds good.

UniteUnderPower
08-28-2014, 03:29 AM
I agree with this entirely. And yet, I think those things simply worked. Despite how different the experience feels when compared to AC1 (which I still prefer), I think the simplistic story and characters gave us easily identifiable and memorable archetypes which gave them broad appeal.

Replaying some of AC3's missions, I can appreciate that its characters were more morally ambiguous and not as easily defined. The dialogue was also more complex, in some ways. But the characters' portrayal was so nuanced and so much up for interpretation that I couldn't really form an attachment to them. Just look at all the Connor haters vs. Connor fans and all the various reasons they give why he was a good or bad character. Haytham was arguably the most cliché character in the cast (suave, charismatic and aloof Brit), and what happened? He became the fan favorite, even among people who otherwise hated the game. Sometimes clichés simply work. Especially in a medium like video games where uncanny valley is ever-looming and you need an effective way to communicate to your audience who to root for. An actor can give a harrowing performance, but much is lost in translation because current mo-cap tech is still limited and can't capture every fine nuance of emotion in their faces.

In contrast, AC2 had objectively the worst graphics in the series so far, but the characters were written in such broad strokes that we instantly knew, as if by instinct, who the "good guys" and "bad guys" were. This black-and-white approach may have been disappointing after AC1, and even detrimental to the franchise overall, since the next several games depended on simply repeating the AC2 formula without adding much of substance. But I do believe it was the right decision at the time, due to the limitations of mo-cap, to create characters that were easily likable or despicable. Simplifying the story allowed the devs to focus on polishing the mechanics. For example, tailing missions in AC2 were never frustrating because they were focused on immersion instead of being treated as a mini-game. Players could easily follow the conversations whilst still feeling like an assassin - story and gameplay complimented each other. Whereas in AC3 tailing became a frustrating and immersion-breaking mini-game of keeping your assassin inside a moving circle. Unless you're good at multi-tasking, it was easy to miss relevant story-related information and some decent dialogue. Story (plot-advancing dialogue) and gameplay were treated as separate elements and in the end, neither ended up being fun (in this particular instance of game design).

Sorry to bring up AC3 in a non-related topic, but I think the comparisons are relevant. AC3 did have more moral ambiguity and depth than AC2, which is why it may seem strange that people seem to prefer the more cliché approach of AC2. The key differences, IMO, are the uncanny valley - AC2 had simpler graphics, so exaggerated animations and personalities were needed - and AC3's difficulties in marrying gameplay with story.

Revelations could arguably have the worst graphics. The graphics in Revelations were almost cartoon-esque.

SixKeys
08-28-2014, 03:35 AM
Revelations could arguably have the worst graphics. The graphics in Revelations were almost cartoon-esque.

Surely you're joking? You think this:

http://th07.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2010/186/8/d/Ezio_Auditore_8_by_wolverine_x_23.jpg

looks LESS cartoony than this?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--AF6FVM2PGA/UqVgoX7ECoI/AAAAAAAAC-o/wGc8xz7GdJM/s400/tumblr_lx76fcV12u1qfh2bxo2_500.png


I'm no big fan of ACR's graphics, but even I can admit it looked better than AC2.

UniteUnderPower
08-28-2014, 04:44 AM
The biggest thing for me that made AC2 such a great experience was the story TWISTS that it had. None of the other Assassin's Creed games had twists presented this well and twists that were that unpredictable. I remember being awed at the revelation of Ezio being a prophet and the many other unexpected twists throughout the game. (Keep in mind that Ezio is actually my least favorite character in the Assassin's Creed franchise, right up there with Edward.)


Surely you're joking? You think this:

http://th07.deviantart.net/fs71/PRE/f/2010/186/8/d/Ezio_Auditore_8_by_wolverine_x_23.jpg

looks LESS cartoony than this?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/--AF6FVM2PGA/UqVgoX7ECoI/AAAAAAAAC-o/wGc8xz7GdJM/s400/tumblr_lx76fcV12u1qfh2bxo2_500.png


I'm no big fan of ACR's graphics, but even I can admit it looked better than AC2.

I agree that CUTSCENES were done much better in Revelations. What I am talking about is the graphics during the gameplay sequences.

Maybe our definition of 'cartoony' is just different. Not that I didn't like Revelations' graphics. I thought they were pretty good.

Assassin_M
08-28-2014, 04:48 AM
The biggest thing for me that made AC2 such a great experience was the story TWISTS that it had. None of the other Assassin's Creed games had twists presented this well and twists that were that unpredictable. I remember being awed at the revelation of Ezio being a prophet and the many other unexpected twists throughout the game. (Keep in mind that Ezio is actually my least favorite character in the Assassin's Creed franchise, right up there with Edward.)
Apart from Ezio being the prophet (which I saw coming from miles away) what other twists are there in AC II? heck, we even knew Uberto was the conspirator before the game released. Don't......tell me that the revelation of everyone being an Assassin was a twist....please....don't

UniteUnderPower
08-28-2014, 04:53 AM
Apart from Ezio being the prophet (which I saw coming from miles away) what other twists are there in AC II? heck, we even knew Uberto was the conspirator before the game released. Don't......tell me that the revelation of everyone being an Assassin was a twist....please....don't

Honestly the prophet part is the only twist I can think of off the top of my head...at least it's the one that stuck with me. Surely we can agree that every good story needs to have some plot line twists here and there. The revelations included in the glyphs could arguably be considered story twists, although Brotherhood had them as well.

Assassin_M
08-28-2014, 04:55 AM
Honestly the prophet part is the only twist I can think of off the top of my head...at least it's the one that stuck with me. Surely we can agree that every good story needs to have some plot line twists here and there. The revelations included in the glyphs could arguably be considered story twists, although Brotherhood had them as well.
Not necessarily, I don't agree that a good story needs any plot twists. Sure, it makes for a more thrilling experience but I don't think a story can never be good without twists.

Hans684
08-28-2014, 04:56 AM
Will I be brutally murdered if I say that AC2 is my second favourite AC after ACIV?

No. And AC2 was my favorite during AC2 - ACB timeline but then I had Revelations.

UniteUnderPower
08-28-2014, 04:59 AM
Not necessarily, I don't agree that a good story needs any plot twists. Sure, it makes for a more thrilling experience but I don't think a story can never be good without twists.

I think help people want to see the story through to the very end. I actually think AC3 did pretty well on the story front, which had some twists included as well (although they weren't as surprising to me because I had watched leaked gameplay about a week before release.)

MakimotoJin
08-28-2014, 05:07 PM
When someone comes in speaking of an average game as the standard of greatness, then we'll call them out on it...

AC II should NEVER be looked at as a standard for important things:
-One dimensional villains
-Poor writing
-cliche characterization
-average level design
-mainstreaming of the franchise
-lack of modern day progression
-stagnant economic system
Well I didn't really said it's a standard of greatness,I can see it has some flaws,I just said that we should enjoy what we have.AC2 was one of my first last-gen games,so I think of the game as something I remember.That's all.