Assasins Creed to repetitive???

Am I the only one who thought that the first one was way to repetitive. I thought it was one of the coolest games in the world for the first 2 hours until I realized I was doing the exact same thing over and over (go sneakly kill some guy, collect flags, save citizen...etc.). I personally couldn't even finish the game I thought it was so bad. Is the second one similar in the sense that your just doing the exact same thing a thousand different times?

This is what you remind me off. No, I did not think that the first game was repetitive. I actually found it to be just what I thought it was going to be, a game where you assassinated people, and you do so by sneaking and killing people. It was a real shocker at first, I mean it has the world "Assassin" right in the title.

This is what you remind me off. No, I did not think that the first game was repetitive. I actually found it to be just what I thought it was going to be, a game where you assassinated people, and you do so by sneaking and killing people. It was a real shocker at first, I mean it has the world "Assassin" right in the title.

DamianAlexander

I did find the first AC to be very repetitive but it was rather enjoyable. I haven't played PT. 2 to see if there are any improvements though.

I thought the first one was really good but the second is definitely better. I don't think the new one is repetitive at all too.

But what else did you want? How would you change it up a bit? The game just gave me exactly what I wanted, to assassinate people, and exactly the way I wanted to. Do you find a FPS to be boring people you kill the same enemies with the same guns? Or do you find a RPG to be boring because you have to kill them by clicking the attack button? I just think that you're are putting down a game that introduced so many new things to gaming that we never knew we could do.

But what else did you want? How would you change it up a bit? The game just gave me exactly what I wanted, to assassinate people, and exactly the way I wanted to. Do you find a FPS to be boring people you kill the same enemies with the same guns? Or do you find a RPG to be boring because you have to kill them by clicking the attack button? I just think that you're are putting down a game that introduced so many new things to gaming that we never knew we could do.

DamianAlexander

For my first playthrough, I was so amazed I didn't even think it was repetitive. However, when I bought it again I started to get bored of it.

This is what you remind me off. No, I did not think that the first game was repetitive. I actually found it to be just what I thought it was going to be, a game where you assassinated people, and you do so by sneaking and killing people. It was a real shocker at first, I mean it has the world "Assassin" right in the title.

DamianAlexander

Same here and the comic made me laugh :D

ANyway I haven't played the 2nd one yet but for me the first one was amazing from start to finish... twice.

Am I the only one who thought that the first one was way to repetitive. I thought it was one of the coolest games in the world for the first 2 hours until I realized I was doing the exact same thing over and over (go sneakly kill some guy, collect flags, save citizen...etc.). I personally couldn't even finish the game I thought it was so bad. Is the second one similar in the sense that your just doing the exact same thing a thousand different times?

j-dog100000

But what else did you want? How would you change it up a bit? The game just gave me exactly what I wanted, to assassinate people, and exactly the way I wanted to. Do you find a FPS to be boring people you kill the same enemies with the same guns? Or do you find a RPG to be boring because you have to kill them by clicking the attack button? I just think that you're are putting down a game that introduced so many new things to gaming that we never knew we could do.

DamianAlexander

[QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

But what else did you want? How would you change it up a bit? The game just gave me exactly what I wanted, to assassinate people, and exactly the way I wanted to. Do you find a FPS to be boring people you kill the same enemies with the same guns? Or do you find a RPG to be boring because you have to kill them by clicking the attack button? I just think that you're are putting down a game that introduced so many new things to gaming that we never knew we could do.

sourcerah

Not repetitive because they simply added missions where you...

A) Followed your target to a secret location for a few different reasons

B) Added a few more perpetration missions before an Assassination

C) Added a few new different side missions

D) Took away the whole Desmond aspect of the game

Seriously man, the game was not improved on much. I'm not saying that the game isn't repetitive, because it was, but why would that be a bad thing at all?

