Is Assassins creed series always bad or turn bad?

Hello,

So friends, new AC games coming out and being controversial like some say its woke etc.

however lets take look at series. early back. was it really bad or turn bad after then gone RPGs and then woken etc?

I recently replayed AC2. and its not bad. not really compare to something later games. which are bad. AC2 trilogy and AC4 black are pretty good but not masterpieces as they were very simple games but back when we had Single male protagonist. not choose between male female or dual protagonist to suit majority and minority as a result story suffer for having that.

the gameplay was also much better than grinding and leveling of later RPG games.

so my friends is series always suck or just become bad after going RPG? lets discuss

I think it was always mediocre with few games being ok. now its even worse.

Always bad. Would elaborate, but got boring to criticize it ten years ago.

Many people hated the first game.... No one could deny the Ezio trilogy was the apex of the series and since then it's been throwing poo against the wall and hoping it sticks.

The games were mediocre prior and the core gameplay has improved tremendously despite the questionable RPG elements and scaling. Let us not forget how awful the combat was in these games prior to the newer versions.

At the time when it was new there was not much else like it, and the first one was one of the first next gen only games, so it was novel and people put up with things that have now aged badly because of the glitchiness and jank. At first there was intrigue about an overarching meta narrative that both allowed for somewhat of a conclusion to the game itself but hooked the gamer to find out what happened next in the meta narrative. Ezio was a character that stood out at the time because he was written and acted in a way that was somewhat endearing, and that stood out compared to other games at the time which maybe didn't invest so much in that. Full voice acting and having a large cast, having an interesting spin on events in history and weaving in the assassin in the background, that hooked players at the time.

Now the various aspects are not as unique so the series doesn't stand out anymore, and Ubisoft themselves made a lot of AC games.

There's more gamers than ever now and there's always going to be someone new to the franchise, so maybe it isn't as played out for some people. Ubisoft seems to have gotten churning these out down to a science, and I guess with the engine, assets, and teams that they have, they can do that at a budget and there seems to be enough people that want to buy it to cover the costs and keep the lights on over there.

I played AC2 and had a good time in it, people wanted to see more of Ezio so instead of making something completely different, they continued his story, but to me it felt very similar to the previous game and the story continuation didn't hook me as much, and there were other games to play. I tried to check in on the series again with AC4 and Odyssey but they didn't grab me. Maybe I've given up on the series, or maybe there are too many other games out there that hook me that I'm not really looking to try to get into another AC game, but I have tried now and then.

Dogwater from minute 1.

Always been kinda alright. It just does well with its worlds and (sometimes) characters. Plus, I like history.

I think the series has improved.

Go back and play the early games. They're clunky as hell. The parkour aspects have always been a bit iffy--sticking to walls you didn't quite want to stick to, missing the occasional jumps, and so forth--but for the most part they've improved the mechanics a lot.

The attention to detail as well as the quest design has also improved, with some occasional drops in quality. While AC 2 and the Ezio saga are arguably the peak in terms of the AC storytelling and characters, that's not to say other characters have not been appealing either. The twins from Syndicate were excellent, and I found Arno from Unity to rival Ezio in many ways.

The series has also gone through some changes, most of which are for the better. I initially did not like the changes they made with the Origin-Odyssey-Valhalla series; it was too much focus on open-world, too much focus on action, and too little focus on stealth. But after my initial personal disappointment, I viewed them as their own self-contained games and found that they are really quite good. The quest design is especially great, and while I do find open-world design to dilute the overall experience, they really really made them very interesting places to explore and quest in.

I think people bash the series because we have had so so so many of them, but the simple fact is that the Assassin's Creed series is a really good franchise full of really fun games.

AC Unity still holds a special place in my heart, though. I think it was the perfect blend of stealth, action, story, and the level design in that game is flawless (so flawless, they actually used Notre Dame blueprints from the game to help restore it after a very serious fire).

My only criticism, and this is controversial, is I miss the tie-ins to Abstergo and the modern times. I enjoy popping out of my bed and getting a little bit of story from the modern era before jumping back into the machine to adventure as a long-lost relative.

