Anyone else completely turnd off of Assassin's Creed after 2

I loved the first one. Everything about it was fun and new and exciting, and basically perfect.

But the second one had a terrible, borning lead, the story lost so much of what made it unique dumbing itself down to cliches (Prostitutes and theives are the nicest, msot righteous people on earth and every polition is horrible and needs to be overthrown) And jsut dropped all of its subtlety (They symbols at the end of the first one with all the mystery.) In the second it just said this is this that is that in some cringe-worth dialogue. And the gameplay was just too spread out and didn't make the assassinatinos the star of the show, anymore, and all the villians you killed this time around were pretty generic. Nothing like the doctor of the first.

I only point this out, because I remember how excited I was for the second, after playing the first, and now, seeing ads for Brotherhood everywhere, I'm just completely turned-off by it. Does anyone else feel this way about it?

The first game bored me to death so bad that I didn't finish it. The second game I didn't even buy.

What? I thought the second game improved everything.

New and varied missions, story line was better, longer single-player, more weapons.

What? I thought the second game improved everything.

New and varied missions, story line was better, longer single-player, more weapons.

FireFox67

I feel the same way. Assassin's Creed was a good starting point for the series and the sequel improved it in nearly everyway.

But I wouldn't call the prostitutes or thieves nice though...

[QUOTE="FireFox67"]

What? I thought the second game improved everything.

New and varied missions, story line was better, longer single-player, more weapons.

Metamania

I feel the same way. Assassin's Creed was a good starting point for the series and the sequel improved it in nearly everyway.

But I wouldn't call the prostitutes or thieves nice though...

I found the first one kinda boring, you only had like 5 missions types, and you replayed them over and over and over again

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="FireFox67"]

What? I thought the second game improved everything.

New and varied missions, story line was better, longer single-player, more weapons.

FireFox67

I feel the same way. Assassin's Creed was a good starting point for the series and the sequel improved it in nearly everyway.

But I wouldn't call the prostitutes or thieves nice though...

I found the first one kinda boring, you only had like 5 missions types, and you replayed them over and over and over again

Yeah, that was one of the problems hindering Assassin's Creed from bring truly stellar. Some of the missions were getting repetitve. Luckily, in Assassin's Creed II, there's a lot more variety to the missions. Plus, I actually enjoyed setting up my city from the ground-up and having to earn money through work to get that done.

Just adding my voice to the roar against you, OP. The first one was incredibly monotonous and is improved upon in almost every way by the sequel.

stealth was non-existent in both gamesfeel_freetwo

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"]stealth was non-existent in both gamesreason58

[QUOTE="reason58"][QUOTE="feel_freetwo"]stealth was non-existent in both gamesfeel_freetwo

Also, Konami's little commercial featuring Snake wearing Altair's attire.

There are different types of "stealth". Concealing a weapon or blending into a crowd so as not to draw attention to yourself is one type which this game uses extensively. Just because you aren't skulking in shadows or hiding under a cardboard box does not mean there are not stealth elements.

The first one was ok, I did get bored near the end and just wanted it to be finished. AC2 is like a different game, they made it better in every single way, and Ezio's story was so much better

[QUOTE="MystikRex"][QUOTE="feel_freetwo"]they were as bad as each other. There's a root problem with those games, something is fundamentally wrong with them, and no amount of fetch quests(the approach AC2 took) will solve that.feel_freetwo

The combat was actually greatly improved, with several different weapon types, better projectiles, and the ability to fight with bare hands and disarm enemies. Those are all "significant" additions.

Stealth isn't the primary crux of the game play but you can kill stealthily and, if you're skilled enough, you can kill stealthily in plain view.

The A.I. is no worse in ACII than in any other stealth game save perhaps Arkham Asylum. The guards in ACII are actually quite aggressive and pursue you as well as look for your character when you hide. If you have a problem with the A.I. in ACII, I assume you have a problem with the A.I. in stealth games in general.