And if we're talking about the TC's meaning of repetitive would me making a Plat-former metaphor make more sense? Or would you prefer a Puzzle game metaphor? Assassin's Creed was repetitive, sure, I've never said it wasn't. But it was in no way, shape, or form bad. Or rather "Too repetitive".

And on a side note, I hated the fact that they took Desmond out of the game. You barely got to know more about him, which was a one of my favorite parts of the first game. I really wanted to get to know Lucy and Desmond more and it seemed as if they just forgot about them in this story.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"][QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

But what else did you want? How would you change it up a bit? The game just gave me exactly what I wanted, to assassinate people, and exactly the way I wanted to. Do you find a FPS to be boring people you kill the same enemies with the same guns? Or do you find a RPG to be boring because you have to kill them by clicking the attack button? I just think that you're are putting down a game that introduced so many new things to gaming that we never knew we could do.

Not repetitive because they simply added missions where you...

A) Followed your target to a secret location for a few different reasons

B) Added a few more perpetration missions before an Assassination

C) Added a few new different side missions

D) Took away the whole Desmond aspect of the game

Seriously man, the game was not improved on much. I'm not saying that the game isn't repetitive, because it was, but why would that be a bad thing at all?

And if we're talking about the TC's meaning of repetitive would me making a Plat-former metaphor make more sense? Or would you prefer a Puzzle game metaphor? Assassin's Creed was repetitive, sure, I've never said it wasn't. But it was in no way, shape, or form bad. Or rather "Too repetitive".

And on a side note, I hated the fact that they took Desmond out of the game. You barely got to know more about him, which was a one of my favorite parts of the first game. I really wanted to get to know Lucy and Desmond more and it seemed as if they just forgot about them in this story.

[QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

[QUOTE="sourcerah"] That game was repetitive. Too repetitive. I am with the TC on this one. I couldn't even complete the game. What else does he want? How else could you change it up?? Are you serious??? Didn't the sequel answer these questions?? You act as if you do not know where the TC is coming from. Is the game not reptitious? Are you not doing the EXACT same thing board after board after board. Your examples were way below par. According to that logic FPS are repetitive because one is shooting enemies over and over again. You know that is not what he means by "repetitive". Assassins Creed has to be the most repetitious action/adventure game this gen. I really don't understand why so many of you people like it.sourcerah

Not repetitive because they simply added missions where you...

A) Followed your target to a secret location for a few different reasons

B) Added a few more perpetration missions before an Assassination

C) Added a few new different side missions

D) Took away the whole Desmond aspect of the game

Seriously man, the game was not improved on much. I'm not saying that the game isn't repetitive, because it was, but why would that be a bad thing at all?

And if we're talking about the TC's meaning of repetitive would me making a Plat-former metaphor make more sense? Or would you prefer a Puzzle game metaphor? Assassin's Creed was repetitive, sure, I've never said it wasn't. But it was in no way, shape, or form bad. Or rather "Too repetitive".

And on a side note, I hated the fact that they took Desmond out of the game. You barely got to know more about him, which was a one of my favorite parts of the first game. I really wanted to get to know Lucy and Desmond more and it seemed as if they just forgot about them in this story.

Okay, all the examples I listed were aspects of the game that I really did not care for. And while yes they did answer his questions, he seemed to believe that the game was instantly boring after simply two hours of game-play. He also seems to think that the second game will have a huge improvement on the firsts "Repetitive problem". First of all, if you found to be the first installment of a game boring why would you ever look into the second?

Secondly, the game is a game about Assassinating. It's all about the "sneaky kill". They advertised it as a "Sneaky kill" game. There was no need for any other gameplay improvements.

You could climb any wall, any building, anything. On that basic alone the game broke some serious ground. No other game had ever given you so much freedom to go your own way, to make your own path, to handle situations the way you wanted from any different number of platforms.

And not only did it add breathtaking architecture that you could manipulate any which way you wanted, but it added the feel of a city. Citizens, reacting to your every move, to your every crime and lunacy that you committed. It didn't simply just run on a murder, but it was baffled by it if you "Sneaky killed" someone. Mobs of people all running away, bumping, pushing, crowding away from you.

