Assassin's Creed: the more I play, the more I hate it!

I've played quite a few hours now on Assassin's Creed, and at first I thought the story was pretty interesting and the game looked and sounded great, etc. But now I just find the whole thing utterly tedious and damn well awful. The hud and the whole animus thing just seems like a crap gimmic with annoying little sound effects, there's nothing and no one to interact with, the combat is dull and unrealistic, and the controls end up seeming really badly designed (it's meant to be a stealth game and you can't crouch, also Splinter Cell works perfectly well having subtle pushes on the analogue stick move you from a slow pace to a sprint, and just one button for jump, and the Shadow of the Colossus grip system makes climbing more challenging and realistic).

The game just feels not fun at all, and I can't believe it's the same people who did Prince of Persia (which I love!) and that the game got such a high score, and continues to get very high user scores - has everyone gone mad! I know everyone has different preferences, but seriously, the more I play the more I realise this game is utterly flawed. Mass Effect got bashed in it's review over little things, and Kane & Lynch gets an average user score of 3 just because the guns feel a bit inaccurate and the cover mechanic doesn't work brilliantly. Assassin's Creed doesn't work as a free roam game, which it attempts to give the illusion of, but even in a linear way it fails miserably.

I think it shows great patience if you can look past the flaws and see the story through, but no one seems to acknowledge it's basicly half a game.

Am I alone in my opinion?

First of all, I think you started playing this game expecting the wrong things. Assassin's Creed is not a stealth game. It's a hitman style game set in medieval times basically. The point is not to play hide and seek but simply to kill your target without attracting unwanted attention beforehand.

Secondly, after you've gotten far enough into the game you're given several tasks at once and the order in which you do them is up to you. I think this happens once you've 'unlocked' all three cities (or was it 4.. lol).

I think a lot of people go into this game expecting a Splinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid type stealth game, which is naturally going to lead to dissapointment since it shares very little similarities with those games, if any. Like I said, this game has a lot more in common with the Hitman games, minus the disquises.

I agree. The game starts to expose its shallowness after the first few missions.TheCrazed420

Agreed. The whole "crowd stealth" was a gimmick from the beginning. If you actually changed your clothes MAYBE it might have been good. Besides that the game blew chunks at the end.

First of all, I think you started playing this game expecting the wrong things. Assassin's Creed is not a stealth game. It's a hitman style game set in medieval times basically. The point is not to play hide and seek but simply to kill your target without attracting unwanted attention beforehand.

Secondly, after you've gotten far enough into the game you're given several tasks at once and the order in which you do them is up to you. I think this happens once you've 'unlocked' all three cities (or was it 4.. lol).

I think a lot of people go into this game expecting a Splinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid type stealth game, which is naturally going to lead to dissapointment since it shares very little similarities with those games, if any. Like I said, this game has a lot more in common with the Hitman games, minus the disquises.

Kazona

I've played quite a few hours now on Assassin's Creed, and at first I thought the story was pretty interesting and the game looked and sounded great, etc. But now I just find the whole thing utterly tedious and damn well awful. The hud and the whole animus thing just seems like a crap gimmic with annoying little sound effects, there's nothing and no one to interact with, the combat is dull and unrealistic, and the controls end up seeming really badly designed (it's meant to be a stealth game and you can't crouch, also Splinter Cell works perfectly well having subtle pushes on the analogue stick move you from a slow pace to a sprint, and just one button for jump, and the Shadow of the Colossus grip system makes climbing more challenging and realistic).

The game just feels not fun at all, and I can't believe it's the same people who did Prince of Persia (which I love!) and that the game got such a high score, and continues to get very high user scores - has everyone gone mad! I know everyone has different preferences, but seriously, the more I play the more I realise this game is utterly flawed. Mass Effect got bashed in it's review over little things, and Kane & Lynch gets an average user score of 3 just because the guns feel a bit inaccurate and the cover mechanic doesn't work brilliantly. Assassin's Creed doesn't work as a free roam game, which it attempts to give the illusion of, but even in a linear way it fails miserably.

I think it shows great patience if you can look past the flaws and see the story through, but no one seems to acknowledge it's basicly half a game.

Am I alone in my opinion?

T-Law

Yeah, I beat Assaisin's Creed but I didn't have the patience to do all the side quests. There were times when I thought the game was really repetitive, especially when you hear someone call for help every three minutes. Although I think the reason Kane and Lynch got low scores was because of the You-Know-Who's firing. Yeah, but I do agree that AC didn't deliver on its ambitions.

