PDA

View Full Version : AC2 was actually the worst in the series



booty_fiend
10-13-2015, 12:07 AM
recently i've read a bunch of posts where people claim that ac2 was the best in the series, which i just don't understand. they say the stealthiest game in the series ac4 is only second to the most fight filled one. i don't get it.

ac4 is a way better assassin's creed than ac2. the stealth missions were well made and you could use different tactics to complete them and there were a lot of them too. in ac2, you are nearly always in combat and fighting on the rooftops, not an assassin at all. you're pretty much a merc errand boy the entire game, a mission slave to other more realistic assassins. in black flag, you are in independent assassin capable of stealthily handling situation without causing a fuss like a maniac, and edward doesn't even have formal assassin training.

i say ac2 is the worst because it is the one game in the series with no real stealth, just a **** social stealth system and a bunch of fighting missions. in what world is such a terrible game the best assassin's creed?

i seriously want to know why people consider this the best, other than the cliche and uninteresting 'revenge' plot and boring main lead. the stealth assassinations and social stealth are somehow worst than the first, imo. be honest, folks is ac2 only considered the best because of jesper kyd's 10/10 mindblowing amazing soundtrack? because, besides the amazing soundtrack (best in the series, imo) the game is a terrible assassin's creed game. it literally is the farthest game from the series's roots and you're just a mercenary for most of the game. edward was pretty much as stealthy as altair when he needed to be. ezio was known for his skills because all he ever did was fight in the open like a merc.

i didn't make this thread because i hate ac2. i made this thread because i want to see legit personal reasons why people think this game is still better than ac4.

i seriously think the soundtrack pretty much made ac2 and that without it the game would have scored only slightly higher than ac1.

HDinHB
10-13-2015, 12:31 AM
Here you go: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1035549-So-no-AC-game-beat-AC-2-yet-Right

You just happened to show up during a brief period when AC2 has been getting a little love. Some other times it's popular to hate on it.

LieutenantRex
10-13-2015, 01:15 AM
While I agree with your implied assertion that ACB isn't the worst game in the series (it's the best), I disagree with your opinion on AC2 being the worst. I have never played the game, but it held all the qualities that a good game should. At least the Creed wasn't blatantly shoved in your backside hole like the first one.

dxsxhxcx
10-13-2015, 01:24 AM
The revenge thing might be cliché, but IMO the story was pretty decent, one of the reasons why I enjoy AC2 (I don't consider it the best, I prefer AC1 to it, but it certainly is among the best ACs to date) is because the pace of the story was pretty good, I can come back to it at any time and still enjoy its story, even already knowing what is going to happen, something I can't do with the others, where I find myself rushing through it until I get to a certain point of the game where I have most of the map available to have fun...

TO_M
10-13-2015, 01:26 AM
r

in ac2, you are nearly always in combat and fighting on the rooftops, not an assassin at all. you're pretty much a merc errand boy the entire game,
i say ac2 is the worst because it is the one game in the series with no real stealth, just a **** social stealth system and a bunch of fighting missions. in what world is such a terrible game the best assassin's creed?
.

Based on these criteria you mentioned I'd argue that AC3 is the worst in the entire series (which it actually is, in my opinion). AC3 had the least stealth-viable missions and most of its assassinations missions were scripted combat or either cutscenes.

LieutenantRex
10-13-2015, 01:42 AM
Based on these criteria you mentioned I'd argue that AC3 is the worst in the entire series (which it actually is, in my opinion). AC3 had the least stealth-viable missions and most of its assassinations missions were scripted combat or either cutscenes.

Can you provide a source for this spurious assault upon the second best game in the series?

TO_M
10-13-2015, 01:57 AM
Can you provide a source for this spurious assault upon the second best game in the series?

I can actually. Farlander has a blog post about the stealth viability of each AC game up to and including AC4.
http://stanislavcostiuc.com/2014/09/22/assassins-creed-series-stealth-viability-analysis/

If we check out the numbers for AC3 we see:

AC3:
Main Campaign (88) – 39%
Side Activities (196) – 22%
DLC (54) – 54%
Total (without DLC) (284) – 27%
Total (with DLC) (338) – 32%

And lets compare this to the numbers from AC2:
AC2:
Main Campaign (168) – 43%
Side Activities (110) – 61%
Total (278) – 50%

We see that AC3 offers a lower percentage of stealth-viable missions, and going by the criteria made in the op, Ac3 would then qualify as the worst in the series.
Plus In AC3 5 of the 7(Not sure on that number) target assassinations missions are scripted combat or a cutscene. Which means only 2 assassinations in the game offer freedom of approach and/or stealth.