I hope they do a modern- or near-future Assassin's Creed at some point where we go after Abstergo/Templars and meet some of the precursor people or whatever they're called.

@mrbojangles25: In AC4 where you visit their offices, that was cringy AF and just looked like they were so far up their own a**

I've always enjoyed more Assassin's Creed than SW wants me to, though my last AC game (Syndicate), I still haven't beaten yet.

There is a reason the series is popular, and it's not hard to understand why. If it wasn't, why would Ezio be a freaking guest in a SoulCalibur game (admittedly the "worst" one, but it was still fine in it's own right)?

with so many generic and samey open world RPG games. going back to play AC2 feel better and refreshing?

every game nowadays wanna be open world RPG as a result gameplay suffer. i mean look at new dragon age? LOL that shit looks so bad so bad that made Assassins creed 2 looks like Half life 2.

You say "every open world rpg" and then mention the worst of the worst shit game coming from a dead developer. NO, not every rpg is garbage. Shadow of the Erdtree on its own crushes everything in its path. The only reason why you're somehow positive about asscreed is because as we've spoken before, your taste in gaming has been severly downgrading since Spiderman came out on pc.

or maybe later AC games becoming RPGs are so bad and generic. like any other generic open world RPG that make me go back to original games to see why they are better?

don't care about elden ring neither soulborne games. but what I'm talking about in general open world RPGs as current gen is full of them with AC games, Bethesda games, and other checklist open world title now with grinding, leveling and bad gameplay.

Later asscreed games made a shit franchise EVEN shittier. Its like going from a 5/10 to a 3/10. They were never good, and Ubisoft doesn't know how to develop video games.

You don't care about Elden Ring, but pretend to care about quality. Imagine the stupidity.

I enjoyed the early ones, not played more recent so cannot comment really.

I managed to get through Valhalla, enjoyed it, but never want to go back because I wasted two months playing it and the game is a time drain more than anything. But this is less the grindy RPG aspect, they simplified the gear more in this one not requiring RPG style gear swap outs constantly. But these games and their large maps are still peppered with activities beyond the main story designed to keep people playing for hours upon hours. I'd say one would need to put in somewhere approaching 200 hours to fully complete the game.

This has been the approach of gaming lately though, not just with AC games, but big AAA in general. Developers want to overpad their games. Ubisoft in the last decade has been trying to find ways to keep people more engaged with their games and every franchise seems like some kind of GaaS experiment. I wouldn't blame the RPG design or even the "woke" whatever. It's that games are just overly padded, large open worlds padded with cookie cutter content, and add that GaaS aspect designed to keep people logging in daily, they're just overly bloated. Rather than having a singularly focus crafted experience.

I will say though their best GaaS yet has to be The Division games, they're pretty addictive and the gameplay is very satisfying. I myself enjoyed it more than the Destiny games.

It's clear what Ubisoft's intentions were going forward with AC Unity. It's like they knew they wanted to take advantage of console online and social integration but couldn't quite figure out how. In the end all they had to show for it was this stupid app integration feature that allowed you to unlock chests in the game through a cellphone app, and a small selection of co-op missions. But worse is they scrapped the until then evolution of combat and gameplay mechanics the series built up with each game, scrapping them and starting from scratch. Until then the previous games' online PvP was considered a success and it was but they seemed to want to carry the more limited abilities of online into the SP. In essence, they gimped the players severely, nerfed the tools and abilities, and even when all the tools and gears are upgraded their still super weak. I forget if it were Unity or Syndicate but they did away with corner luring (like WTF?!). They added the paid currency MTX shortcut which I didn't bother with and would be a waste of time IMO as again they gimped the best tools and gear so bad.

Syndicate was originally to be designed as a co-op game they couldn't finish on time so they made up this concocted bullshit to seemingly pander to player outrage that they'd return to their roots, claimed to make it a SP focused experience and people believed it, celebrated this farce, and in the end it was the same broken combat and gameplay mechanics that Unity was built on.