If you don't like it, that's your opinion.

But to say the game is "utterly flawed" is completely incorrect. This implies the game is of a bad quality, which has nothing to do with subjectivity and also isn't true. Just wanted to clear that up.

I agree. The game starts to expose its shallowness after the first few missions.TheCrazed420

I agree, also I actually thought AC was a medieval ish game but nooooo it wasnt.

No of course you're not alone. 90% of this website thinks so too. They did everything they could to make it a high quality game, but the game itself was not fun to play. Even though I liked climbing on top of buildings and I liked the fact that you could climb almost anything in the setting but aside from that, everything else was dull. The game didn't have a clear direction... the stealth wasn't fun... it wan't about platforming either... the combat lacked and I agree with you there, by adding timed moves they made it less realstic. gamingqueen

I respect your opinion because we all have different tastes, but saying that 90% of this website thinks the same thing is completely false. I think it would be more accurate to say that about 85-90% of the people who played it disagree with the TC since the average user score for the game is a 9.0 on Gamespot, out of 12,731 votes.

I've played quite a few hours now on Assassin's Creed, and at first I thought the story was pretty interesting and the game looked and sounded great, etc. But now I just find the whole thing utterly tedious and damn well awful. The hud and the whole animus thing just seems like a crap gimmic with annoying little sound effects, there's nothing and no one to interact with, the combat is dull and unrealistic, and the controls end up seeming really badly designed (it's meant to be a stealth game and you can't crouch, also Splinter Cell works perfectly well having subtle pushes on the analogue stick move you from a slow pace to a sprint, and just one button for jump, and the Shadow of the Colossus grip system makes climbing more challenging and realistic).

The game just feels not fun at all, and I can't believe it's the same people who did Prince of Persia (which I love!) and that the game got such a high score, and continues to get very high user scores - has everyone gone mad! I know everyone has different preferences, but seriously, the more I play the more I realise this game is utterly flawed. Mass Effect got bashed in it's review over little things, and Kane & Lynch gets an average user score of 3 just because the guns feel a bit inaccurate and the cover mechanic doesn't work brilliantly. Assassin's Creed doesn't work as a free roam game, which it attempts to give the illusion of, but even in a linear way it fails miserably.

I think it shows great patience if you can look past the flaws and see the story through, but no one seems to acknowledge it's basicly half a game.

Am I alone in my opinion?

T-Law

I disagree. I do believe the game starts very strong, and tends to drag a bit toward the middle, but I found it wholly entertaining until the last 2 missions. The developers obviously ran out of ideas, and decided to ruin the game with a never-ending barrage of boring, annoying sword battles. There were things this game accomplished that were breathtaking, but it was also highly flawed in some respects. But I wouldn't say it's "half-a-game".

Whoa, it's like I stumbled through a wormhole and came out in last December!AtomicTangerine

Welcome back to December. :)

Assassin's Creed is definitely not for everyone. Some people love it, and some other people... well, they don't particularly like it.

I enjoyed it but I agree that it is a long way from great. I think the best thing about it is that it is a 'pushing' game... I mean... I think that's the first time I've seen cities that actually look like cities with regards to the sheer number of people and crowds in them. Fair enough you couldnt interact with them much and every 10th guy was the same but it's a start and it will push other games on to be better.

I remember being quite disappointed when we finally see the capital city of the glorious empire in Oblibion and... oh... it's got a population of about 80. Shouldn't it have a population of like 10,000 at least?

Anyway Assassin's Creed is a good building block - imagine MMOs in the future where cities have populations of 5,000 or so people, then player characters will stand out as heroes amongst the general rablble. It seems certain there'll be an AC 2 and hopefully they'll take the constructive criticism onboard.

This game was an uninspired pile of over marketed, over hyped horrible game design. The game was so repitive I had to force my way through the last few assassinations, the story was ass, climbing everything over 5 feet tall got lame after the first few hours, combat was way too easy after you got counter kill and their idea of fleshing out a living game world was collecting flags, yaaay! I did love the graphics and overall presentation though, if the sequel has a lot more meat on its bones than it could be very good.GodModeEnabled

I agree... manythings didn't make sense in the game like the need to obtain a view point and ll that... it's crappy...