LieutenantRex
10-13-2015, 02:04 AM
Can you provide a source for this spurious assault upon the second best game in the series?

Quite a noble task, to take upon such fervent a quest to impugn AC3. But if you wish to discredit the game, you should also bear in mind that the AC games have never been true stealth games; AC3 was the first that actually implemented a mobile stealth mechanic, if you don't count diving under water from the Ezio games.

TO_M
10-13-2015, 02:16 AM
Quite a noble task, to take upon such fervent a quest to impugn AC3. But if you wish to discredit the game, you should also bear in mind that the AC games have never been true stealth games; AC3 was the first that actually implemented a mobile stealth mechanic, if you don't count diving under water from the Ezio games.

I agree with you that AC has never been a true/pure stealth game, to me AC is/was about the freedom of approach so that you could decide for yourself how you want to play it. Ac3 does not allow this freedom since it forces you to play missions in a certain way and as a result has the lowest stealth-viability percentage.

What are you referring to with mobile stealth mechanic? The bushes/high grass you can use to crouch? I'd argue that the monks from AC1 or the blend groups from AC2 offered a lot more mobile-stealth than that.
But regardless, Even if AC3 introduced a thousand stealth mechanics they all would have been relatively useless since there are relatively little opportunities to use them in the missions/assassination missions. The assassin recruit abilities are a good example of this.

LieutenantRex
10-13-2015, 02:29 AM
I agree with you that AC has never been a true/pure stealth game, to me AC is/was about the freedom of approach so that you could decide for yourself how you want to play it. Ac3 does not allow this freedom since it forces you to play missions in a certain way and as a result has the lowest stealth-viability percentage.

What are you referring to with mobile stealth mechanic? The bushes/high grass you can use to crouch? I'd argue that the monks from AC1 or the blend groups from AC2 offered a lot more mobile-stealth than that.
But regardless, Even if AC3 introduced a thousand stealth mechanics they all would have been relatively useless since there are relatively little opportunities to use them in the missions/assassination missions. The assassin recruit abilities are a good example of this.

I concede to all of your points. Ah, it's good to be a liberal with an open mind.

Jessigirl2013
10-13-2015, 11:56 AM
Personal opinion. :rolleyes:

I will admit that looking back at ACII, the graphics IMO could use a update.:rolleyes:

We all know a ACII HD remake is inevitable. :rolleyes:

Smithies89
10-13-2015, 02:08 PM
I'm replaying AC2 now

The rooftop guards in Venice is pretty annoying

Some of the missions are ridiculous like during the social stealth tutorial I find myself following Paula from the rooftops as the social stealth is unreliable

And those guards with all the health. I wouldn't mind if there was more than 2 animations when they block your counter

Journey93
10-13-2015, 03:18 PM
Its not the best but its far from the worst, see Unity, Rogue and AC3 for that

And Black Flag was a glorified Pirate game with AC shoehorned into it. I love it don't get me wrong but they could have easily removed all the AC stuff.
Boring lead is subjective, for me and many others Ezio is still the best Protagonist this series ever had. Seems like you are in the minority with this

And Errand boy? Go play AC3 and then say Ezio was an Errand boy. Connor is a pawn the whole game.

And AC has never been a good stealth series, crouching in some bushes isn't going to change that

cawatrooper9
10-13-2015, 03:59 PM
Here you go: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1035549-So-no-AC-game-beat-AC-2-yet-Right

You just happened to show up during a brief period when AC2 has been getting a little love. Some other times it's popular to hate on it.

Really? I mean, this is one case, but I've found most people on here rank it as one of their favorites, if not their absolute favorite.

SixKeys
10-13-2015, 06:50 PM
AC2 is not my biggest favorite, but it's probably in my top 3.

Reasons why I like it:

* Many different locations with their own flavour
* Interesting modern day/lore (the Subject 16 puzzles remain fantastic)
* Great atmosphere
* Great soundtrack
* Social stealth was still a feature
* Memorable side characters
* Likable protagonist

I'm not sure where you're getting this "Ezio fought in the open all the time" impression. Yes, there were several missions where stealth was impossible, but same goes for AC4. I can still think of more missions that were possible to do stealthily than missions that could only be done by fighting.