Also, the fetch-quest comment was nonsensical. ACII featured some of the most varied mission structure I've played, along with plenty of other diversions.

Feel free to hate the game but your actual criticisms don't gel with the game I played.

There are different types of "stealth". Concealing a weapon or blending into a crowd so as not to draw attention to yourself is one type which this game uses extensively. Just because you aren't skulking in shadows or hiding under a cardboard box does not mean there are not stealth elements.

reason58

[QUOTE="reason58"]

There are different types of "stealth". Concealing a weapon or blending into a crowd so as not to draw attention to yourself is one type which this game uses extensively. Just because you aren't skulking in shadows or hiding under a cardboard box does not mean there are not stealth elements.

feel_freetwo

That's the thing though - stealth comes in the sense of stealth kills. Why do you think there are assassination contracts or quests to kill certain targets without alterting the guards to your presence? Like Grammanton-Cleric (sorry if I spelled your name wrong!) already said, there is skill to dispatching foes quietly while in plain sight. It's not as easy sometimes.

I guess you could say stealth in it is not that good in some way. When you compare it to The Saboteur stealth system. It is not a sneaking stealth but is about putting on the Nazi clothes and using that to move around areas you are not allowed.

I think they were trying to go with the assassin that can kill and slip away all the while in a crowd.

I guess you could say stealth in it is not that good in some way. When you compare it to The Saboteur stealth system. It is not a sneaking stealth but is about putting on the Nazi clothes and using that to move around areas you are not allowed.

I think they were trying to go with the assassin that can kill and slip away all the while in a crowd.

wiouds

I think I'm probably the only one that agrees with the TC. Other than stuff like the story being more stupid and not told very well, I have to say Ezio looks like a real tool with that stupid goatee of his.

But he wasn't too bad of a main character though and the voice acting is pretty good, all of it really.

I enjoyed Ass-Creed 2, but I think it should have had more of the mystery that the first one had. Walking around in that lab, reading emails, having conversations with that woman and the like. Ass-Creed 2 seemed to almost forget entirely about the Desmond situation and instead just become another Action Adventure game. I also missed the plot twists from the first game - the story of AC2 was pretty boring.

The characters were pretty dull as well.

If you judge it on it's own it is a solid game, but compare it to the first and it isn't as mysterious or thought provoking.

Yes, but not for the same reasons. I thought the second game was an improvement in every way, from gameplay to city design to story. Until the end. The end was so terrible it made me never want to play the game again, or any other in the series.DJ_Lae

What? The second game only made me more hyped for a new game. Not Brotherhood, but one that actually continues Desmond's story. AC2 took all the good elements from the first game, and put in better versions of all the bad elements that made the first game kinda boring and repetitive. I'm following the series closely, and as previously stated, I can't wait for more!

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]Yes, but not for the same reasons. I thought the second game was an improvement in every way, from gameplay to city design to story. Until the end. The end was so terrible it made me never want to play the game again, or any other in the series.vadicta

I felt the second game was leaps and bounds better than the first. I am excited for the third.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"]Yes, but not for the same reasons. I thought the second game was an improvement in every way, from gameplay to city design to story. Until the end. The end was so terrible it made me never want to play the game again, or any other in the series.vadicta

I have to admit - the ending was sort of a letdown, but only in one sense. You work hard, after all that time, to gain revenge for your family's death and it doesn't exactly play out the way you wanted it to. I won't spoil it, but it just angered me on how the whole thing went down. But the rest of the ending I got and it was pretty cool, made me rethink about the series and how it changes everything, but it is also a bit cliched as well. But the story and its mystery is still there. I also liked how all the people you ended up meeting were really part of the same group you were trying to learn about - like the game was a tutorial in itself. Thought it was brillant!

Assasins creed in general is boring and repetetive.

