Jump to content

 

Best Assassin's Creed this gen?


Slaughter.
 Share

Best Assassin's Creed this gen?  

80 members have voted

  1. 1. Best Assassin's Creed this gen?

    • Assassin's Creed
      12
    • Assassin's Creed 2
      38
    • Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
      12
    • Assassin's Creed: Revelations
      6
    • Assassin's Creed III
      3
    • I love them all.
      6
    • I hate them all.
      3
    • I've never played Assassin's Creed.
      0


Recommended Posts

Th Desmond Sequences were different and annoying, if it had controlled the same as the rest of the game it might of not been so confusing and weird.

 

I loved how excellently they weaved Altair's and Ezio's story together in Revelations.

 

I think the worst part about those sequences were the achievements in the DLC. I really hated having to beat certain parts without failing. Took forever and I ended up taking turns with my brother to avoid frustration :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 114
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

LAUGH OUT LOUD. Who's that ONE person that voted for ACIII? :p

 

I will be sure to let you know D, while I am excited for it I am also kinda skeptical. Hopefully I will be able to rent it right around release.

 

I loved how excellently they weaved Altair's and Ezio's story together in Revelations.

 

I will hold you to that!

 

I enjoyed that part of Revelations as well. In fact, Revelations really isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

II, III, and Revelations in that order. Yes, unlike most people I enjoyed 3. -1 is overrated, in my opinion.

-2 is one of my favorite games ever and is the only one that is still fun to play after doing everything.

-Brotherhood is just there.

-Revelations was alright but the ending is AMAZING. Deserves more praise.

-III was glitch and completely different, but for someone who has been playing AC since 2's launch, it was worth the wait and, just like 2, had the most improvements.

 

With that said, I currently have little interest for ACIV. I'll just wait for the reviews, which will probably be really good according to people who've played it at events.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted III.

 

Although 2, Revelations & 3 are all amazing, The first one was great, Brotherhood was Ok. Black Flag is going to steal the show.

 

I don't like you anymore.

 

Those and the Den Defences sucked. My only gripes with it. If those didn't exist, Revelations would be my favorite.

 

EDIT: Let's not forget those dumbass full sync objectives!

 

Den defences were easy once you mastered an assassin. Assign him to the den and once you overtook that Den is never fell again.

 

I'd have to say two completely blows them all out of the water.

 

I was so engrossed in the story, and gameplay that even the collectable achievement was fun.

 

Also, it's the only one I've played, :D

 

Play all of them except 3....while it was ok, it's the weakest of the games storywise.

 

Honestly, I don't know what you're smoking if you say anything but AC2.

 

Best soundtrack of any game ever created (in my opinion - Ezio's Family has been my favorite song since I was 12), near flawless gameplay and in my opinion the most fluid free-running, and a compelling storyline. Achievements were actually a joy to earn and the puzzles were challenging but explored the lore properly for the first time.

 

Now that the praise for 2 is out of the way, here's my reasons why the others were not the best:

 

AC: B: Another fluid game running off of the same exact engine AC2 utilized, improved visuals and a similar soundtrack. A nice sequal that included multiplayer for the first time. A few welcomed innovations to AC2's formula, but definitely didn't stray as far as it could; if Ubisoft had gave it the proper 3 years of development time 2 had, it would have been on par with 2. However... basically AC2.5

 

AC: R: Ezio embarks to a new environment, which is a nice change. However, Jesper Kyd's soundtrack is muted, and forced. Not his best work; instead, Lorne Balf's music took center stage in the multiplayer to get players used to the different vibe. As with Brotherhood, the shorter dev time led to more bugs, and not as fluid gameplay. Bomb crafting system was interesting, but barely useful and nothing more than a gimmick; other innovations such as the hookblade were well-integrated but not as major as they could have been.