Pandassin
10-13-2015, 09:13 PM
AC2 is probably my least favourite, along with AC Rogue.

I just couldn't get into the story, it wasn't engaging at all to me. Ezio was more annoying than likeable, but that's just my opinion. Plus the gameplay was clunky, especially when it came to parkour and combat.

The only thing I liked about it was the 'Ezio's Family' soundtrack and Leonardo Da Vinci. That's it really.

I don't want to sound like an AC2 hater or anything, but I just really can't understand how it can still be called the 'best' AC of all time. AC4 took that title for me. I guess it just all comes down to personal preference.

booty_fiend
10-13-2015, 09:59 PM
I'm replaying AC2 now

The rooftop guards in Venice is pretty annoying

Some of the missions are ridiculous like during the social stealth tutorial I find myself following Paula from the rooftops as the social stealth is unreliable

And those guards with all the health. I wouldn't mind if there was more than 2 animations when they block your counter
venice was the worst part about the game. you couldn't even run across the nice recreated rooftops without some archer killing your vibe.

social stealth in this game is the worst in the series. in ac1, the scholars were so much better and looked better too. in ac2, ezio always has to turn left or right to stick with the crowds, like the weirdest looking guy in the crowd. the social stealth just didn't have that realistic blend feeling of ac1.

just a terrible stealth game overall. ac4 is such a better stealth game, imo


AC2 is not my biggest favorite, but it's probably in my top 3.

Reasons why I like it:

* Many different locations with their own flavour
* Interesting modern day/lore (the Subject 16 puzzles remain fantastic)
* Great atmosphere
* Great soundtrack
* Social stealth was still a feature
* Memorable side characters
* Likable protagonist

I'm not sure where you're getting this "Ezio fought in the open all the time" impression. Yes, there were several missions where stealth was impossible, but same goes for AC4. I can still think of more missions that were possible to do stealthily than missions that could only be done by fighting.
modern day, atmosphere, locations, soundtrack and side characters were good.

ezio, stealth of any kind, the cliche story and the game design were all absolute sh!t, imo.

like you said it's just an impression. you may have intepreted the stealth missions differently than me. for the most part, even the missions where you could use stealth felt too open and un-assassin like.


I guess it just all comes down to personal preference.
yep, i guess so.

SixKeys
10-13-2015, 10:32 PM
venice was the worst part about the game. you couldn't even run across the nice recreated rooftops without some archer killing your vibe.

To be fair, this wasn't exclusive to AC2. The snipers in AC3 were more annoying.



social stealth in this game is the worst in the series. in ac1, the scholars were so much better and looked better too. in ac2, ezio always has to turn left or right to stick with the crowds, like the weirdest looking guy in the crowd. the social stealth just didn't have that realistic blend feeling of ac1.

It's a matter of preference, I think. You could argue that in AC2 blending required more input from the player, hence it was more interactive. Personally I prefer the AC1/ACB automatic blending though. AC1 had the most realistic stealth in the entire series, all the others (including AC4) took a leaf from AC2's book, so I'm not sure why you're singling it out. AC4 had the same courtesan/dancer mobile blend mechanic as AC2 and I think you had to manually keep moving in AC4's blend groups as well.


just a terrible stealth game overall. ac4 is such a better stealth game, imo

Meh. They both share the same problems. The AI in AC4 is just as stupid as in AC2. "Hmm, that man just dived into a bush when I called out to him. Oh well, who cares?"

I will agree that AC4 is a better stealth game. However, the series started as a social stealth game, and AC2 is better in that category. Traditional stealth is about crouching behind objects and diving into cover to avoid detection. Social stealth is about hiding in plain sight and manipulating crowds to your advantage. Edward's stealth was more traditional. There was no notoriety mechanic, no bribing officials, no wanted posters, nothing that strictly relied on manipulating crowds. The drunken pirates were a good idea, since Edward would imitate their animations, but that was the only unique type of blend group in the game.


ezio, stealth of any kind, the cliche story and the game design were all absolute sh!t, imo.

I'm curious why you think so. What made AC4's stealth better for you? What's wrong with the game design?

