Ben-DutkaMany will say Assassin's Creed really hit its stride with the second offering, which was widely acclaimed and perceived by many to be an elite offering.
And while the original title still raked in high scores, many didn't like the repetition and lack of variety in the missions. However, one of the game's creators says too many gamers missed too much, and he maintains that the first Assassin's Creed is his favorite because its "the purest."
This is what former Ubisoft designer Patrice Désilets told Edge , and added that the first AC game featured a degree of freedom that subsequent efforts moved away from. Said Désilets:
"I like the first Assassin's Creed because it's the purest one. There's a bunch of stories that you can have, but it's all in your head. You have to create your own adventures. Whereas in Assassin's Creed II, we created the adventures for you and you're following them.
For me, the first one is an amazing toy. The second one is the real game with rules and missions and it's really precise. But personally I like the poetry of the first one. It's pure."
He also pointed out that the original title let players travel freely from one city to the next, a feature missing from new entries (various areas needed to be unlocked). And with that much space available, Désilets maintains that too many gamers simply missed out on various possibilities. So that wouldn't happen in ACII, the developers simply made missions for those possibilities so they couldn't be missed.
"Out in the kingdom, with your horse, there are so many places with little setups with Crusaders where you can tell a story," he says. "When you get close to Damascus, there's a guy on a stage and he has 35 soldiers in front of him. If you kill him, they all chase you. I played that and it became my little story.
With Assassin's Creed, our problem was we never actually asked anyone to do it. Most of the players just pass by those setups. But in Assassin's Creed II, we had a mission for all of them."
I've always defended the first AC from any flak throwing, so this guy's preaching to the choir. That being said, it's also true that newer games in the franchise featured much-appreciated refined gameplay mechanics, and plenty of extra depth as well. That really shouldn't be forgotten.
He makes a great case. Hard not to agree with him.
I agree and disagree with what he says. I loved the first so much that I bought twice because I played it on the the 360 first and much later on PS3. So far AC 2 is my favorite.
I only played the first one and loved it. I just recently picked up Revelations for $10 from Best Buy and so far I"m enjoying it.
Did best buy have a sale or something or you buy it used?
$10 what? Best Buy? CRAP missed it =(
To all,
Just an FYI,
go into the forums & click on the "Gaming discussion" file & you'll find the "Good deals for gamers" thread" inside.
Then click on the subscribe button & you'll receive a email message every time one of us posts a good deal on games & any accessories.
Hell, for example: I was able to find & picked up (which I posted) "Need for Speed: The Run for only $4.99 brand new with the online pass…and with free shipping too.
Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/31/2012 10:24:57 PM
@ BikerSaint
Hey thanks man. I didn't even know you could subscribe. I'll be signed up shortly. :)))
I wasn't aware you could subscribe either! Thanks BikerSaint! And great thread (I don't post over there so I thought I'd thank you here).
I really liked the open spaces between cities in AC. I had a lot of fun running around looking for Templars and flags, and taking on massive amounts of enemies at the various camps and villages around the map.
It really would have been great if they would have included some side missions or extra story segments out there. As much fun as it was roaming around fighting everybody and searching for stuff, it just got old after a while. It could have helped if you at least got some kind of reward for finding flags and killing Templars.
See and I hated roaming outside the city. I felt like everywhere I went I was getting chased. Not fun for me when I'm trying to do something. But that means nothing really cus I did enjoy the game, just not until closer to the end.
Hmmm I didnt ever look at AC like he is. He mentions making the players own story but in the circumstance that he suggested you kill someone and get chased. That's not a story that's a headache that the first had way too much of. There's no substance there. The freedom might make it fun but I never thought it was fun to go out of my way in that game, when getting through it was a real struggle for me.
But AC2 saved this series for me. And I'm playing brotherhood right now hoping to get revelations soon to set myself up for AC3. Brotherhood feels like a huge expansion but is getting really good.