I loved the Idea behind AC 1. But it was sooooooo boring. Then I was hoping for the same experience but just with more varied missions. But I was very disappointed with the second one. The controls always feel horribly clumsy in the games. I always end up running up walls that i'm nowhere near when chasing a guy to kill. Plus everyone goes on and on about the gorgeous graphics. But I think they suck compared to the other lavishly praised games. The character models in AC II are a joke

[QUOTE="MystikRex"][QUOTE="feel_freetwo"]they were as bad as each other. There's a root problem with those games, something is fundamentally wrong with them, and no amount of fetch quests(the approach AC2 took) will solve that.feel_freetwo

There are different types of stealth you know. There's the Sam Fisher type: lurking in the shadows and using the latest tech. Then there's the Altair/Ezio type: blending in with the crowd, being invisible and hiding bodies and using the element of suprise.

The first one had a better plot & the Animus scenes were also better imo.

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"][QUOTE="MystikRex"] Care to elaborate?Grammaton-Cleric

The combat was actually greatly improved, with several different weapon types, better projectiles, and the ability to fight with bare hands and disarm enemies. Those are all "significant" additions.

Stealth isn't the primary crux of the game play but you can kill stealthily and, if you're skilled enough, you can kill stealthily in plain view.

The A.I. is no worse in ACII than in any other stealth game save perhaps Arkham Asylum. The guards in ACII are actually quite aggressive and pursue you as well as look for your character when you hide. If you have a problem with the A.I. in ACII, I assume you have a problem with the A.I. in stealth games in general.

Also, the fetch-quest comment was nonsensical. ACII featured some of the most varied mission structure I've played, along with plenty of other diversions.

Feel free to hate the game but your actual criticisms don't gel with the game I played.

Assassins creed 1 was boring after one playthrough, but what i liked about it was the targets that you are asked to assassinate are better like the doctor who breaks peoples legs and the the target who hangs people and the king who poisons hes people were all amazing and when you fight you could actually break enemies legs by countring their attacks. Assassins creed 2 was better because you follow youre assassination targets on the roofs and sometimes watch them talking, also the theives are a good way to enjoy killing and having money and they could make a challange for i mean they run and you follow and and then do the shove attack to steal money then you could let them escape or let them distract the guards for ya, also the upgrades are better you can have 15 knives, a hidden gun , two hidden blades, poisen hidden blade also ezio moves better than altier(although i prefer altier as a character the sequals need to improve) and you have assassination contracts and courier missions, ac2 is a better game than ac1 and also better graphics gameplay but i liked the first ac story better. overall its a huge jump for the sequal and brother hood is on the way.:D. and i think the amazing assassinations of the first was downgraded in the second because ubisoft thought that by adding all kinds of new stuff in ac2 will cover it.johny300

Despite the different ways you did investigations in Assassin's Creed 2, the Animus scenes as well as the targets weren't very interesting.

[QUOTE="johny300"]Assassins creed 1 was boring after one playthrough, but what i liked about it was the targets that you are asked to assassinate are better like the doctor who breaks peoples legs and the the target who hangs people and the king who poisons hes people were all amazing and when you fight you could actually break enemies legs by countring their attacks. Assassins creed 2 was better because you follow youre assassination targets on the roofs and sometimes watch them talking, also the theives are a good way to enjoy killing and having money and they could make a challange for i mean they run and you follow and and then do the shove attack to steal money then you could let them escape or let them distract the guards for ya, also the upgrades are better you can have 15 knives, a hidden gun , two hidden blades, poisen hidden blade also ezio moves better than altier(although i prefer altier as a character the sequals need to improve) and you have assassination contracts and courier missions, ac2 is a better game than ac1 and also better graphics gameplay but i liked the first ac story better. overall its a huge jump for the sequal and brother hood is on the way.:D. and i think the amazing assassinations of the first was downgraded in the second because ubisoft thought that by adding all kinds of new stuff in ac2 will cover it.Drakebunny

Despite the different ways you did investigations in Assassin's Creed 2, the Animus scenes as well as the targets weren't very interesting.