Story was cliché yes, but that never bothered me. You could just as easily argue that Edward's "greedy man grows a conscience" is just as much a cliché. Doesn't mean it's a bad story.


like you said it's just an impression. you may have intepreted the stealth missions differently than me. for the most part, even the missions where you could use stealth felt too open and un-assassin like.

Why is "too open" a bad thing? AC has always been about player choice. You're supposed to be able to choose your own playstyle. Some people prefer rushing in with swords drawn, others prefer the stealth route. AC4 actually did great in this aspect, since most of its missions were open for both approaches.

As for "un-assassin-like", depends on your definition of assassin. Everyone on these forums seems to have their own. :rolleyes: All that's really required of an assassin in this series is to follow the tenets of the Creed (hide in plain sight, don't kill innocents, never compromise the brotherhood). Both Edward and Ezio at various times alternately broke those rules and heeded them, so I don't see what makes Ezio the lesser assassin.

cawatrooper9
10-13-2015, 10:52 PM
The drunken pirates were a good idea, since Edward would imitate their animations, but that was the only unique type of blend group in the game.







Edward could crowd blend. He also could get "ladies of the night" to follow him around. Honestly, I can't really think of any social stealth options Ezio had that he lacked, at least not from ACII.
Of course, there was certainly a lack of emphasis on this (no land notoriety system, no pickpocketing, cities not overpopilated with courtesans everywhere) but I thought that the balance was decent and the options were there.

SixKeys
10-13-2015, 11:16 PM
Edward could crowd blend. He also could get "ladies of the night" to follow him around. Honestly, I can't really think of any social stealth options Ezio had that he lacked, at least not from ACII.
Of course, there was certainly a lack of emphasis on this (no land notoriety system, no pickpocketing, cities not overpopilated with courtesans everywhere) but I thought that the balance was decent and the options were there.

I said "unique". The ladies were a carbon copy of Ezio's courtesans and the crowd blending was the same. The pirates were more like AC3's special blend groups where Connor would imitate the people in the group, but the pirates were more reliable as AC3's blending could be a bit finicky. They didn't take anything away from Edward that Ezio had,, but they didn't add anything either, is my point.

booty_fiend
10-13-2015, 11:17 PM
To be fair, this wasn't exclusive to AC2. The snipers in AC3 were more annoying.
venetian archers were more annoying, imo, and there were most definitely more of them.



It's a matter of preference, I think. You could argue that in AC2 blending required more input from the player, hence it was more interactive. Personally I prefer the AC1/ACB automatic blending though. AC1 had the most realistic stealth in the entire series, all the others (including AC4) took a leaf from AC2's book, so I'm not sure why you're singling it out. AC4 had the same courtesan/dancer mobile blend mechanic as AC2 and I think you had to manually keep moving in AC4's blend groups as well.
i'm singling it out because of the same reasons you posted. wasn't automatic, which was a downgrade, wasn't as good as ac1's, as you reiterated, and the actually blending just looked funky. ezio always looked like he was sticking no matter who he was blended with. i don't understand why you don't understand why i singled it out honestly. :P



Meh. They both share the same problems. The AI in AC4 is just as stupid as in AC2. "Hmm, that man just dived into a bush when I called out to him. Oh well, who cares?"
not the point. the ai has always been bad. i'm talking about the stealth which you focused on in your post below...


I will agree that AC4 is a better stealth game. However, the series started as a social stealth game, and AC2 is better in that category. Traditional stealth is about crouching behind objects and diving into cover to avoid detection. Social stealth is about hiding in plain sight and manipulating crowds to your advantage. Edward's stealth was more traditional. There was no notoriety mechanic, no bribing officials, no wanted posters, nothing that strictly relied on manipulating crowds. The drunken pirates were a good idea, since Edward would imitate their animations, but that was the only unique type of blend group in the game.


I'm curious why you think so. What made AC4's stealth better for you? What's wrong with the game design?
as you said before this is just a matter of preference. i feel that the social stealth in ac2 was the worst and that ac4 had one of the best in the series. i never said it was a good traditional stealth game in general. i said that it is a much much better stealth game than ac2. ac4 had a real cover system, a limited one yeah but it was a nice start. it also had automatic crouching too. i honestly don't see how ac2 was a better social stealth or traditional stealth game. the social stealth in ac4 is almost literally a copy of ac2's with better animations and additional traditional stealth options on the side.