For some reason I enjoyed the first game the most. I definately don't think it's the best AC but it being the first AC that I really got into it's experience had resonated with me strongest, even if it was really repetitive. I also really liked the setting of this one the most.
I remember being reluctant to play it but was dang glad I did once I got into it.
oh, yea, it sucked the water killed you haha
I understand what he means and somewhat agree wit him. The original really does feel like the purest "Assassin's Creed" game. By that, I feel very much like an Assassin whereas the later ones, it feels more Assassin's Creed meets GTA.
However, I can't deny that I just don't think the original Assassin's Creed is a good game. I used to LOVE it but after playing the sequels, the gameplay is just so archaic. The notoriety system is awful, the combat lacks variety (wait, counter, wait, counter, wait, counter, etc.) and the missions are repetitive (I have many more problems but I won't rant).
The original Assassin's Creed for me is a mixed bag. Has so much potential but the gameplay just isn't refined and polished enough as its sequels. I feel like if Ubisoft remade the original with updated gameplay but contained the amount of freedom it offers compared to the latter ones, we would have the ultimate Assassin's Creed game on our hands.
Just my thoughts.
Funny thing, it took me 1 and a half year to finish the game because I've prioritized other games. Just like Jed said, it's fun in the beginning, roaming and killing everyone but it get's old after a while. It's not the purest because Altair, a very good master assassin, can climb high towers, but he can't swim, makes me wonder how the developer leave that tiny detail. So that's why I make fun of Altair in the game, even in shallow waters he drowns. Stupid Assassin!
I guess I'm in the minority, but I've been playing every AC game in the series for the last month or so(PSP too), and I have to say that AC 1 was my least favorite & that I put it up on the shelf after about 1/4 of the way through.
Just seemed to repetitious to me, plus the controls also seemed really balky compared to AC 2, Brotherhood & Revelations.
But I will go back to finish AC 1 soon, just to see the storyline.
Last edited by BikerSaint on 7/31/2012 10:34:07 PM
Definitely agree in terms with how repetitive it plays out, especially if attempting to do it one sitting. What I did was play it in sections, finish an assassination and just for extra synchronize the nearest viewpoint before taking a break from the game. Then later continue on whether it would be the next day or maybe even an hour after my last play.
I think I get what he's trying to say, but if so, then the stuff he's praising is stuff that AC doesn't actually do well. It's cool that there are so many things out in the world, but when the ONLY interaction you have with those events are, "guards attack you", I'm going to lose interest pretty quick.
I've recently been playing RDR and even if the world events there get a little repetitive as well, at least they give you more than one type of interaction.
I can get the sense of purity with how very early "next-gen" the game looks and plays. There's not too much going on in the background giving it a quiet setting, until you create havoc of course. Not to mention the very blue coloring and lighting that enhances its tranquility, even when you switch to Desmond.
I was a big fan of the original AC, sure it had its flaws but I liked the story that was there, didn't mind the traveling and especially enjoyed running along the rooftops for stealth assassinations. As much as I liked the first game though, I still think 2 was better. Ezio is my favorite character in the series to this point, the combat felt better and the story was a bit more in depth. I think 3 looks like it wil be the best AC yet though.
I have only played AC & ACII (Yes I am very behind on this series!) But I have to say I really didn't like AC that much. The game felt so repetitive, all the missions felt the same apart from the main assassinations. ACII solved this problem instantly and delivered a game which gave a great variety and sense of freedom.
I don't know how convoluted Brotherhood & Revelations got but ACII was a big step up from the original.
AC1 is actually a perfect example of what is wrong with todays gamer.
they have so little patience and attention span they need things flying past them at 5000MPH to keep their attention!
the slow paced strategic combat, the more complex up to interpretation story, the more gathering information instead of having it handed to you missions, the in depth death sequences of your targets explaining why they did what they did.
and really making you second guess your actions and who is really right, maybe your really the bad guy.
all that is what made AC1 such a awesome game and really set it apart from the crowd!
and all of it was ripped out because of the whinny twitchers!
a perfect example why developers should not listen to "fans"!
