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

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

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.

vadicta

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.

The difference, however, is that Ezio had a lot more personality and we got to know more about him through his personal history of himself and his family. In the original game, nothing was revealed about Altair, except that he was part of the Assassins group and not much else. I guess, in a way, that's good, because it added mystery and flair to Atlair's profession, but it truly sucks that we got to know nothing about him until Desmond had that small dream in Assassin's Creed 2.

The first AC was just a bit too boring for me... so never played 2 and don't plan on it anytime soon.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

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.

vadicta

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="vadicta"]

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

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.

Metamania

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.

The difference, however, is that Ezio had a lot more personality and we got to know more about him through his personal history of himself and his family. In the original game, nothing was revealed about Altair, except that he was part of the Assassins group and not much else. I guess, in a way, that's good, because it added mystery and flair to Atlair's profession, but it truly sucks that we got to know nothing about him until Desmond had that small dream in Assassin's Creed 2.

That makes sense. We do know a lot more about Ezio, but he's so boring! All he is, is the basic unwilling hero, Italian ladies man. He jsut isn't at all what I hoped for in a hero of this series. And there just isn't anything that unique there, but of course silent protaginous isn't that unique either. I've also heard it argued that this is just his up- and- coming story, the tale of his beginings. So, I'm hoping, with that out of the way, they'll go back in a darker direction, and with all the mystery gone from the story, maybe the writing won't kill me as much. I still want to love the series as much as I loved the first one, but it's just hard to see that happening in its current direction.

Something about the second put me off. It's wierd...

But yeah, I though the first was a 7.5, the second a 7.0

Really, 9+ average scores? Pfft...

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"] ok i shall briefly. combat was awful in both games, and was not improved in any significant way in the sequel. stealth was non-existent in both games AI was dumb in both games. these are major problems in the games and AC2 did little to nothing to improve these things.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.

You're obviously completely and fervently against this series, which is your prerogative, but in your original post you claimed the combat had not been significantly extrapolated upon, which isn't true. They added quite a few elements to the combat and apparently are doing even more additions with the third installment. All of the additions I alluded to in my post deepen the combat options and frankly, your critique of the combat as "passive" is nonsensical. The game clearly allows you to fight however you wish, be it counter-centric or aggressively offensive. As combat engines go, Assassin's Creed has one of the best out there, as it emulates realistic fencing but balances it out with gaming conventions so as to not make the game impossible. The combat as it appears in the game is a very good facsimile of the combat of that era, which often ended in a handful of strikes or less. The only real criticism I can levy against ACII is that the combat is a bit too easy, something I hope they remedy with the next iteration.

The AI is actually better than most stealth games in terms of aggressiveness and persistence and the ability to kill in plain view is actually a unique aspect of this series. There's really nothing else to say on that particular issue because you really haven't demonstrated why the AI is supposedly poor outside of your own dislike for the franchise.

There's a reason why ACII was one of the highest rated and best selling games of 2009 and it's not because your tastes and standards exceed everyone else's. When you employ a vernacular that includes adjectives like "turd", you are employing hyperbolic terminology that far exceeds any reasonable criticisms of this franchise. Whether or not you personally like ACII, the game is very well made and does a number of things both competently and uniquely. If your distain is that pronounced, move on to something else, because you are referring to this game as if it is on the level of something like Superman 64.

The first game was just okay. The second one was excellent, and makes the first one absolutely unplayable by comparison.

[QUOTE="feel_freetwo"][QUOTE="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.

Grammaton-Cleric

You're obviously completely and fervently against this series, which is your prerogative, but in your original post you claimed the combat had not been significantly extrapolated upon, which isn't true. They added quite a few elements to the combat and apparently are doing even more additions with the third installment. All of the additions I alluded to in my post deepen the combat options and frankly, your critique of the combat as "passive" is nonsensical. The game clearly allows you to fight however you wish, be it counter-centric or aggressively offensive. As combat engines go, Assassin's Creed has one of the best out there, as it emulates realistic fencing but balances it out with gaming conventions so as to not make the game impossible. The combat as it appears in the game is a very good facsimile of the combat of that era, which often ended in a handful of strikes or less. The only real criticism I can levy against ACII is that the combat is a bit too easy, something I hope they remedy with the next iteration.

The AI is actually better than most stealth games in terms of aggressiveness and persistence and the ability to kill in plain view is actually a unique aspect of this series. There's really nothing else to say on that particular issue because you really haven't demonstrated why the AI is supposedly poor outside of your own dislike for the franchise.