Story was cliché yes, but that never bothered me. You could just as easily argue that Edward's "greedy man grows a conscience" is just as much a cliché. Doesn't mean it's a bad story.
highly subjective yeah. you could see edward's story as cliche, but it still wouldn't be as cliche as ezio's. ezio's story has literally been done more than edward's.

both are pretty cliche though i agree.


Why is "too open" a bad thing? AC has always been about player choice. You're supposed to be able to choose your own playstyle. Some people prefer rushing in with swords drawn, others prefer the stealth route. AC4 actually did great in this aspect, since most of its missions were open for both approaches.
come on, dude. you're answering yourself. it was a bad thing because stealth wasn't nearly as possible in ac2 as in ac4, due to the games terrible mechanics and design i mentioned above, some that you agreed with above. "too open" is a bad thing because i'm supposed to follow the creed and hide in sight, not fight like a mercenary every sequence. at least edward actually was a pirate at first. ezio knew what he wanted to be, yet executed his ideas like a mario-lite a lot of times.


As for "un-assassin-like", depends on your definition of assassin. Everyone on these forums seems to have their own. :rolleyes: All that's really required of an assassin in this series is to follow the tenets of the Creed (hide in plain sight, don't kill innocents, never compromise the brotherhood). Both Edward and Ezio at various times alternately broke those rules and heeded them, so I don't see what makes Ezio the lesser assassin.
i don't see him as a lesser assassin, because both absolutely shat on the first tenet most of the time. i'm pointing at ezio because there were some situation he could have handle so clean and stealthily, yet chose to fight like a mercenary instead.

i felt like a mercenary who wanted to be an assassin but couldn't quite get the gist of the job. edward was a pirate who oddly enough was an equally good assassin without even trying and its why he received praise for his abilities, as an outsider, by the mayan mentor himself. guy was just a better assassin and executed his **** better than ezio.

it's all mostly subjective.

ac2 doesn't even seem to be your favorite in the series though. are you just chatting? (no problem if you are, i don't mind. it just doesn't seem like ac2 is even your favorite game to begin with :P)

SixKeys
10-13-2015, 11:40 PM
i'm singling it out because of the same reasons you posted. wasn't automatic, which was a downgrade, wasn't as good as ac1's, as you reiterated, and the actually blending just looked funky. ezio always looked like he was sticking no matter who he was blended with. i don't understand why you don't understand why i singled it out honestly. :P

I'm asking because all the post-AC1 games have the same "flaws" when it comes to blending. All of them look unrealistic and the devs can't seem to decide whether they prefer automatic or non-automatic blending so each game alternates between those options. AC3's and Unity's blending, for example, wasn't automatic, you had to manually keep up with NPCs. So since every game after the first one follows these rules that you deem a downgrade from AC1, why do you think AC2 is somehow the worst offender?


not the point. the ai has always been bad. i'm talking about the stealth which you focused on in your post below...

It is the point. There's no point comparing how good the stealth is if the AI is equally clueless. It doesn't matter if the assassin is hiding in a bush or in a blend group if they're equally as (un)likely to be detected by the bad AI. Edward's hiding spots are basically just reskinned AC2 hide spots, so what makes them better?


as you have said many many times now this is just a matter of preference. i feel that the social stealth in ac2 was the worst and that ac4 had one of the best in the series. i never said it was a good traditional stealth game in general. i said that it is a much much better stealth game than ac2. ac4 had a real cover system, a limited one yeah but it was a nice start. it also had automatic crouching too. i honestly don't see how ac2 was a better social stealth or traditional stealth game. the social stealth in ac4 is almost literally a copy of ac2's with additional traditional stealth options on the side.

AC4 didn't have automatic crouching, actually. That was a feature introduced in Unity.

You're saying AC4 is basically a carbon copy of AC2's when it comes to social stealth, yet you still think it's better. How does this make sense? Seeing as AC2 was never meant as a traditional stealth game, forget the traditional stealth aspects for a sec: what social stealth features did AC4 introduce that AC2 didn't?


come on, dude. you're answering yourself. it was a bad thing because stealth wasn't nearly as possible in ac2 as in ac4, due to the games terrible mechanics and design i mentioned above.

Again, AC2 wasn't made to be a stealth game, but a social stealth game. For that purpose its gameplay design were perfectly serviceable. Not perfect, but not bad either.

Also, you do realize that AC4 is built on all of those "terrible" mechanics? Why are they terrible in AC2 but NOT terrible in AC4 if they are essentially the same in both games, as you said earlier?