 

AC III: Here we go: new engine, new setting, new protagonist. Truly a cornerstone in the franchise, correct? Wrong. The game's graphics are impressive for the hardware behind them, but the blood splatter looks like jelly and there have been framerate drops in menus. Gameplay is solid, combat is simple and free-running is strong despite the new engine, which is good. However, just as Brotherhood and Revelations before it, the short dev time caused bugs and ruggedness (they say 3 years but planning and brainstorming while actually crafting Revelations is not 3 years) and the biggest introductions to the series (namely hunting and naval warfare) are cut short to keep quality high. The MP this time around is as solid as it's ever been and is actually nothing to laugh at. As for plot, the 3 whole sequences dedicated to Haytham gives a rocky start, and even then Connor's actor feels forced and the character is unrelatable. If Ubisoft had not tried to do so much in 2 years III would have been a fantastic game. (I do have to say Desmond kinda looks like a monkey in III)

 

The original Assassin's Creed was not included because it was more a pioneer title that didn't know what it was doing just yet. Solid for what it tried to do though.

 

You are my new best friend. What they did to the series with AC3 and soon to be HUGE DISSAPOINMENT AC4 is a disgrace. I agree that development time were cut down and also with MP being added that took away from development on SP.

 

Agree with the first AC, it doesn't compare to 2 but cocept wise it's amazing.

 

AC 1 is by far my favorite. Probably won't bother with 4 since 3 sucked and I am at the point where I can only play the same reskinned game so many times before I've had enough already.

 

Well said.

 

READ THE FIRST REPLY ASSHOLE :biglaugh

 

<3

 

Still do not like you anymore.

 

II, III, and Revelations in that order. Yes, unlike most people I enjoyed 3. -1 is overrated, in my opinion.

-2 is one of my favorite games ever and is the only one that is still fun to play after doing everything.

-Brotherhood is just there.

-Revelations was alright but the ending is AMAZING. Deserves more praise.

-III was glitch and completely different, but for someone who has been playing AC since 2's launch, it was worth the wait and, just like 2, had the most improvements.

 

With that said, I currently have little interest for ACIV. I'll just wait for the reviews, which will probably be really good according to people who've played it at events.

 

Not sure who III was an improvment over II...cause it wasn't. Connor was boring and the plot was un-interesting which was NOT the case for II.

Edited by Carmona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are my new best friend. What they did to the series with AC3 and soon to be HUGE DISSAPOINMENT AC4 is a disgrace. I agree that development time were cut down and also with MP being added that took away from development on SP.

 

I've played every major title to date, and am a huge fan of the franchise ;) (if you hadn't noticed). AC II was actually my first 360 game and it gave me the reason to fully go 7th gen in the first place.

 

If most of the games coming out today had a proper three years of dev time they'd all play a lot more beautifully. Look at Halo: 3 years between each title and each plays like a dream.

 

As for AC IV... I don't even know what they're doing with the plot anymore. It's literally just milking a popular franchise to keep the company above the red. Assassin's Creed should've stopped after III, which they said they would do. I remember the lead designer for AC specifically saying the series was meant to be a trilogy and that's it. Shame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If most of the games coming out today had a proper three years of dev time they'd all play a lot more beautifully. Look at Halo: 3 years between each title and each plays like a dream.

 

Well, if you look at the original Halo trilogy, then yes. But that doesn't mean that three year developments are perfect. Bungie still had to cut out plenty of things from Halo 2 in order to meet deadlines, and plenty of content that was cut may have enhanced the overall story between Halo 2's and 3's campaign.

 

Then there's Wars (developed by Ensemble and a completely different genre of game) and ODST, both released in '09. Reach in '10. Combat Evolved Anniversary in '11. And 4 in '12. Not to mention Spartan Assault and a GOTY rerelease of Halo 4 this year.

 

On topic with Assassin's Creed, I've only touched the first two, Brotherhood, and some dumb DS game and a port of Assassin's Creed: Altair's Chronicles on the Windows Phone 7.

