Assasins creed dissapointment

Hi, i know probably a lot of people loves assasins creed...

i remember i played the first one some years ago, and after a few hours i just... stop playing it

now a few years later, i have been reading about it, seeing reviews, and so on... one reviewr says its a game to remember years to come... for me its not

i tried it again... after all its a big franchise and so on...

i give it a try and again.. its fine for a while, then it just gets boring

get a mission, go to this city, climb view point, save citizens, interrogate, pickpocketing, find target... and kill

and again, and again, and again...

i think the game its amazingly repetitive!!! im missing something? why its this game so great if you have to do the smae over and over and over and over again??

i would like to hear some opinions.... :D

Assassin's Creed had this either love it or hate it reaction. Yeah it was repetitive, some people liked that in it and the fact that you had to plan your assassinations, the majority however didn't. That's why Assassin's Creed II changed that aspect a lot.

If you don't like the first it's normal, try the second though, it appeals to the general audience in a better way.

Assassin's Creed had this either love it or hate it reaction. Yeah it was repetitive, some people liked that in it and the fact that you had to plan your assassinations, the majority however didn't. That's why Assassin's Creed II changed that aspect a lot.

If you don't like the first it's normal, try the second though, it appeals to the general audience in a better way.

finalserenade75

yeah i have heard that the second one is better, i just think the first one is not AS good as they say... i guess the point of the game is to plan assassinations like you say, but its very straight foward for me at least... go, climb things, find target.. kill... i would like to give the second a chance now that you mention its a bit different

So you're just referring to the first game? If so, I'm not surprised. It does get better, though there's still some repetition and bland missions, namely the "follow this person and don't get caught" missions, but still, everything after the first game is significantly better.SoNin360

yeah, im speaking about the first game :D

Glad you made this thread. I for one tried the first single player, beat the 2nd one, and then tried the 3rd (brotherhood), and I must say I was bored throughout. The game doesn't do anything great, nor even good. Here:

Platforming: 3/5 - it's smooth, but there will always be that lack of finer control over your movements - almost all your movements during free running are done automatically. The only thing that's not automatic is pressing forward on the left stick while free running.

Stealth: 2/5 - no cone radius, and no indication of whether (or, more specifically, where) an enemy is alert about your prescence or not. Stealth is also not encouraged since most of the time there are witnesses everywhere in the city (when you're not in the undground tunnels or inside buildings).

Action: 1/5 - never enjoyed the combat. Relies too much on action-reaction type of combat (ie, countering), rather than agression and combinations. Again, there is a disconnect between finer control, as countering is nearly automatic after you do a perfectly timed button press (you're almost forced to watch that little final-kill cutscene).

Also, the game is just BORING - the game had great appeal when it'd introduce characters that are well known (Da Vinci), but I can safely say, it leaves non-history persons in the dark. I may seem bias here, b/c I can't stand history (courses, political science), but most of characters mean nothign to me. I don't care if a king (who i don't give a rat's a$$ about) dies in the game - who the hell cares. There's no proper character development in AC games, it just seems they want to rely on history figures' namesakes rather than give them proper personalities.

And, call me paranoid, but I do believe publishers are paid to give the AC games higher marks. This was undoubtedly the case when gametrailers honored AC3 with best-of-show awards, even though there were plenty of other, more appealing games that deserved the award.

HOWEVER, one great thing about the AC games is its unique multiplayer - delved into Brotherhood's mp more than i did the sp. The simplied control scheme worked well in a highly competitive, think-on-your-feet enviroment.

Well like others stated it's either a love or hate it thing with the first game. While I admit, it's pretty repetitive--and there was actually a time I, too, stopped playing it for a while before I finished--like someone stated once you get about midway/toward the end it does pick up. Frankly, I still enjoyed the hell out of it, I know I'm one of the few that loved that 'planning aspect' for the first game. It's something that really made you feel like a true assassin studying up on and following your mark getting the help from the people you saved, and all that stuff. As you gained your abilities w/ Altair it truly made you feel badass toward the end. And the development of the story to me is what made it awesome.:P

I played the second one and thought it was "good", but that's about it. It had some problems with its controls, the story and main character were uninteresting, and the gameplay in general was just "good" but definitely not great. It did have some nice areasto roam around in, though again, good not great.