For someone who seems to put this game down simply on it's "Repetitiveness" issue you fail to recognize it's magnificent gameplay elements which have changed the industry forever.

And finally, you didn't have to go collecting the hidden items... I've yet to run into a single game which forced me to collect it's hidden item. They're there for those who want to go around looking for them, the rest of us (Like myself) simply ignore them and don't waste our time.

Edit: Grammar.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"][QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

Not repetitive because they simply added missions where you...

A) Followed your target to a secret location for a few different reasons

B) Added a few more perpetration missions before an Assassination

C) Added a few new different side missions

D) Took away the whole Desmond aspect of the game

Seriously man, the game was not improved on much. I'm not saying that the game isn't repetitive, because it was, but why would that be a bad thing at all?

And if we're talking about the TC's meaning of repetitive would me making a Plat-former metaphor make more sense? Or would you prefer a Puzzle game metaphor? Assassin's Creed was repetitive, sure, I've never said it wasn't. But it was in no way, shape, or form bad. Or rather "Too repetitive".

And on a side note, I hated the fact that they took Desmond out of the game. You barely got to know more about him, which was a one of my favorite parts of the first game. I really wanted to get to know Lucy and Desmond more and it seemed as if they just forgot about them in this story.

Okay, all the examples I listed were aspects of the game that I really did not care for. And while yes they did answer his questions, he seemed to believe that the game was instantly boring after simply two hours of game-play. He also seems to think that the second game will have a huge improvement on the firsts "Repetitive problem". First of all, if you found to be the first installment of a game boring why would you ever look into the second?

Secondly, the game is a game about Assassinating. It's all about the "sneaky kill". They advertised it as a "Sneaky kill" game. There was no need for any other gameplay improvements.

You could climb any wall, any building, anything. On that basic alone the game broke some serious ground. No other game had ever given you so much freedom to go your own way, to make your own path, to handle situations the way you wanted from any different number of platforms.

And not only did it add breathtaking architecture that you could manipulate any which way you wanted, but it added the feel of a city. Citizens, reacting to your every move, to your every crime and lunacy that you committed. It didn't simply just run on a murder, but it was baffled by it if you "Sneaky killed" someone. Mobs of people all running away, bumping, pushing, crowding away from you.

For someone who seems to put this game down simply on it's "Repetitiveness" issue you fail to recognize it's magnificent gameplay elements which have changed the industry forever.

And finally, you didn't have to go collecting the hidden items... I've yet to run into a single game which forced me to collect it's hidden item. They're there for those who want to go around looking for them, the rest of us (Like myself) simply ignore them and don't waste our time.

Edit: Grammar.

[QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

[QUOTE="sourcerah"] You just listed 4 more aspects to the game. Didn't u just answer your questions to the TC?? I never said anything about how much or little improvement was made in AC2. I just couldn't understand how you could ask the TC those questions as if the game needed no improvement. Like the game was completely satisfying with out anything else wanted. You could've of used any gaming genre for your "examples". You just seemed to attack him for his opinion. Maybe I played a different game, but I could swore all you did in the first one was "go sneakly kill some guy, collect flags, save citizen...etc" over and over again. Which is why I got half way thru and just couldn't take it anymore. IMO that game was too repetitive. sourcerah

Okay, all the examples I listed were aspects of the game that I really did not care for. And while yes they did answer his questions, he seemed to believe that the game was instantly boring after simply two hours of game-play. He also seems to think that the second game will have a huge improvement on the firsts "Repetitive problem". First of all, if you found to be the first installment of a game boring why would you ever look into the second?

Secondly, the game is a game about Assassinating. It's all about the "sneaky kill". They advertised it as a "Sneaky kill" game. There was no need for any other gameplay improvements.

You could climb any wall, any building, anything. On that basic alone the game broke some serious ground. No other game had ever given you so much freedom to go your own way, to make your own path, to handle situations the way you wanted from any different number of platforms.