There's a reason why ACII was one of the highest rated and best selling games of 2009 and it's not because your tastes and standards exceed everyone else's. When you employ a vernacular that includes adjectives like "turd", you are employing hyperbolic terminology that far exceeds any reasonable criticisms of this franchise. Whether or not you personally like ACII, the game is very well made and does a number of things both competently and uniquely. If your distain is that pronounced, move on to something else, because you are referring to this game as if it is on the level of something like Superman 64.

The only gripe I have with the second one is that it has a slow beginning. I also do miss some of the side missions from the first game. While I like the main character, he is not quite as interesting as the one from the first Assassin's Creed.

this game is pure presentation ,more style than gameplay , the combat is similar to the old prince of persia and the story is nice but they dont plan on give a decent ending any time soon , the first 1 was a turn off for me the second is just the same with some more "stuff"

Most people (well, critics, at least) feel that the second game improved upon the first in every way, and I have to agree with that.

I completely agree with you about the story having a boring lead, but everything else was better.

I can't see how anyone can think the second game isn't light years ahead of the first game, but to each their own I guess.wizdom

Well, I've complained about the story enough. But, gameplay wise, it's just spread so thin for no reason. There were a small handful of platforming missions that gave you the best armor right away, so buying up the armor was kind of pointless, although the whole buying system itself was useless. No weapon really played that differently from the others, and you jsut bought the best when you could, because, by that point, you had all the money in the world. And you got that money from playing the shallow, watered down, menu-clicking game they set up as a city improvement diversion (can't even be called a mini-game). It did several things, but didn't actually make use of any of them, they were all stripped down, imbalanced, time-sinks that took away from the actual game. None of it was intigrated into the actual gameplay. And all the assassination missions were so much less interesting in the second one.

The first one may not have had a lot to do, but it did everything so perfectly. Not like the half-baked mess the second one was. But I well realize I'm in the minority here. :P

[QUOTE="wizdom"]I can't see how anyone can think the second game isn't light years ahead of the first game, but to each their own I guess.vadicta

Well, I've complained about the story enough. But, gameplay wise, it's just spread so thin for no reason. There were a small handful of platforming missions that gave you the best armor right away, so buying up the armor was kind of pointless, although the whole buying system itself was useless. No weapon really played that differently from the others, and you jsut bought the best when you could, because, by that point, you had all the money in the world. And you got that money from playing the shallow, watered down, menu-clicking game they set up as a city improvement diversion (can't even be called a mini-game). It did several things, but didn't actually make use of any of them, they were all stripped down, imbalanced, time-sinks that took away from the actual game. None of it was intigrated into the actual gameplay. And all the assassination missions were so much less interesting in the second one.

The first one may not have had a lot to do, but it did everything so perfectly. Not like the half-baked mess the second one was. But I well realize I'm in the minority here. :P

Minorities together, bro.

No I disagree, the first one was very good, but could be a bit repetitive and the second was absolutely stellar. The setting of Italy was just fantastic the cities felt so alive I absolutely loved the 2nd. As for prostitutes and thieves being nice and all politicians being bad...most of the politicians/leaders if not all of them, that you assassinated in AC2 were real and are historically recorded as being cruel and tyrannical.

[QUOTE="wizdom"]I can't see how anyone can think the second game isn't light years ahead of the first game, but to each their own I guess.vadicta

Well, I've complained about the story enough. But, gameplay wise, it's just spread so thin for no reason. There were a small handful of platforming missions that gave you the best armor right away, so buying up the armor was kind of pointless, although the whole buying system itself was useless. No weapon really played that differently from the others, and you jsut bought the best when you could, because, by that point, you had all the money in the world. And you got that money from playing the shallow, watered down, menu-clicking game they set up as a city improvement diversion (can't even be called a mini-game). It did several things, but didn't actually make use of any of them, they were all stripped down, imbalanced, time-sinks that took away from the actual game. None of it was intigrated into the actual gameplay. And all the assassination missions were so much less interesting in the second one.

The first one may not have had a lot to do, but it did everything so perfectly. Not like the half-baked mess the second one was. But I well realize I'm in the minority here. :P

The first one was a starting point, but the missions were getting very tedious. Doesn't matter which town you entered, it was the same thing - steal their map, eavedrop conversations, etc. Just gather enough information to find out where the target was and assassinate him. Also, it doesn't matter what the target said either, because each of them said basically the same thing, just different. I pointed some of this out in my reader review that's posted on here (shameless plug, I know). It left a lot to be improved on.