[QUOTE="gamingqueen"]No of course you're not alone. 90% of this website thinks so too. They did everything they could to make it a high quality game, but the game itself was not fun to play. Even though I liked climbing on top of buildings and I liked the fact that you could climb almost anything in the setting but aside from that, everything else was dull. The game didn't have a clear direction... the stealth wasn't fun... it wan't about platforming either... the combat lacked and I agree with you there, by adding timed moves they made it less realstic. Kazona

I respect your opinion because we all have different tastes, but saying that 90% of this website thinks the same thing is completely false. I think it would be more accurate to say that about 85-90% of the people who played it disagree with the TC since the average user score for the game is a 9.0 on Gamespot, out of 12,731 votes.

I was exaggerating when I used the percentage... by reading the posts you can tell that many didn't really enjoy AC.

Well, it's my personal GOTY so there you have it.

The game will not appeal to all tastes and do you know what? That's typical of some of the greatest works in all mediums; they're polarizing.

Everyting you hate, I love and even after playing many, many great games this year Assassin's Creed has remained the one experience that stuck with me and felt completely divergent from anything else I've played.

Sorry it wasn't more to your tastes.

Well, it's my personal GOTY so there you have it.

The game will not appeal to all tastes and do you know what? That's typical of some of the greatest works in all mediums; they're polarizing.

Everyting you hate, I love and even after playing many, many great games this year Assassin's Creed has remained the one experience that stuck with me and felt completely divergent from anything else I've played.

Sorry it wasn't more to your tastes.

Grammaton-Cleric

While it wasn't my GOTY I still enjoyed it immensly. I definitely agree on the point it felt completely different from anything else I've ever played, the crowd/social system actually worked.

Solid first entry in a series.InterpolWilco

This is somewhat true. The premise is great ; just add a bit more flexibilty on how to approach kills(a bit more Hitman-style), add more diversity in the missions and sidequests, tweak the fighting system and suddenly you have a stellar game with great replay value.

First of all, I think you started playing this game expecting the wrong things. Assassin's Creed is not a stealth game. It's a hitman style game set in medieval times basically. The point is not to play hide and seek but simply to kill your target without attracting unwanted attention beforehand.

Secondly, after you've gotten far enough into the game you're given several tasks at once and the order in which you do them is up to you. I think this happens once you've 'unlocked' all three cities (or was it 4.. lol).

I think a lot of people go into this game expecting a Splinter Cell or Metal Gear Solid type stealth game, which is naturally going to lead to dissapointment since it shares very little similarities with those games, if any. Like I said, this game has a lot more in common with the Hitman games, minus the disquises.

Kazona

It doesn't even have as many stealth elements as a Hitman game.

Well, it's my personal GOTY so there you have it.

The game will not appeal to all tastes and do you know what? That's typical of some of the greatest works in all mediums; they're polarizing.

Everyting you hate, I love and even after playing many, many great games this year Assassin's Creed has remained the one experience that stuck with me and felt completely divergent from anything else I've played.

Sorry it wasn't more to your tastes.

Grammaton-Cleric

Did you play Portal, TF2, or Galaxy.

I agree with those that have said it that the game does show potential. But that's what makes it feel like half a game. There's no doubting the cities and landscapes are impeccably designed with lots of nice little touches, and clearly alot of thought and hard work has gone into this. However the gameplay seems very badly thought out. To me, it's like the designers weren't sure what the game was meant to be, or didn't seem to know how to incorporate the different elements they wanted. Overall the worst thing is the lack of choice within the game - you are given an open world but are forced to do everything in a certain way - the viewpoints, hide spots, assassinations, investigations, fights are all set out for you with no room for variation. In one scene Altair says "If things change, I'll adapt" - er, no you won't buddy! Computer says NO! (by the way, get some acting lessons)

The game is interesting and entertaining to a point, but in no way deserves the high scores it's got. How the games faults are completely overlooked in reviews amazes me.

It's also funny someone should mention Oblivion.

If you take Oblivion, add some cool climbing & hundreds of characters in each city, also some assassinations and a few mini missions, then take away the hundreds of weapons/ armour/ clothing, all objects, ability to talk to characters, weather and changing lighting, interiors, random missions of all varieties, different outcomes to your actions, complete freedom in the game world, save anytime, sensible controls, nicely designed hud & menus, fun and challenging combat.... and what do you have - Assassin's Creed.