And not only did it add breathtaking architecture that you could manipulate any which way you wanted, but it added the feel of a city. Citizens, reacting to your every move, to your every crime and lunacy that you committed. It didn't simply just run on a murder, but it was baffled by it if you "Sneaky killed" someone. Mobs of people all running away, bumping, pushing, crowding away from you.

For someone who seems to put this game down simply on it's "Repetitiveness" issue you fail to recognize it's magnificent gameplay elements which have changed the industry forever.

And finally, you didn't have to go collecting the hidden items... I've yet to run into a single game which forced me to collect it's hidden item. They're there for those who want to go around looking for them, the rest of us (Like myself) simply ignore them and don't waste our time.

Edit: Grammar.

Wow, really? First of all, and let's just get this out of the way, "Edit: Grammar" means I edited my grammar, within my own post. Seriously, way to go.

Secondly, why would the formula change? Why would they simply take away the whole "Sneak and kill your target" aspect of the game? It's Assassin's Creed, not let's Assassinate this guy, multiplayer this guy, figure out the puzzle, finding the missing word, etc, etc, etc. Gears of War became Gears of War 2, Modern Warfare became Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead became Left 4 Dead 2. These sequels didn't redefine the games, they simply tried to add new features, fix bugs and glitches, and get rid of the things that most fans disliked. But that doesn't mean that Gears of War 2 was in any way shape or form any different from the first. Sure there were new missions, new characters, new weapons, but the gameplay remained the same, the over all feel to the game remained the same.

And what I can't understand is why you seem to side with this guy's right to an opinion and not mine. The game was repetitive, yes, but that doesn't mean it was in any way bad. Trust me, I've played bad games and I've done so because of the fact that it had a lot to offer other than whatever it was that I disliked. Just because I find his opinion to put down one of my favorite games to be wrong doesn't make it wrong for me to criticize him for it. And while I'm in no way offending him I don't see why you have to be the one who has to defend him.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"][QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

Okay, all the examples I listed were aspects of the game that I really did not care for. And while yes they did answer his questions, he seemed to believe that the game was instantly boring after simply two hours of game-play. He also seems to think that the second game will have a huge improvement on the firsts "Repetitive problem". First of all, if you found to be the first installment of a game boring why would you ever look into the second?

Secondly, the game is a game about Assassinating. It's all about the "sneaky kill". They advertised it as a "Sneaky kill" game. There was no need for any other gameplay improvements.

You could climb any wall, any building, anything. On that basic alone the game broke some serious ground. No other game had ever given you so much freedom to go your own way, to make your own path, to handle situations the way you wanted from any different number of platforms.

And not only did it add breathtaking architecture that you could manipulate any which way you wanted, but it added the feel of a city. Citizens, reacting to your every move, to your every crime and lunacy that you committed. It didn't simply just run on a murder, but it was baffled by it if you "Sneaky killed" someone. Mobs of people all running away, bumping, pushing, crowding away from you.

For someone who seems to put this game down simply on it's "Repetitiveness" issue you fail to recognize it's magnificent gameplay elements which have changed the industry forever.

And finally, you didn't have to go collecting the hidden items... I've yet to run into a single game which forced me to collect it's hidden item. They're there for those who want to go around looking for them, the rest of us (Like myself) simply ignore them and don't waste our time.

Edit: Grammar.

Wow, really? First of all, and let's just get this out of the way, "Edit: Grammar" means I edited my grammar, within my own post. Seriously, way to go.

Secondly, why would the formula change? Why would they simply take away the whole "Sneak and kill your target" aspect of the game? It's Assassin's Creed, not let's Assassinate this guy, multiplayer this guy, figure out the puzzle, finding the missing word, etc, etc, etc. Gears of War became Gears of War 2, Modern Warfare became Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead became Left 4 Dead 2. These sequels didn't redefine the games, they simply tried to add new features, fix bugs and glitches, and get rid of the things that most fans disliked. But that doesn't mean that Gears of War 2 was in any way shape or form any different from the first. Sure there were new missions, new characters, new weapons, but the gameplay remained the same, the over all feel to the game remained the same.