 

Altair's Chronicles was shit. Easily the worst AC game ever of all time. Some of the most infuriating platforming I've ever dealt with in any game. The clutter of in game icons on the LG Quantum's interface doesn't help either.

 

In regards to the console titles, I couldn't get into the first one no matter how hard I tried. I only have some 300 gamerscore in it and I don't intend on going back. It feels so clunky and dated as compared to the fluidity of movement in the later Creeds. AC2 was incredible at first, but after recently going back to replay it, it doesn't seem as strong as it once was. The soundtrack is fine and the story can keep one interested but the controls feel so annoying with how you have to hold both the right trigger and the a button when running and climbing.

 

So while I don't think any Creed game is particularly strong and I won't vote on what I think is best I'm still excited for Black Flag. The golden age of pirates should make for an interesting target of historical fiction and the swiftness and brutality of the combat should get my blood pumping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If most of the games coming out today had a proper three years of dev time they'd all play a lot more beautifully. Look at Halo: 3 years between each title and each plays like a dream.

 

Eh, not really. ACIII was in development for 3 years and Black Flag for 2. A lot of people overlook this just because they come out annually.

 

Either way, I know what you mean. I think three years should be the standard minimum of game development with 5 years being ideal. Sure 5 years is a long time, but who wants to play a mediocre game?

 

Plus, while the original Halo trilogy is surely amazing, Halo 3 was SO weak compared to the first two because it was still rushed, despite taking three years to release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, if you look at the original Halo trilogy, then yes. But that doesn't mean that three year developments are perfect. Bungie still had to cut out plenty of things from Halo 2 in order to meet deadlines, and plenty of content that was cut may have enhanced the overall story between Halo 2's and 3's campaign.

 

Then there's Wars (developed by Ensemble and a completely different genre of game) and ODST, both released in '09. Reach in '10. Combat Evolved Anniversary in '11. And 4 in '12. Not to mention Spartan Assault and a GOTY rerelease of Halo 4 this year.

 

On topic with Assassin's Creed, I've only touched the first two, Brotherhood, and some dumb DS game and a port of Assassin's Creed: Altair's Chronicles on the Windows Phone 7.

 

Altair's Chronicles was shit. Easily the worst AC game ever of all time. Some of the most infuriating platforming I've ever dealt with in any game. The clutter of in game icons on the LG Quantum's interface doesn't help either.

 

In regards to the console titles, I couldn't get into the first one no matter how hard I tried. I only have some 300 gamerscore in it and I don't intend on going back. It feels so clunky and dated as compared to the fluidity of movement in the later Creeds. AC2 was incredible at first, but after recently going back to replay it, it doesn't seem as strong as it once was. The soundtrack is fine and the story can keep one interested but the controls feel so annoying with how you have to hold both the right trigger and the a button when running and climbing.

 

So while I don't think any Creed game is particularly strong and I won't vote on what I think is best I'm still excited for Black Flag. The golden age of pirates should make for an interesting target of historical fiction and the swiftness and brutality of the combat should get my blood pumping.

 

By no means is it perfect, but there would be a massive improvement to released games on launch. Also, 343 managed to make Halo 4 smooth enough even with Halo: CEA right behind it.

 

ACIII was in development for 3 years

 

Lol no it wasn't. They just said that to make it seem they really put their all into it. They may have officially started project AC III three years prior but there was no actual work done, hence the cacophony of bugs and unrefined portions at launch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've played every major title to date, and am a huge fan of the franchise ;) (if you hadn't noticed). AC II was actually my first 360 game and it gave me the reason to fully go 7th gen in the first place.

 

If most of the games coming out today had a proper three years of dev time they'd all play a lot more beautifully. Look at Halo: 3 years between each title and each plays like a dream.

 

As for AC IV... I don't even know what they're doing with the plot anymore. It's literally just milking a popular franchise to keep the company above the red. Assassin's Creed should've stopped after III, which they said they would do. I remember the lead designer for AC specifically saying the series was meant to be a trilogy and that's it. Shame.