And isn't Assassin's Creed supposed to be about the assassinations? I mean, I didn't buy the game to raid tombs or upgrade a vila. I bought it for the assassinations. Andy they were all so lack-luster and bland. I feel like it tried to do so much and completely forgot about the cores of the game (story, assassinations).

[QUOTE="johny300"]Assassins creed 1 was boring after one playthrough, but what i liked about it was the targets that you are asked to assassinate are better like the doctor who breaks peoples legs and the the target who hangs people and the king who poisons hes people were all amazing and when you fight you could actually break enemies legs by countring their attacks. Assassins creed 2 was better because you follow youre assassination targets on the roofs and sometimes watch them talking, also the theives are a good way to enjoy killing and having money and they could make a challange for i mean they run and you follow and and then do the shove attack to steal money then you could let them escape or let them distract the guards for ya, also the upgrades are better you can have 15 knives, a hidden gun , two hidden blades, poisen hidden blade also ezio moves better than altier(although i prefer altier as a character the sequals need to improve) and you have assassination contracts and courier missions, ac2 is a better game than ac1 and also better graphics gameplay but i liked the first ac story better. overall its a huge jump for the sequal and brother hood is on the way.:D. and i think the amazing assassinations of the first was downgraded in the second because ubisoft thought that by adding all kinds of new stuff in ac2 will cover it.Drakebunny

Despite the different ways you did investigations in Assassin's Creed 2, the Animus scenes as well as the targets weren't very interesting.

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

[QUOTE="johny300"]Assassins creed 1 was boring after one playthrough, but what i liked about it was the targets that you are asked to assassinate are better like the doctor who breaks peoples legs and the the target who hangs people and the king who poisons hes people were all amazing and when you fight you could actually break enemies legs by countring their attacks. Assassins creed 2 was better because you follow youre assassination targets on the roofs and sometimes watch them talking, also the theives are a good way to enjoy killing and having money and they could make a challange for i mean they run and you follow and and then do the shove attack to steal money then you could let them escape or let them distract the guards for ya, also the upgrades are better you can have 15 knives, a hidden gun , two hidden blades, poisen hidden blade also ezio moves better than altier(although i prefer altier as a character the sequals need to improve) and you have assassination contracts and courier missions, ac2 is a better game than ac1 and also better graphics gameplay but i liked the first ac story better. overall its a huge jump for the sequal and brother hood is on the way.:D. and i think the amazing assassinations of the first was downgraded in the second because ubisoft thought that by adding all kinds of new stuff in ac2 will cover it.vadicta

Despite the different ways you did investigations in Assassin's Creed 2, the Animus scenes as well as the targets weren't very interesting.

And isn't Assassin's Creed supposed to be about the assassinations? I mean, I didn't buy the game to raid tombs or upgrade a vila. I bought it for the assassinations. Andy they were all so lack-luster and bland. I feel like it tried to do so much and completely forgot about the cores of the game (story, assassinations).

Compare the assassination of Al Mualim to the attempted assassination of Rodrigo Borgia. The apple rolls away while Altair uses Hassan Sabbah's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted line", and Al Mualim looks on in as Altair uses the apple. Now, compare this to how Ezio uses the same line (albeit his own language) and he throws Rodrigo to the ground before walking away. No emotion in the latter assassination.

[QUOTE="vadicta"]

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

Despite the different ways you did investigations in Assassin's Creed 2, the Animus scenes as well as the targets weren't very interesting.

Drakebunny

And isn't Assassin's Creed supposed to be about the assassinations? I mean, I didn't buy the game to raid tombs or upgrade a vila. I bought it for the assassinations. Andy they were all so lack-luster and bland. I feel like it tried to do so much and completely forgot about the cores of the game (story, assassinations).

Compare the assassination of Al Mualim to the attempted assassination of Rodrigo Borgia. The apple rolls away while Altair uses Hassan Sabbah's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted line", and Al Mualim looks on in as Altair uses the apple. Now, compare this to how Ezio uses the same line (albeit his own language) and he throws Rodrigo to the ground before walking away. No emotion in the latter assassination.