And what I can't understand is why you seem to side with this guy's right to an opinion and not mine. The game was repetitive, yes, but that doesn't mean it was in any way bad. Trust me, I've played bad games and I've done so because of the fact that it had a lot to offer other than whatever it was that I disliked. Just because I find his opinion to put down one of my favorite games to be wrong doesn't make it wrong for me to criticize him for it. And while I'm in no way offending him I don't see why you have to be the one who has to defend him.

i will never understand people complainin about repetitive games, every single game ever made is repetitive, yes some maybe more so then others, but even the biggest coolest sandbox games are repetitive-DirtySanchez-

That's not true at all. I personally think som,e of you are argueing just for the sake of argueing. It's a pretty widespread sentiment that AC1 was very repetitive. I didn't mind the game, I finished it, but it was very repetitive.

AC2 is not repetitive though. It's GOTY quality. An improvement over the 1st in pretty much every way

Am I the only one who thought that the first one was way to repetitive. I thought it was one of the coolest games in the world for the first 2 hours until I realized I was doing the exact same thing over and over (go sneakly kill some guy, collect flags, save citizen...etc.). I personally couldn't even finish the game I thought it was so bad. Is the second one similar in the sense that your just doing the exact same thing a thousand different times?

j-dog100000

I just bought Ass Creed 1 there to play it b4 2.

It is easily one ofthe most repetitive games I have ever played.

Besides doing the same things OVER AND OVER again, There are maybe 4 pieces of dialogue in the entire game outside of the cut scenes. That was just infuriating.

And even the Assassination part of the game was a let down. There was nowhere near enough stealth assassin missions in it.

every game in the history of gaming is somewhat repetitive..I loved the first one...the 2nd is even better

[QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

[QUOTE="sourcerah"] How did I fail to recognize the "magnificent gameplay elements"? I recognize and know all about the abilities to climb buildings and other architecture. But those "magnificent gameplay elements" were not enough to compensate for the "repetitiveness" IMO. He thought the game was boring after 2 hours, which is his opinion, and I can completely understand why. Where in his posts did it suggest that he "seems to think that the second game will have a huge improvement on the firsts "Repetitive problem""? From what i've read, he was just asking IF improvement was made in that area. And you asked why one would look into the second installment if they found the first boring? Well, for one, maybe the second installment corrected the issues one had with the first. Maybe if the the second installment wasn't as repetitive as the first, maybe just maybe, they would actually like it. That seemed to be his main issue and he was inquiring about it. I thought that was one of the reasons why forums exist. Side note: I do not care about grammar as long as I can read and make sense of what you typed. ;) Grammar police can be very irritating IMO. I never understood why one would come to a thread and not make a post about the topic but rather post to correct someones grammar.sourcerah

Wow, really? First of all, and let's just get this out of the way, "Edit: Grammar" means I edited my grammar, within my own post. Seriously, way to go.

Secondly, why would the formula change? Why would they simply take away the whole "Sneak and kill your target" aspect of the game? It's Assassin's Creed, not let's Assassinate this guy, multiplayer this guy, figure out the puzzle, finding the missing word, etc, etc, etc. Gears of War became Gears of War 2, Modern Warfare became Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead became Left 4 Dead 2. These sequels didn't redefine the games, they simply tried to add new features, fix bugs and glitches, and get rid of the things that most fans disliked. But that doesn't mean that Gears of War 2 was in any way shape or form any different from the first. Sure there were new missions, new characters, new weapons, but the gameplay remained the same, the over all feel to the game remained the same.