It's also funny someone should mention Oblivion.

If you take Oblivion, add some cool climbing & hundreds of characters in each city, also some assassinations and a few mini missions, then take away the hundreds of weapons/ armour/ clothing, all objects, ability to talk to characters, weather and changing lighting, interiors, random missions of all varieties, different outcomes to your actions, complete freedom in the game world, save anytime, sensible controls, nicely designed hud & menus, fun and challenging combat.... and what do you have - Assassin's Creed.

T-Law

Yeah I agree, I wasn't saying Oblivion was bad or anything... I guess what I was saying was that imagine the next Elder Scrolls game featuring the combined technology of Oblivion and AC... now that would be immense!

The PS3 was the first console I bought since the N64. The reason was to play AC after seeing it advertised on TV. After 30 minutes of playing you could not wipe the grin off my face. After 3 hours of playing I was just confused. I could not believe how boring and repetitive this game had gotten in such a short time. I'll never play this game again. Any $ I can get for a trade in, and I will feel guilty. I'm glad I got COD4 and Uncharted.fishn4red

Umm... You do understand the concept of an advertisment, right? I'm sorry you dropped $460+ to play the game, but that is just dumb on your part. Also, I doubt how no other game from the last 8 years could convince you to buy a system besides Assassin's Creed.

I call shenanigans on this post!

[QUOTE="T-Law"]

It's also funny someone should mention Oblivion.

If you take Oblivion, add some cool climbing & hundreds of characters in each city, also some assassinations and a few mini missions, then take away the hundreds of weapons/ armour/ clothing, all objects, ability to talk to characters, weather and changing lighting, interiors, random missions of all varieties, different outcomes to your actions, complete freedom in the game world, save anytime, sensible controls, nicely designed hud & menus, fun and challenging combat.... and what do you have - Assassin's Creed.

curtlikesmeat

Yeah I agree, I wasn't saying Oblivion was bad or anything... I guess what I was saying was that imagine the next Elder Scrolls game featuring the combined technology of Oblivion and AC... now that would be immense!

I'm with you there. If it also added the type of freedom with carrying out assassinations that Hitman offers.... well, that would be a very special game indeed.

i agree! i think assasins creed is way overrated. its extreamly repetitive and it seems like you have to watch people talk way to much. most of the missions arnt even enjoyable (ex. eavs dropping, pick pocketing) it just isnt that much fun. im proud to say that i traded it in 2 days ago

well, to me assassins creed is a huge homicidal sandbox. if thats what you want out of the game i think the game delivers perfectly!!! its huge, and u can kill lots of things... it kinda reminds me of a stripped down zelda too because u basically get heart containers via XP through doing things. and the ability to climb anything and explore such huge cities was really fun for me.

if you want more than that, then yeah you wont like the game, but if u want that GTA free roaming free killing vibe i think the game could be for you.

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

Well, it's my personal GOTY so there you have it.

The game will not appeal to all tastes and do you know what? That's typical of some of the greatest works in all mediums; they're polarizing.

Everyting you hate, I love and even after playing many, many great games this year Assassin's Creed has remained the one experience that stuck with me and felt completely divergent from anything else I've played.

Sorry it wasn't more to your tastes.

HiResDes

Did you play Portal, TF2, or Galaxy.

Own them all.

I stand by Assassin's Creed. My pick for GOTY.

AC is at best disgustingly repetitive. You could play a demo and see everything the game had to offer. HOW in the world such a repetitive game scored so highly from so many different places after being reviewed by professional people is beyond me. Alter_Echo

You could apply your critique to the vast majority of games on the shelves, including GOTY winners.

Repetition is a part of gaming and for whatever reason people are being selective in their admonishment of its application in this particular game.

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]AC is at best disgustingly repetitive. You could play a demo and see everything the game had to offer. HOW in the world such a repetitive game scored so highly from so many different places after being reviewed by professional people is beyond me. Grammaton-Cleric

You could apply your critique to the vast majority of games on the shelves, including GOTY winners.

Repetition is a part of gaming and for whatever reason people are being selective in their admonishment of its application in this particular game.