Going back to the Division, reason that works as a game to suck up hundreds of hours is rhe core gameplay is solid and satisfying. But when AC games have sloppy mechanics it makes playing a game designed to take hundreds of hours to be a chore. Now when they moved to rhe RPG approach with Origins, I can't quite say as I never stuck with it long enough to make major progress, and I skipped Odyssey so far, but Valhalla seemed to have a more streamlined RPG experience, but again, I take issue with the game length and the overly padded world with all the cookie cutter content. But the gameplay was somewhat gratifying, guess enough so for me to see it to the end. But the idea of playing it ever again I'm like screw that I'd rather just play something else I haven't played.

Exactly

Ubisoft during early 00s used to make masterpieces.

Splinter cell chaos theory is still best stealth game of all time and one of the greatest game of all time. Far cry 2 was most immersive open world game of 7th gen and best FC game. FC3 was backward and more cinematic. FC2 was ubisoft STALKER.

Rainbow six 3 was best tactical shooter before ruined by vegas by introducing cover mechanics.

Prince of persia sands of time was excellent platformer adventure game that does not feel like movie games like uncharted and tomb raider.

Ubisoft once used to make masterpiece after masterpieces. modern ubisoft suck.

Which one was AC4? There's been so many I have to go by their names.

Was that Black Flag? I didn't like that one, I think it was only popular because "hey look we pirates arrrrrrgh". Naval combat was kind of fun.

Unlikeable protagonist, too.

I'd rather make a new post than add my previous wall of text, but wanted to focus on this idea of what an ideal AC campaign should be in length. Frankly I feel 40 hours should be enough, but if developers and gamers want some 100-200 hours or more experience, who am I to deny them that. I'm just not psyched to make such a commitment myself.

After all I do really love Red Dead Redemption 2, and I've replayed that at least a couple times, and that's a game I'd put as comparable in length to Valhalla. There's just not much room in my life for games of that size though.

Now, given Mirage is a much smaller game, I might give it a shot. After all I heard the core gameplay is solid, and they didn't bother to overly bloated the world this time from what I heard, though likely because they took Ubisoft Singapore off making the bloated filler content (which they've done for AC games for many years now) so they could finish Skulls And Bones. Who knows what design they'll go with for the next AC game.

This idea though Ubisoft making these bloated open world games, given my experience with AC games and Far Cry games, I've no strong desire to play their upcoming Star Wars game... well, I still wanna play it, just not looking forward to the commitment, the time commitment is kind of a turn-off now.

The ezio collection was great don't like the huge scale of the recent games.

All I can say is I got bored halfway through 2 and 4, which are supposed to be the good ones. They were fun for a while, just too much padding.

@ghosts4ever said:

@hardwenzen said:

Ubisoft doesn't know how to develop video games.

Exactly

Ubisoft during early 00s used to make masterpieces.

Splinter cell chaos theory is still best stealth game of all time and one of the greatest game of all time. Far cry 2 was most immersive open world game of 7th gen and best FC game. FC3 was backward and more cinematic. FC2 was ubisoft STALKER.

Rainbow six 3 was best tactical shooter before ruined by vegas by introducing cover mechanics.

Prince of persia sands of time was excellent platformer adventure game that does not feel like movie games like uncharted and tomb raider.

Ubisoft once used to make masterpiece after masterpieces. modern ubisoft suck.

Those games weren't built around nickle and diming you... They were built to offer prime gaming experiences. Old Ubisoft (like so many others) were trying tk sell their games based on prime gameplay experiences. In today's world games are built around monetization and therefore that level of craftsmanship in gaming is over....

It's the Keyser Soze of games.

Had Ass Creed, a terrible game. Then Ass Creed 2, a mid at best game. But still not good.

The bias press coverage of this series from game media and dumb people help make this a thing.

At best these are "get it on a sale", fuckabout games never actually finish.

Never been top tier, never will be.

Play Rayman.

Have played surprisingly little of them. Fully played through the first and second games and only played a bit of Black Flag and Valhalla. Did enjoy the first two games a fair amount and other two seemed fine. Having said that though they probably wouldn’t even be close to making my top 100 list.

They were good for a time but just failed to evolve.

When TW3 came out they tried to copy it but they never came close. The open world genre has continued to evolve and Ubisoft is stuck with their standard " games by committe " approach.