"too open" is a bad thing because i'm supposed to follow the creed and hide in sight, not fight like a mercenary every sequence.

Mario Auditore and Bartolomeo would disagree and they were both assassins. ;) All of AC1's missions can either be played stealthily or as a tank. There's not a single "desynch upon detection" mission in that game. Does that mean AC1 has terrible design too?


i don't see him as a lesser assassin, because both absolutely shat on the first tenet most of the time. i'm pointing at ezio because there were some situation he could have handle so clean and stealthily, yet chose to fight like a mercenary instead.

Sure, but this in itself does not make one un-assassiny. The brotherhoo has always had both people who like to rush in and people who prefer stealth. Jacob and Evie are a perfect example of this.


ac2 doesn't even seem to be your favorite in the series though. are you just chatting? (no problem if you are, i don't mind. it just doesn't seem like ac2 is even your favorite game to begin with :P)

You asked for "legit personal reasons why AC2 is still better than AC4". I am simply giving my opinion. :)

Assassin_M
10-14-2015, 12:07 AM
http://2dopeboyz.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/BRUH.png

http://cdn.meme.am/images/2618366.jpg

Welcome to the right side of history, my friend.

booty_fiend
10-14-2015, 12:38 AM
I'm asking because all the post-AC1 games have the same "flaws" when it comes to blending. All of them look unrealistic and the devs can't seem to decide whether they prefer automatic or non-automatic blending so each game alternates between those options. AC3's and Unity's blending, for example, wasn't automatic, you had to manually keep up with NPCs. So since every game after the first one follows these rules that you deem a downgrade from AC1, why do you think AC2 is somehow the worst offender?
ac2's blending wasn't really blending at all, that's why (i'm sure i've said this early), but rather it was ezio trying to stick to the crowds in the most unnatural way possible. it just wasn't a pleasant thing to look at and a problem none of the other games really have.


It is the point. There's no point comparing how good the stealth is if the AI is equally clueless. It doesn't matter if the assassin is hiding in a bush or in a blend group if they're equally as (un)likely to be detected by the bad AI. Edward's hiding spots are basically just reskinned AC2 hide spots, so what makes them better?
it's actually not the point because of what you said. whether you like it or not, ac4 does have more stealth situations and mechanics than ac2. since the ais are pretty much the same and ac4 has more stealth situations, talking about the ai is pointless when discussing which game has better stealth. corner hiding isn't a reskin of ac2 hiding spots. bush stealth and whistling aren't reskins of ac2 hiding spots. these are just subjective and incorrect things imo.


AC4 didn't have automatic crouching, actually. That was a feature introduced in Unity.
i was talking about bush stealth. bush stealth was very much automatic crouching.


You're saying AC4 is basically a carbon copy of AC2's when it comes to social stealth, yet you still think it's better. How does this make sense? Seeing as AC2 was never meant as a traditional stealth game, forget the traditional stealth aspects for a sec: what social stealth features did AC4 introduce that AC2 didn't?

Again, AC2 wasn't made to be a stealth game, but a social stealth game. For that purpose its gameplay design were perfectly serviceable. Not perfect, but not bad either.
you're asking for a problem that has been there since forever, i feel: the gameplay / situation contradiction. i probably should have included this in my first post. ac2 was a social stealth game that had too many situations where social stealth just didn't matter. how does social stealth aid me in taking out archers? how does social stealth aid me in killing some guy in a compound full of guards and only guards?

in ac4, rooftop stealth is viable. in ac4, blending and social stealth is smoother and more refined.


Also, you do realize that AC4 is built on all of those "terrible" mechanics? Why are they terrible in AC2 but NOT terrible in AC4 if they are essentially the same in both games, as you said earlier?
you're answering yourself again. if ac4's mechanic are "built on" ac2's and are almost a copy of them, then they're obviously going to be much more refined in the later games (and they were, as i said "almost literally a copy of ac2's with better animations and additional traditional stealth options on the side").

i should mention that by "better animations", i meant that blending in ac4 was much much more refined and easier to do than in ac2. social stealth was simply better in ac4 all in all, due to being a much more refined version of ac2's. ac2's social stealth sucked because it literally wasn't refined at all; it was mostly new to the series. once again "built on" is a reason why i feel ac4 is better in this regard in particular.