 

I was starting to think I was going crazy....it's good to see someone else on the same page as me.

 

Eh, not really. ACIII was in development for 3 years and Black Flag for 2. A lot of people overlook this just because they come out annually.

 

Lets say this is true, the other issue is forcing MP into the series. By having a MP, that takes away from the single player campaign. Even if there are 2 "teams" working on every other title, it still takes away from the series by flooding the maket with shit concepts and wrapping "Assassin Creed" around it. Just to try and milk one of the greatest franchises of all time.

 

Imagine if Halo spit out random shit titles and wrapped them in the Halo Brand:

 

Halo 5: The Grunts Beginning - The story of how the grunts were converted to the covenant.

 

Halo 6: Special Delivery - You play as a captain of a space vessel delivering supplies to different NTSC bases.

 

This is what ubisoft is doing to this series....it sucks when you want a new Assassin game and instead they try and pawn shit off to you. "but look how open the ocean world is", "It still has awesome stealth pirate action"

 

Go FUCK yourself. I don't want a fucking pirate game. I want you to stick to what worked for the first two games Ubisoft.

Edited by Carmona
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if Halo spit out random shit titles and wrapped them in the Halo Brand:

 

Halo 5: The Grunts Beginning - The story of how the grunts were converted to the covenant.

 

Halo 6: Special Delivery - You play as a captain of a space vessel delivering supplies to different NTSC bases.

 

Actually that process has already started. First ODST (while certainly not bad... why? Playing as a regular old human when you could be playing as a Spartan?), then Halo Wars (basically any other top-down strategy game like it but with Halo) and now 343's pushing it to the max. Spartan Assault for mobile? C'mon. They won't even admit Halo 5 is going to be called Halo 5.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually that process has already started. First ODST (while certainly not bad... why? Playing as a regular old human when you could be playing as a Spartan?), then Halo Wars (basically any other top-down strategy game like it but with Halo) and now 343's pushing it to the max. Spartan Assault for mobile? C'mon. They won't even admit Halo 5 is going to be called Halo 5.

Well ODST tied into Halo 3. Also Orbital Drop Shock Troopers were anything but "regular old humans", they were last line of defense...the best of the best.

 

I am NOT a RTS fan, but Halo Wars was well done. It was nice being apart of early battles against the covenant. Bottomline those two titles belonged in the series. They weren't trying to be halo 4.

 

Besides Halo Wars was released 2 years after Halo 3 and was meant to support the series, not replace Halo 4. ODST was released a year later and while it did sponge off of Halo 3 success, it still didn't try to replace Halo 4. It gave us a different perceptive on the series with out going way off the farm like AC3 and soon to be $19.99 AC4.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol no it wasn't. They just said that to make it seem they really put their all into it. They may have officially started project AC III three years prior but there was no actual work done, hence the cacophony of bugs and unrefined portions at launch.

 

Every game has bugs...I won't even begin to get into that discussion.

 

Uhm. Okay, ignore the facts just like everyone else.

 

http://www.nowgamer.com/features/1326914/assassins_creed_3_why_starting_from_scratch_has_been_worth_it_interview.html

 

http://kotaku.com/5896386/50-things-about-assassins-creed-iii-that-you-should-know

 

Lets say this is true, the other issue is forcing MP into the series. By having a MP, that takes away from the single player campaign. Even if there are 2 "teams" working on every other title, it still takes away from the series by flooding the maket with shit concepts and wrapping "Assassin Creed" around it. Just to try and milk one of the greatest franchises of all time.

 

Go FUCK yourself. I don't want a fucking pirate game. I want you to stick to what worked for the first two games Ubisoft.

 

I say don't even give them a penny and avoid the game completely. Every company adds MP to a Single Player game though. You can blame Ubi, but at the end of the day, almost all developers are victim to this "sin" as we like to call it. I'm not so much bothered by the Multiplayer as I am with their decision in continuing a franchise that does not need to be extended past what has already been released.