The early ones were unique for their time, now we have gotten 500 AC games and a billion clones, so yeah they have lost their appeal imo… also open world games has gotten extremely stale in most cases!

Ezio was fine medieval Solid snake.

now you are going to choose male or female character x. or in case lastest AC game that is coming having woke protagonist instead of writing compelling character like solid snake.

It's popular to hate them, but for a long while I really enjoyed the games. Eventually, though, inovation stopped and they started to feel grindy. But those are the kind of games I enjoy when I don't want to try hard.

You all have some rose tinted glasses of the past. Consider new glass when reviewing the past.🙃

@Pedro: you cant find any pure stealth simulator like splinter cell 3 in this day and age.

Nah...

At least you accept the rose tinted glasses. 🙃

I never played any Assassin's Creed at all and I don't intend to ever do. I just don't find them interesting at all.

AC2 also have one of the most beautiful soundtrack and now ubisoft also cash in this soundtrack lol.

I enjoyed the series a good deal back in the day. 1 had issues with repetitiveness but they really nailed the setting and was a technical marvel, 2 felt like a big improvement at the time and I considered it one of my top gen 7 games for awhile . I even enjoyed 3.

However now ... I can barely stand to play them. Clunky movement, shallow combat and loaded with so much walking/talking it's probably more enjoyable to just watch them on youtube . Unity and Syndicate play better then the older titles but wouldn't call them good.

I hated Origins so much that I never bothered with Odyssey and Valhalla.

No.1 was unique for its time. No. 4 blackflag was the most enjoyable AC game I ever played, mainly due to the pirate stuff. Loved origins but never finished it.

Ah its a ghost thread, as you were.

It was always bad.

Platforming was always on auto pilot, combat could be won by button mashing, the story was always full of itself. The city recreations were cool and all, but that is about all I can give it.

Assassin's Creed gameplay has always been mediocre, heavily dumbed down from Prince of Persia (which had great gameplay).

But AC is good at what it does best: historical tourism. Exploring historical civilizations has always been AC's main draw.

It's better than crap like Halo, but it's an average series anymore.

Was never especially good. I remember enjoying the first game, since it was something different, but I was also dissapointed with it. Really liked Prince of Persia, and then AC came and replaced it with its terrible combat and autoplatforming. Still enjoyed AC1 and, to an extent, AC2, but it got very stale and never got better.

Prince of persia sands of time was great. 2008 version was bad where prince cant die.

Sands of time remake was cancelled and new remake is coming which I hope turn out good.

Sands of Time was awesome.

I'd like a new PoP game over another fucking remake, though.

new POP just released month ago. remake and new games co exist.

so yes New POP just released. let remake also release.

better remake POP than nothing.

The worlds are amazing, but combat, platforming and gameplay just in general is poor. I gotta say though that Origins and Odyssey had significantly improved gameplay. Black Flag had an excellent boat combat system.

Would've been better to put remake resources into a new game instead of a remake.

The new PoP game was released 7.5 months ago, which means they could've worked on a more ambitious PoP game for at least 7.5 months by now.

I almost don't believe you. This is a perfect game for souls haters, the one who find fromosft titles too difficult (like you).

@Litchie: because new pop released yes. Let remake release first than new open 3D pop they can make.

Ubi not interested in POP as AC replace it. So i welcome sands of time remake.

I like most of the games and they appear to sell well, so that's cool for me I suppose. I'm not too happy about the controversy surrounding Shadows, but I'm going to try and ignore it and just play the game. I get it's an agenda but I try to keep politics out of my games, so hopefully I can.

Gameplay has always been bad, but has slooowly improved. Stealth AI is still laughable, and parkour hasn’t realle evolved in any meaningful way. But I still thought Mirage had fairly fun stealth, even though you were very OP 😆.

I thought the old games did the story better. There were some wtf reveals, that were memorable. New games don’t really have that. The absolute massive amount of mediocre sidecontent is tedious. Side content in the first games was veey poor, but you weren’t incentivized to do it.

My opinion is that the franchise has always been mediocre and from a gameplay pov even subpar. But I thought the old games had more soul 🤷🏻‍♂️