I don't understand the fanboyism at all.

One of the main issues with the first installment of Assassins Creed was the lack of creativity when it came to the missions. I particullary didn't like pickpocketing someone's wallet for intel. When it came down to the main missions to assasinate someone, you always gathered intel, stalked your enemy for a short time and then proceeded to kill them in the exact same fashion.

Don't get me wrong, at the time it was an EPIC game. There were not many games that came close to the originality of what Assassins Creed established at the time. The issue with Assassins Creed is the fact that they started to do what Call of Duty has been known for and came out with game after game and Assassins Creed lost credibility while doing that.

I played all the way to Revelations. I played two hours and quickly lost interest. The story was good. It was interesting. I believe Assassins Creed II and Brotherhood were the two best games in my opinion.

try ac2 you'll like it alot better

Glad you made this thread. I for one tried the first single player, beat the 2nd one, and then tried the 3rd (brotherhood), and I must say I was bored throughout. The game doesn't do anything great, nor even good. Here:

Platforming: 3/5 - it's smooth, but there will always be that lack of finer control over your movements - almost all your movements during free running are done automatically. The only thing that's not automatic is pressing forward on the left stick while free running.

Stealth: 2/5 - no cone radius, and no indication of whether (or, more specifically, where) an enemy is alert about your prescence or not. Stealth is also not encouraged since most of the time there are witnesses everywhere in the city (when you're not in the undground tunnels or inside buildings).

Action: 1/5 - never enjoyed the combat. Relies too much on action-reaction type of combat (ie, countering), rather than agression and combinations. Again, there is a disconnect between finer control, as countering is nearly automatic after you do a perfectly timed button press (you're almost forced to watch that little final-kill cutscene).

Also, the game is just BORING - the game had great appeal when it'd introduce characters that are well known (Da Vinci), but I can safely say, it leaves non-history persons in the dark. I may seem bias here, b/c I can't stand history (courses, political science), but most of characters mean nothign to me. I don't care if a king (who i don't give a rat's a$$ about) dies in the game - who the hell cares. There's no proper character development in AC games, it just seems they want to rely on history figures' namesakes rather than give them proper personalities.

And, call me paranoid, but I do believe publishers are paid to give the AC games higher marks. This was undoubtedly the case when gametrailers honored AC3 with best-of-show awards, even though there were plenty of other, more appealing games that deserved the award.

HOWEVER, one great thing about the AC games is its unique multiplayer - delved into Brotherhood's mp more than i did the sp. The simplied control scheme worked well in a highly competitive, think-on-your-feet enviroment.

glitch2424

i think you share my opinion in some aspects...

as a platform game is fine, its kind of easy going from A to B, but gets old really fast to go jumping around, plus, i pretty much keep pression, L stick foward, r1 and x to jump... all the time...

stealth... dont know, besides pickpocketing and follow someone to interrogate, at least the way i played didnt had much stealth...

action... like you said.. not much, kill the target and every now and then deal with some guards by doing counterattacks... not much

and as other guy said... the game when it came out probably was creative, exciting and all the things you can see of a new game in a new console.. everything its new and exiting.. but as a game it self... today.. i dont think its good...

i will give a try to AC 2 in some point

I haven't haddissapointment so far. AC3 also seems good.

