At the very beginning I'd like to say I'm Polish (living in Poland, speaking polish language...), so for all of You who love to point out grammar mistakes, please read no more.

Recently because every gaming news and most shows on GS and IGN are all about Assassins Creed, I wish to spend a little time to analyze what's with it. Why is it that AC is requiring so much of Gamespot and IGN attention? And is it even worth it?

AC was definitely new quality in gaming industry: vast areas, great background story, interesting gameplay, phenomenal graphics. However as a series AC is not doing so well. Why?

Let me start by saying that for me Assassins Creed is not a real series. Why? Well, if there is a series, then, by definition, every next game should improve over the predecessor. There are many, many fields on which game can be (or in this case should be) improved: Story, storytelling, gameplay mechanics, controls, graphics etc. In discussed series the only improvements are visible in ACII, where many issues from the first game was fixed. Issues like painfully repetitive missions, and controls problems.

Ubisoft decides to make every next game A HUGE GAME, game where areas are so big that its taking quite some time to explore it, which opened a doors to a room with a lot of bugs, and new controls issues (specifically annoying during pursuits, and time trials). It is however quite normal when developer is trying new things, but what is unacceptable is that AC:B and AC:R are having almost the same technical issues that ACII. Is it really so hard to make good, responsive controls? Rockstar can do it, Sucker Punch also is pretty good at it, Rocksteady is actually an example of how to do sequel, and Naughty Dog So why Ubisoft cannot do it, and still be among those who are called great?

AC series the most important issue is main character who have actually nothing to do with a real character at all. Ezio is Well Empty. He is like one of those guys on small town disco You know, those with shiny shoes, long hair and no brain. Yeah those kind of guys. Guys of very simple taste, no sense of humor and of pretty dull personality. Thats who Ezio is for me. Guy who I get to know from inside out after few hours of ACII and Ubisoft made another 2 games about him Well this might stick for games like Killzone 3 where story is just enough to get you through singleplayer, but here? How it is possible that they made up this great story about secret societies, Templars Wars, and the same time completely overlooked such a small detail as personality of guy who introduces us to this world.

Last thing is out of date graphics (specially characters models). When in ACII it was acceptable as world was so big and all, but in AC:B (here is the only thing that AC:R was better over previous games) In my opinion Ubisoft lost this golden spot where game is not to small but detailed enough. AC are huge games but when it comes to details there not so big. I rather play a smaller, but prettier games (like InFamous 2).

AC:B introduced us to quite new multiplayer. Unfortunately it was fun for only sometime. Pretty quickly you was able to distinguish players from AI. The idea (again the big picture) was good but execution was very poor. Bugs, controls issues, very, very uneven perks (after 40th level you are practically indestructible). The worst for me was controls.

In general AC tends to overdo some things and the same time leaving other behind.

So here comes the final question: Why AC series is so popular? Is it the background story? Is it the main character? Or is it the gameplay values? For sure one of the reason AC is so popular is not innovation (well accept for multiplayer), ac 3 last entries in series was actually one and the same game. So what is it? Whats makes AC so successful? Tell me what you think?