Actually, there was emotion behind it, but what Ezio did was very powerful, if you think about it. Once your family is dead, you can't bring them back to life, so killing Rodrigo wasn't going to do anything. But it did make Ezio the better man. He now knows that Rodrigo is humiliated and wasn't able to acheive the goal that the Templars wanted. Ezio acheived his purpose, although I still believe it said that he didn't kill him.

[QUOTE="vadicta"]

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

Despite the different ways you did investigations in Assassin's Creed 2, the Animus scenes as well as the targets weren't very interesting.

Drakebunny

And isn't Assassin's Creed supposed to be about the assassinations? I mean, I didn't buy the game to raid tombs or upgrade a vila. I bought it for the assassinations. Andy they were all so lack-luster and bland. I feel like it tried to do so much and completely forgot about the cores of the game (story, assassinations).

Compare the assassination of Al Mualim to the attempted assassination of Rodrigo Borgia. The apple rolls away while Altair uses Hassan Sabbah's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted line", and Al Mualim looks on in as Altair uses the apple. Now, compare this to how Ezio uses the same line (albeit his own language) and he throws Rodrigo to the ground before walking away. No emotion in the latter assassination.

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

[QUOTE="vadicta"]

And isn't Assassin's Creed supposed to be about the assassinations? I mean, I didn't buy the game to raid tombs or upgrade a vila. I bought it for the assassinations. Andy they were all so lack-luster and bland. I feel like it tried to do so much and completely forgot about the cores of the game (story, assassinations).

Metamania

Compare the assassination of Al Mualim to the attempted assassination of Rodrigo Borgia. The apple rolls away while Altair uses Hassan Sabbah's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted line", and Al Mualim looks on in as Altair uses the apple. Now, compare this to how Ezio uses the same line (albeit his own language) and he throws Rodrigo to the ground before walking away. No emotion in the latter assassination.

Actually, there was emotion behind it, but what Ezio did was very powerful, if you think about it. Once your family is dead, you can't bring them back to life, so killing Rodrigo wasn't going to do anything. But it did make Ezio the better man. He now knows that Rodrigo is humiliated and wasn't able to acheive the goal that the Templars wanted. Ezio acheived his purpose, although I still believe it said that he didn't kill him.

More powerful to have the hero walk away? Absolutely not. It's a cheap cop-out with absolutely no reasoning behind it. Assassins don't embarass people, so they can't do what they want, they kill them. The fact that Ezio didn't kill Rodrigo shows how little he belongs as one. And it just shows how this one lacked the depth of violence that the original held so preciesly. Ezio is just a boring, cartoon hero in a game that fluffed itself up when people called it boring.

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

[QUOTE="vadicta"]

And isn't Assassin's Creed supposed to be about the assassinations? I mean, I didn't buy the game to raid tombs or upgrade a vila. I bought it for the assassinations. Andy they were all so lack-luster and bland. I feel like it tried to do so much and completely forgot about the cores of the game (story, assassinations).

Metamania

Compare the assassination of Al Mualim to the attempted assassination of Rodrigo Borgia. The apple rolls away while Altair uses Hassan Sabbah's "Nothing is true, everything is permitted line", and Al Mualim looks on in as Altair uses the apple. Now, compare this to how Ezio uses the same line (albeit his own language) and he throws Rodrigo to the ground before walking away. No emotion in the latter assassination.

Actually, there was emotion behind it, but what Ezio did was very powerful, if you think about it. Once your family is dead, you can't bring them back to life, so killing Rodrigo wasn't going to do anything. But it did make Ezio the better man. He now knows that Rodrigo is humiliated and wasn't able to acheive the goal that the Templars wanted. Ezio acheived his purpose, although I still believe it said that he didn't kill him.

Imo, Sibrand was the best target between all of the games. He embodied what the series was about, as he described how the PoE made him fearful of death because he knew nothing lied beyond his life. AC2 didn't have anything like that.