And what I can't understand is why you seem to side with this guy's right to an opinion and not mine. The game was repetitive, yes, but that doesn't mean it was in any way bad. Trust me, I've played bad games and I've done so because of the fact that it had a lot to offer other than whatever it was that I disliked. Just because I find his opinion to put down one of my favorite games to be wrong doesn't make it wrong for me to criticize him for it. And while I'm in no way offending him I don't see why you have to be the one who has to defend him.

Do you have any idea what defines video games ? Repetitivity. Do you actually think going from Modern Warfare 2, to Halo 3, to Gears of War, to Fallout 3 is any different ? Each and every time you pick up the controller you are simply doing the same thing over and over and over again. A new story, some different gameplay mechanics and a new engine. Modern Warfare 2 is just shooting for a good 6 hours and then online for another 100, Same goes for Halo and Gears of War. Fallout 3 sends you to different locations to complete tasks that all feel the same every single time. Ever played Dragon Age Origins ? You use the same gameplay the whole game, is that repetivity ?

Assassin's Creed may have less variety and therefore it comes off as repetitive. But atleast it's givinng us that small variety in away we have never experienced before in a videogame. And it's FUN. If you don't like it, then leave it like that. You only come off as pathetic when you spend your time arguing on why a game is bad. Instead try and focus on what makes it good.

[QUOTE="sourcerah"][QUOTE="DamianAlexander"]

Wow, really? First of all, and let's just get this out of the way, "Edit: Grammar" means I edited my grammar, within my own post. Seriously, way to go.

Secondly, why would the formula change? Why would they simply take away the whole "Sneak and kill your target" aspect of the game? It's Assassin's Creed, not let's Assassinate this guy, multiplayer this guy, figure out the puzzle, finding the missing word, etc, etc, etc. Gears of War became Gears of War 2, Modern Warfare became Modern Warfare 2, Left 4 Dead became Left 4 Dead 2. These sequels didn't redefine the games, they simply tried to add new features, fix bugs and glitches, and get rid of the things that most fans disliked. But that doesn't mean that Gears of War 2 was in any way shape or form any different from the first. Sure there were new missions, new characters, new weapons, but the gameplay remained the same, the over all feel to the game remained the same.

And what I can't understand is why you seem to side with this guy's right to an opinion and not mine. The game was repetitive, yes, but that doesn't mean it was in any way bad. Trust me, I've played bad games and I've done so because of the fact that it had a lot to offer other than whatever it was that I disliked. Just because I find his opinion to put down one of my favorite games to be wrong doesn't make it wrong for me to criticize him for it. And while I'm in no way offending him I don't see why you have to be the one who has to defend him.

AdjacentLives

Do you have any idea what defines video games ? Repetitivity. Do you actually think going from Modern Warfare 2, to Halo 3, to Gears of War, to Fallout 3 is any different ? Each and every time you pick up the controller you are simply doing the same thing over and over and over again. A new story, some different gameplay mechanics and a new engine. Modern Warfare 2 is just shooting for a good 6 hours and then online for another 100, Same goes for Halo and Gears of War. Fallout 3 sends you to different locations to complete tasks that all feel the same every single time. Ever played Dragon Age Origins ? You use the same gameplay the whole game, is that repetivity ?

Assassin's Creed may have less variety and therefore it comes off as repetitive. But atleast it's givinng us that small variety in away we have never experienced before in a videogame. And it's FUN. If you don't like it, then leave it like that. You only come off as pathetic when you spend your time arguing on why a game is bad. Instead try and focus on what makes it good.

I would like to be the first to shake your hand. Hi my name is Alex and thank you. I was beginning to get baffled by his stubbornness to realize what you've just said. I was beginning to run out of ideas, and to be quite frank, the motivation to explain to him this concept.

I didn't find the first AC to be repetitive, yes it was the same missions in each city, but they became harder and harder to complete. That kept me interested. I think most people who found it repetitive only played part of the way through it.

The original Left for Dead Single Player now that was repetitive...same killing patterns, just different locations. Yes I know it was designed for Multi-played, but they really could have changed it up some.

its not as repetitive as "is Assasins Creed too repetitive?" threads...