Sandbox games are really what you make them, but I simply could not have as much fun in this game as I had in any of the GTA's or even Crackdown (though AC came close at times)...When I actually tried to play through the game, I couldn't force myself through near carbon copy assassination (beatdown) assignments. I also hated the dialogue, I absolutely went into an angry fury when I would stab a guy and then I'd be forced to listen to his dramatic monologue for 5 minutes. That is just absurd, and the entire plot was way too melodramatic for my taste, the platforming controls were the best part of the game but they were not even utilized that well. Why does there always seem to be a pile of hay conveniently placed at the bottom of each structure, why are there roads leading to deads end, why can't I swim and visit the background areas which look more interesting than those included in the game. I think the setting may have just been a bad pick, as the cities all looked relatively the same back then. Anyway, I could go on and on about my dislikes. Hitman Blood Money is a much better executed game, and it wasn't even nearly a GOTY contender.

Let me just say I have had AC since release...and I still go back to play it...why? Because after you beat the story mode the game still remains interesting...this game requires you to be imaginitave and create your own fun...The missions had very basic things to do...listen to this convo, kill that guy, steal from this guy..etc etc..about 20 times over...but what makes it fun is how you do it..minus the eavesdroping portions there are a number of different ways you can complete any scenario...If your pickpocketing a guy you COULD just snatch it and run right as the mission starts..or you can "tail" him for a while...see what the guy is up to..T

his game can either have ALOT of downtime..or be non stop action depending on your play style..it is totally possible to just run around a city and take in the sights and sounds...ever just pearch up on a ledge and listen to peoples conversations below? Ever make up little mini games for yourself that require you to take out EVERY rooftop guard in a city? Ever try to make the game wicked hard by reseting every time you get "spoted" as an assassin? Try freerunning across an entire map with out falling to the ground..make the game interesting for your self..this game is a sandbox game that requires you to have a bit of imagination...thats what a good sandbox game does. The reason people complain about games like this and Crackdown is because it is on a system where the fan base is used to games like Gears of War and COD4..games that put you in liniar paths from point a to point b and just shoot everything that moves..yes thats fun too but this isnt that type of game. Its best described as Hitman: 1102 AD...

[QUOTE="Grammaton-Cleric"]

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]AC is at best disgustingly repetitive. You could play a demo and see everything the game had to offer. HOW in the world such a repetitive game scored so highly from so many different places after being reviewed by professional people is beyond me. HiResDes

You could apply your critique to the vast majority of games on the shelves, including GOTY winners.

Repetition is a part of gaming and for whatever reason people are being selective in their admonishment of its application in this particular game.

Sandbox games are really what you make them, but I simply could not have as much fun in this game as I had in any of the GTA's or even Crackdown (though AC came close at times)...When I actually tried to play through the game, I couldn't force myself through near carbon copy assassination (beatdown) assignments. I also hated the dialogue, I absolutely went into an angry fury when I would stab a guy and then I'd be forced to listen to his dramatic monologue for 5 minutes. That is just absurd, and the entire plot was way too melodramatic for my taste, the platforming controls were the best part of the game but they were not even utilized that well. Why does there always seem to be a pile of hay conveniently placed at the bottom of each structure, why are there roads leading to deads end, why can't I swim and visit the background areas which look more interesting than those included in the game. I think the setting may have just been a bad pick, as the cities all looked relatively the same back then. Anyway, I could go on and on about my dislikes. Hitman Blood Money is a much better executed game, and it wasn't even nearly a GOTY contender.

Well, I disagreee with just about everything you've written and personally I think Hitman is a much lesser game so there you go. Assassin's Creed isn't for everyone and it certainly appears to have left many in the cold but at the same time those of us who enjoyed it seem to have really loved it. It's a polarizing experience and a divergent game, especially in the midst of the gun-fetishistic titles that are so rampant and popular at this time, but it works for some. The game has flaws to be sure but as an original IP it's easily one of the best debuts I've seen in years.

In terms of originality Ubisoft definitely succeded. In the era of games like MGS4- which has to sell at least a million copies on the 1st day to break even because of sky rocketing develoment costs- it's nice to see a publisher willing to take some risks. However, the game itself is undoubtedly terrible. Despite initially appearing to be a well though out, quality game, it quickly becomes apparent that even the beautiful landscape of the Holy Land can't cover up the pervasively aimless and shallow feel of the game.

It could have been so much more and I expected far better from the same team as POP, but I guess we'll just have to hope they learn from their mistakes for the next in the series. The plot itself was well written and was one of the few enjoyable aspects of the game; shame it was ruined by the rest. But kudos to Ubisoft for trying at least