Mario Auditore and Bartolomeo would disagree and they were both assassins. ;) All of AC1's missions can either be played stealthily or as a tank. There's not a single "desynch upon detection" mission in that game. Does that mean AC1 has terrible design too?
no, because social stealth was better and the level design was catered to stealth more than ac2, similar to ac4, imo. i felt like ac1 and ac4 both had higher ratios of stealth situations to combat ones than ac2.


Sure, but this in itself does not make one un-assassiny. The brotherhoo has always had both people who like to rush in and people who prefer stealth.
subjective. it does to me. they don't feel like assassins in their execution, but rather assassins in their beliefs (which is fine and it's realistic that there were people like that i agree). however i want to play as someone who is mostly stealthy, despite what they do on the side. edward was a good pirate, sure, but he was much better assassin (look at them side objectives for 100% synch :P).


Jacob and Evie are a perfect example of this.
i'm hoping it's just jacob that does that. evie seems more traditional and assassin-like to me. i thought ubi said she was the stealthy one of the two and that only jacob was a gangster-fighter almost all the time.


You asked for "legit personal reasons why AC2 is still better than AC4". I am simply giving my opinion. :)
ah, fair enough, i did say that towards the end didn't it? :P

though my question was aimed at those who think ac2 is the best in the series, since i'm of the opinion that ac4 is the best and many on here say that it's only second to their #1 ac2 but they usually don't say why they believe that.

Hans684
10-14-2015, 05:07 AM
It's a big budget fan fiction with a black and white story staring a Mary Sue while abandoning the philosophical edge of the original.

booty_fiend
10-14-2015, 05:42 AM
It's a big budget fan fiction with a black and white story staring a Mary Sue while abandoning the philosophical edge of the original.
a glorious summary of why it's the worst.

what's so great about a cliche and black and white game with no real story substance where you play as a renaissance superman? i really want to know.

Journey93
10-14-2015, 03:48 PM
a glorious summary of why it's the worst.

what's so great about a cliche and black and white game with no real story substance where you play as a renaissance superman? i really want to know.

Agree on black and white, thats one of my gripes with AC2 and Brotherhood but everything else is subjective. I also see the Ezio Trilogy as one big story and AC2 only as Part 1 so it holds up better that way.


Its clear you are a Black Flag fanboy so the bias is strong here. Even though Black Flag is basically a Pirate game with AC lore shoehorned into it...
How Black Flag has anymore substance is beyond me... (still a good game though)

Assassin_M
10-14-2015, 05:16 PM
I also see the Ezio Trilogy as one big story and AC2 only as Part 1 so it holds up better that way.

This is coming from the guy who said side missions IN THE SAME GAME don't matter, but now you're lumping the trilogy together as "part of the experience". Okay.:p



Its clear you are a Black Flag fanboy so the bias is strong here.
I suppose you don't go around saying to people who like AC II "You are clearly an Ezio fanboy, so the bias is strong here". No?


Even though Black Flag is basically a Pirate game with AC lore shoehorned into it...
You are clearly an Ezio fanboy, so the bias is strong here. There, I have now countered your every argument.


How Black Flag has anymore substance is beyond me... (still a good game though)
You are clearly an Ezio fanboy, so the bias is strong here.

You did this same thing with me about AC III. For some reason, when you can't find points to counter with, you resort to deconstructing the whole argument by saying "the bias is strong here". Why don't you do like Sixkeys and counter each point made by OP? It's more fun that way, trust me. Pointing out "bias" is not an insta-win.

ACZanius
10-14-2015, 09:11 PM
Join date: 2015
Posts: 32


didn't read lol i don't care what anyone says. universally AC 2 is among the top, nothing can change that

but the worst? You're living in denial

AC: Black Flag, AC2/B ( it's same game basically in story) are at the top

Black Flag was Greatest Of All Time, only thing i can find as con in BF is clunky non fluid combat and lame modern day.

Assassin_M
10-14-2015, 09:25 PM
Join date: 2015
Posts: 32
Okay...how about

Join date: 2009
Posts: 23, 682

I guess what you say doesn't matter now since I am obviously your king.

Bow down to me, peasant.

AC II sucks and Ezio is the worst protagonist.....where you want?

ACZanius
10-14-2015, 09:32 PM
Okay...how about

Join date: 2009
Posts: 23, 682

I guess what you say doesn't matter now since I am obviously your king.