 

C'mon. They won't even admit Halo 5 is going to be called Halo 5.

 

Again, no.

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/427182/halo-for-xbox-one-is-called-halo-5/

Edited by BiggD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they peaked at Brotherhood, though I didn't hate AC3 like many others did. I'm glad to see them not continuing to do sequels with the same assassin anymore. By the way, you forgot Assassin's Creed on the Windows Phone. That was perhaps one of the worst games I've EVER played. It was free and still not worth it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about voting for 3, just to be an ass. But frankly, I just don't care that much. To me, the Assassin's Creed series just isn't as great as everybody else thinks. It makes me wonder what I'm missing out on. To me, it's always been a reskinned Sly Cooper with more collectibles, less varied gameplay, and too much ego.

I dearly love Jesper Kyd. But the music he did in Assassin's Creed is not up to his usual par. It's too novel, as though he were forced to perfectly match setting pieces to all the music that's been before (give Jerusalem a listen). In Assassin's Creed II, he made the soundtrack equivalent of pop music. "Earth" is almost nothing but hooks layered over the same repetitive beat.

I keep hearing people nitpick on 3 because it's the cool thing to do, but I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why it's worse than the others. Connor's an asshole? So was Altair, until the last half hour of his game when he magically became enlightened. Ezio was basically Luke Skywalker the entirety of AC2, until he was suddenly an old man who stretched my disbelief by remaining at an Olympic level of fitness in the following games. AC3 had decent puzzles, like 2, and different gameplay mechanics that kept me interested (and infuriated). But you're right--I forgot that the blood spatter wasn't photorealistic. Now I understand why 3 was a "festering carcass."

People joke about the fanboy culture surrounding games like Halo and CoD, but it's the Assassin's Creed fanatics that have always mystified me. I'll be the first to say that I loved the games, and have always been glad that I played them. When I put an AC game into my console, I know I'm going to have fun. But they're not profound, and they're not revolutionary. Everything they do has been done before, and nothing they have to say is worth taking seriously. A friend of mine just named her newborn son Ezio, for the love of God. SHE'S IRISH. When I asked her why, she told me "Because nothing is true, everything is permitted," and smiled a little, like she had just told some great secret, instead of spouting a ridiculous mantra more meaningless than "YOLO."

Rant over.

 

tl;dr: Want a real adventure? Go read The Count of Monte Cristo.

Edited by Fragarach Luin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about voting for 3, just to be an ass. But frankly, I just don't care that much. To me, the Assassin's Creed series just isn't as great as everybody else thinks. It makes me wonder what I'm missing out on. To me, it's always been a reskinned Sly Cooper with more collectibles, less varied gameplay, and too much ego.

I dearly love Jesper Kyd. But the music he did in Assassin's Creed is not up to his usual par. It's too novel, as though he were forced to perfectly match setting pieces to all the music that's been before (give Jerusalem a listen). In Assassin's Creed, he made the soundtrack equivalent of pop music. "Earth" is almost nothing but hooks layered over the same repetitive beat.

I keep hearing people nitpick on 3 because it's the cool thing to do, but I still haven't heard a convincing argument for why it's worse than the others. Connor's an asshole? So was Altair, until the last half hour of his game when he magically became enlightened. Ezio was basically Luke Skywalker the entirety of AC2, until he was suddenly an old man who stretched my disbelief by remaining at an Olympic level of fitness in the following games. AC3 had decent puzzles, like 2, and different gameplay mechanics that kept me interested (and infuriated). But you're right--I forgot that the blood spatter wasn't photorealistic. Now I understand why 3 was a "festering carcass."

