[QUOTE="Cow4ever"][QUOTE="mmmwksil"]
Try poorly fleshed out and explained. :lol:
The combat in AC1 was sticky and unruly.
More like climb to the top of random points in the city until you were allowed to continue.
Much as I dislike the AC series, AC2 and ACB improved on the first game, which aside from being a technical wonder to behold, played like crap.
mmmwksil
1. Are you kidding me? It's much deeper than the sequels. For example the dialogues after each assassinations was interesting whereas in the sequels there was hardly nothing! There was no purpose. Just a stereotypical good vs evil 2. It wasn't perfect but at least somewhat challenging compared to the sequels. You couldn't kill 50 guys by one press of a button 3. You didn't have to do that at all. AC2 did improve some things but some other things went worse as the story for example. ACB did absolutely nothing and is one of the worst games I ever played.I'll have to give you those points, Cow. To be honest, I didn't finish ACB or AC2 because I lost interest. Though they improved on what I mentioned, it still wasn't enough to keep me motivated to play.
Though you are wrong about AC1 (or most like I am getting my memories mixed up). Before you were allowed to embark on assassinations you had to do a number of pointless fetch quests/touch the flag miniquests. These REALLY broke up the pace of the game, and ruined the experience.
Yeah AC2 did improve on certain things although also made some things worse. But only AC2 did these changes not ACB. Yes I agree especially the flagfetching was pretty stupid. But even if it was flawed it had potential IMO assassins should prepare for a mission. Also for me it was a great way to explore the beatuiful cities so I did all the non-obligatory tasks as well. 
Log in to comment