I think Assassin's Creed is great. At the time it was a really unique experience, and the following games in the series have improved upon the originals foundations within assassination gameplay.

i think you aint missing anything i've played thriough them all, and still have felt nothing for the game, i think people like it because it's easy and it's a one button game, as you've played it you know that to fight all you do is block then hit block then hit, don't listen to these number 2 is pretty much the same, yes it's been done alot better and a little bit more enjoyable than the first but the truth is it's still one button, the missions are all the same, what is the point in building up your castle?? it's stupid and uneventful, the only reason i like the game is the whole sci fi part of it thats the only reason i'm still playing,

each mission is the same, there really isn't much difference in the way you kill people you don't really plan any assasinations, all you do is find him and then come in at them just a different angles and different weapons to get the same results, there's no planning, o and the fighting is 2 buttons, the more you get into the game the worsed it gets, no skill involved you just block block block until they get caught off guard then hit, then back to blocking then wait again then hit, i honestly don't mind the game i really wish there was more skill involved and more of a learning curve to things and it wasn't so easy to run around building, and wish the ai was good, overal i don't think it's a love hate thing i just think it's an average game, why in the world it managed to convince the critics is still beyond me but maybe it just was a nice easy game for them to play or the fact that they have to rush through it to get reviews out that the boredom doesn't set in.

i think you aint missing anything i've played thriough them all, and still have felt nothing for the game, i think people like it because it's easy and it's a one button game, as you've played it you know that to fight all you do is block then hit block then hit, don't listen to these number 2 is pretty much the same, yes it's been done alot better and a little bit more enjoyable than the first but the truth is it's still one button, the missions are all the same, what is the point in building up your castle?? it's stupid and uneventful, the only reason i like the game is the whole sci fi part of it thats the only reason i'm still playing,

each mission is the same, there really isn't much difference in the way you kill people you don't really plan any assasinations, all you do is find him and then come in at them just a different angles and different weapons to get the same results, there's no planning, o and the fighting is 2 buttons, the more you get into the game the worsed it gets, no skill involved you just block block block until they get caught off guard then hit, then back to blocking then wait again then hit, i honestly don't mind the game i really wish there was more skill involved and more of a learning curve to things and it wasn't so easy to run around building, and wish the ai was good, overal i don't think it's a love hate thing i just think it's an average game, why in the world it managed to convince the critics is still beyond me but maybe it just was a nice easy game for them to play or the fact that they have to rush through it to get reviews out that the boredom doesn't set in.

bezza2011

yeah i dont think is real skill or learning much..

all i did was, keep R1 press... and then square when attacked... and thats pretty much it

besides that climbing view points... at least for me... gets old quite fast...

besides that i didnt found anything to remember or enjoy... i gave the game back already, i just borrowed for free, so i gave it a try...

[QUOTE="bezza2011"]

i think you aint missing anything i've played thriough them all, and still have felt nothing for the game, i think people like it because it's easy and it's a one button game, as you've played it you know that to fight all you do is block then hit block then hit, don't listen to these number 2 is pretty much the same, yes it's been done alot better and a little bit more enjoyable than the first but the truth is it's still one button, the missions are all the same, what is the point in building up your castle?? it's stupid and uneventful, the only reason i like the game is the whole sci fi part of it thats the only reason i'm still playing,

each mission is the same, there really isn't much difference in the way you kill people you don't really plan any assasinations, all you do is find him and then come in at them just a different angles and different weapons to get the same results, there's no planning, o and the fighting is 2 buttons, the more you get into the game the worsed it gets, no skill involved you just block block block until they get caught off guard then hit, then back to blocking then wait again then hit, i honestly don't mind the game i really wish there was more skill involved and more of a learning curve to things and it wasn't so easy to run around building, and wish the ai was good, overal i don't think it's a love hate thing i just think it's an average game, why in the world it managed to convince the critics is still beyond me but maybe it just was a nice easy game for them to play or the fact that they have to rush through it to get reviews out that the boredom doesn't set in.

ra84ma

yeah i dont think is real skill or learning much..

all i did was, keep R1 press... and then square when attacked... and thats pretty much it

besides that climbing view points... at least for me... gets old quite fast...

besides that i didnt found anything to remember or enjoy... i gave the game back already, i just borrowed for free, so i gave it a try...

exactly i found that there was no skill to the game what so ever, the only ever way to kill guards was counter attacking them, and that involved blocking a couple of times and then there was like a couple second delaty so you could counter, was so boring, climbing building was fun for about 10minutes then i got bored. i honestly don't understand how it got such a high score for such an easy and repetitive game,