People joke about the fanboy culture surrounding games like Halo and CoD, but it's the Assassin's Creed fanatics that have always mystified me. I'll be the first to say that I loved the games, and have always been glad that I played them. When I put an AC game into my console, I know I'm going to have fun. But they're not profound, and they're not revolutionary. Everything they do has been done before, and nothing they have to say is worth taking seriously. A friend of mine just named her newborn son Ezio, for the love of God. SHE'S IRISH. When I asked her why, she told me "Because nothing is true, everything is permitted," and smiled a little, like she had just told some great secret, instead of spouting a ridiculous mantra more meaningless than "YOLO."

Rant over.

 

tl;dr: Want a real adventure? Go read The Count of Monte Cristo.

Isn't more hip to just hate on the whole series and the mention some old game being better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't more hip to just hate on the whole series and the mention some old game being better?

 

You are completely correct. But you and I are adults; we'll never be hip. So we might as well be honest. You don't think that I would have collected all those damn flags if I wasn't having fun, do you? I didn't mean to argue that the Assassin's Creed games are bad, just that they're maybe not the pinnacle of art and gaming that some make them out to be.

And you're not a bad person for liking them. I meant everything I said, but far be it from me to judge someone else because of their taste in entertainment. I'm just a little bit tired of people stumbling upon something better than the usual, and praising it too much because it's the best they've experienced. Remember The Matrix, and how everybody thought it was the most profound thing they'd ever experienced? That movie may as well have been titled "I Read a Philosophy Book Once." It seems to me that Assassin's Creed has a similar effect.

 

...Seiken Densetsu 4 was better though, by the way. It's old, obscure, AND Japanese. That's an unbeatable combination of hipness. So either way you have it, I win.

Because everyone knows that RPGs are totally comparable to action/platformers. ;)

Edited by Fragarach Luin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well ODST tied into Halo 3. Also Orbital Drop Shock Troopers were anything but "regular old humans", they were last line of defense...the best of the best.

 

I am NOT a RTS fan, but Halo Wars was well done. It was nice being apart of early battles against the covenant. Bottomline those two titles belonged in the series. They weren't trying to be halo 4.

 

Besides Halo Wars was released 2 years after Halo 3 and was meant to support the series, not replace Halo 4. ODST was released a year later and while it did sponge off of Halo 3 success, it still didn't try to replace Halo 4. It gave us a different perceptive on the series with out going way off the farm like AC3 and soon to be $19.99 AC4.

 

I do like the fact that ODST added a new perspective to the universe, as you said. Never played it though; don't want to hunt down those achievements for more Halo lore. I will have to disagree with you about Halo Wars, though; it did NOT belong. Different company, different style... it's just not right.

 

 

Dope, lemme tell you somethin.

 

A. You cannot tell me that the mess that was AC3 at launch was the work of 3 years of dev time. I don't care what the articles say; there are too many confounding variables (and enough solid evidence of how much bullshit was packed into it) to honestly say there was three years given to the title.

 

B. Most of my information is dated; I never knew 343's next project was confirmed to be simply called Halo 5. I don't have a computer, I use a Kindle tablet to do my internet perusal. So, anything after July news-wise is basically sketchy if it wasn't on this site's news a month later (July marks the death of my PC).

 

C. I don't ignore facts, I am ignorant of facts, ergo my Halo 5 comment. That statement comes off as rather insulting and I don't appreciate it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A. You cannot tell me that the mess that was AC3 at launch was the work of 3 years of dev time. I don't care what the articles say; there are too many confounding variables (and enough solid evidence of how much bullshit was packed into it) to honestly say there was three years given to the title.

 

B. Most of my information is dated; I never knew 343's next project was confirmed to be simply called Halo 5. I don't have a computer, I use a Kindle tablet to do my internet perusal. So, anything after July news-wise is basically sketchy if it wasn't on this site's news a month later (July marks the death of my PC).

 

C. I don't ignore facts, I am ignorant of facts, ergo my Halo 5 comment. That statement comes off as rather insulting and I don't appreciate it.

 

I'm not going to bother anymore on the Assassin Creed point. It's not worth my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
  • Create New...