Also, the weapons? There's a difference in them for the second one - some can swing faster, but don't last long. That's what the repair option is for. I've had to do a lot of that before I finally got Altair's sword and his armor, then it was no longer an issue anymore after that.

[QUOTE="Metamania"]

[QUOTE="Drakebunny"]

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.

vadicta

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.

I think you are focusing way to much on just the "Assassin" part of the title. You keep bringing this up and in a previous post you alluded that the games should focus and be more about assassinating. First off a game doesn't have to focus entirely on its title, there can be other meanings, motives, and storylines, and also look at what the second word in the title is "Creed". Its not all about assassinating and maybe if you looked up the word creed in the dictionary you might feel a little better about everything,

I think you are focusing way to much on just the "Assassin" part of the title. You keep bringing this up and in a previous post you alluded that the games should focus and be more about assassinating. First off a game doesn't have to focus entirely on its title, there can be other meanings, motives, and storylines, and also look at what the second word in the title is "Creed". Its not all about assassinating and maybe if you looked up the word creed in the dictionary you might feel a little better about everything,

Metamania

Creed: 1. Any system, doctorine, or formula for religious belief, as of a denomination; 2. any system or codification of belief or opinion; 3. an authoritative, formulated statement of the cheif articles of Christian belief.

Alright, how does this explain the stiff, boring dialogue, the cliched story, the unbalanced money system, the useless villa renevation diversion, the pointless weapon and armor upgrades, the annoying pick-pocket chases, and the lack of fucus on interesting and original assassination missions?

[QUOTE="vadicta"]

[QUOTE="wizdom"]I can't see how anyone can think the second game isn't light years ahead of the first game, but to each their own I guess.Drakebunny

Well, I've complained about the story enough. But, gameplay wise, it's just spread so thin for no reason. There were a small handful of platforming missions that gave you the best armor right away, so buying up the armor was kind of pointless, although the whole buying system itself was useless. No weapon really played that differently from the others, and you jsut bought the best when you could, because, by that point, you had all the money in the world. And you got that money from playing the shallow, watered down, menu-clicking game they set up as a city improvement diversion (can't even be called a mini-game). It did several things, but didn't actually make use of any of them, they were all stripped down, imbalanced, time-sinks that took away from the actual game. None of it was intigrated into the actual gameplay. And all the assassination missions were so much less interesting in the second one.

The first one may not have had a lot to do, but it did everything so perfectly. Not like the half-baked mess the second one was. But I well realize I'm in the minority here. :P

Minorities together, bro.

[QUOTE="wizdom"]I can't see how anyone can think the second game isn't light years ahead of the first game, but to each their own I guess.vadicta

Well, I've complained about the story enough. But, gameplay wise, it's just spread so thin for no reason. There were a small handful of platforming missions that gave you the best armor right away, so buying up the armor was kind of pointless, although the whole buying system itself was useless. No weapon really played that differently from the others, and you jsut bought the best when you could, because, by that point, you had all the money in the world. And you got that money from playing the shallow, watered down, menu-clicking game they set up as a city improvement diversion (can't even be called a mini-game). It did several things, but didn't actually make use of any of them, they were all stripped down, imbalanced, time-sinks that took away from the actual game. None of it was intigrated into the actual gameplay. And all the assassination missions were so much less interesting in the second one.

The first one may not have had a lot to do, but it did everything so perfectly. Not like the half-baked mess the second one was. But I well realize I'm in the minority here. :P

[QUOTE="vadicta"]

[QUOTE="wizdom"]I can't see how anyone can think the second game isn't light years ahead of the first game, but to each their own I guess.feel_freetwo

Well, I've complained about the story enough. But, gameplay wise, it's just spread so thin for no reason. There were a small handful of platforming missions that gave you the best armor right away, so buying up the armor was kind of pointless, although the whole buying system itself was useless. No weapon really played that differently from the others, and you jsut bought the best when you could, because, by that point, you had all the money in the world. And you got that money from playing the shallow, watered down, menu-clicking game they set up as a city improvement diversion (can't even be called a mini-game). It did several things, but didn't actually make use of any of them, they were all stripped down, imbalanced, time-sinks that took away from the actual game. None of it was intigrated into the actual gameplay. And all the assassination missions were so much less interesting in the second one.

The first one may not have had a lot to do, but it did everything so perfectly. Not like the half-baked mess the second one was. But I well realize I'm in the minority here. :P