AC1 was by far the purest especially in the story it told, and how everything was up to interpretation.
the rest of AC games have been rooted, where AC1 was allot more about the adventure how you get there, and where you go is irrelevant.
i really miss that, it had such a sense of wonder and it was amazing how it left so much up to interpretation yet it did not feel unfinished and a cliffhanger.
the gameplay was by far the best too!
i loved the strategical slow based combat of the original, it was so different from what other games gave you!
than AC2 came along and sped it up and took out allot of the patience and tactics.
i wish we could have a reset of the original!
make AC4 set in modern times, in a modern city, with modern technology.
yet have the original style of the original AC, IE a much more open varied story, and much, much slower paced combat!
but mixed in with the customisation, varying missions and stealth gameplay of AC2.
now that would make the perfect assassins creed game!
Last edited by ___________ on 8/1/2012 6:00:05 AM
I like what he says about "making stories in your head", how they are *your* stories, and how that has value.
That's what Bethesda is so good at making room for in their games. I think a majority of all the stories I experienced in Fallout 3 only took place in my head.
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/1/2012 7:46:21 AM
Difference between Bethesda games and AC is that Bethesda creates opportunities to create stories or do something outside what they intend. This guy is talking about doing something that results in nothing but being chased. Thats not a good example and AC isn't a good game to use as an example. So I have a hard time agreeing with him.
But you are correct about Bethesda games. They make games with opportunities to do a variety of things in a variety of ways with a variety of results.
I totally agree, but Bethesda are *masters* in this particular art. It's almost unfair with a direct comparison. I don't think I've ever played anything quite like their RPGs in this respect.
Still, even if all that happens is that you eventually get chased in AC, there are still locations and "stuff to see" to build a story around in your head.
And the most important thing here, imho, is that he aknowledges these aspects. It's a core component of what I love about gaming.
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/1/2012 10:04:08 AM
Like I said before, it would have been amazing if they had given us some reason to go out around those open areas. The only satisfying thing out there was knowing that you found something new.
I really wish they could have made various little side quests like Bethesda does. It would have made the game just that much better.
Ok..so I got into the AC series in June..started with AC 2 and Brotherhood..holding off on Revelations b/c after Brotherhood I felt the need to know more about Altair. So I'm playing the first right now..
For me, I understand what he's saying. I think he's right for the most part. In AC I have more options to do what I want to do and see the story of Altair in the way I want/play the game. I'm actually enjoying it and I honestly don't think the problems others have mentioned are that bad..
If you would have played it when it released you would see the problems on a larger scale. I think you playing AC2 and brotherhood first may have helped realize the games potential rather than it's flaws.
That very well may be true..never thought of it like that
Disagree. ACI was a mere skeleton. An engaging story with interesting design decisions and a brilliant world, but was muddled with very repetitive gameplay.
AC II blew the door open. More varied assassinations, an even better story, and a more engaging and fully realized world. II is the (so far) pinnacle of this series.
i never thought of it that way before but i really like what he's saying. as a hardcore assassins creed fan who's played all 4 titles multiple time i'd tend to agree.
also like what he said about letting players travel freely from one city to the next i always like jumping on my horse and just going for a ride.
i've always felt very fondly about the original. all the time i hear people saying if your gonna get into the series skip the first because it's repetitive and boring. i just shake my head.
For some reason, I've always liked riding horses in videogames. I don't know why. I remember riding Epona in Zelda:OoT for the first time blew my mind. Maybe that's part of why I like the first AC and RDR so much.
haha yes me to i've always had a thing for riding horse's in games for some reason.
Jed,
I hope you've played Shadow Of The Colossus. If not, do.
AC1 was good but got WAY too repetitive. I think AC2 definitely was what hooked me onto the series/franchise.