Bow down to me, peasant.

AC II sucks and Ezio is the worst protagonist.....where you want?


Ah there you are my senpai nerd, wanna start another 4 page run down?


Ezio is not the worst protagonist, he's one of the best, he's AC God, iconic, you can rant all you want, it's universal, AC2 is where series blew up

booty_fiend
10-14-2015, 09:32 PM
didn't read lol i don't care what anyone says.
then why are you even here, fodder?

ACZanius
10-14-2015, 09:35 PM
then why are you even here, fodder?

you quoted few words not my whole post cmon lol
"i seriously think the soundtrack pretty much made ac2 and that without it the game would have scored only slightly higher than ac1. "

Seriously?

You see, the problem is, if it wasn't for AC2 breakthrough and the things that it did there probably wouldn't be AC as we know it today, sure every game has flaws AC2 is not perfect but worst of the series?

It had great epic story and multiple locations, soundtrack was amazing, the combat was not perfected as in ACB but it was legit even tho i had my gripes with it sometimes, the revenge story and how Ezio evolves was great, modern was was intriguing, mysterious and it had the moments where you jaw dropped, AC4 didn't have most of it, AC4 was either on same level or superior in story, soundtrack was well i guess how it fits the pirate theme, it still had multiple locations and characters were way different in motivations and their goals, AC4 would have been perfect for me if it had a great modern day, action happening, and that Juno plan would progress in a huge way.


Honestly i wouldn't even compare AC2 to AC4, they are both at the top, each has pros and cons it's just people that nitpick stuff and are haters, plain and simple.

Assassin_M
10-14-2015, 10:40 PM
Ah there you are my senpai nerd, wanna start another 4 page run down?
Come up with your own shtick, you unimaginative shmuck and have the decency to actually be consistent with what you say. According to you, join date is what constitutes validity and credibility, so your contributions here are irrelevant at best and invalid at worst.



Ezio is not the worst protagonist, he's one of the best, he's AC God, iconic, you can rant all you want, it's universal, AC2 is where series blew up
Blew up and made into nothing, that's right. Ezio sucks, lolz.

cawatrooper9
10-14-2015, 10:41 PM
Once again, the internet fails to realize that opinions are subjective.

Assassin_M
10-14-2015, 10:43 PM
Once again, the internet fails to realize that opinions are subjective.
In the hands of unimaginative bipolar children, yes.

Locopells
10-15-2015, 12:18 AM
OK, first and ONLY warning to EVERYONE. Continue flaming/name calling, whatever, be it a response to the above or not. I'll lock this and infract. We had too many threads go down the pan lately to this kinda thing. This is NOT the kinda image of the AC community we want to project, with Syndicate's launch (and the influx of new members that goes with it) just around the corner. If you have an issue, either work it out in PM or bring it to a mod.

Rant over. Carry on nicely, people.

strigoi1958
10-15-2015, 12:57 AM
I would like to start by saying ac 2 is my least favourite of the series ONLY because I was hopeless in the tombs... The game itself was huge fun and testing at the same time. Personally i still rate the game a 90. I can see why some hold it in such high regard. But in my heart ac3 is better ( for me ) and my head says ac4 is the best. But all the rest of the series is so good... I couldn't separate them.

Trying to compare ac games is like comparing food courses... We all enjoy the feast but some prefer the fish or the steak or the dessert and you cannot say cake is better than lobster or vice versa... It is down to personal taste.

If my confusion has helped stop arguing my work here is done.. ;)

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 04:01 AM
I would like to start by saying ac 2 is my least favourite of the series ONLY because I was hopeless in the tombs... The game itself was huge fun and testing at the same time. Personally i still rate the game a 90. I can see why some hold it in such high regard. But in my heart ac3 is better ( for me ) and my head says ac4 is the best. But all the rest of the series is so good... I couldn't separate them.

Trying to compare ac games is like comparing food courses... We all enjoy the feast but some prefer the fish or the steak or the dessert and you cannot say cake is better than lobster or vice versa... It is down to personal taste.

If my confusion has helped stop arguing my work here is done.. ;)

What did you think of Story in AC2 how it progressed and what do you think of Ezio in general? Did you like the world in AC2? You started at AC3, i wanna know if you were confused with story and if perhaps the modern day parts of AC3 affected your view on previous ones? also i really want to know specifically why you dislike the modern day, no troll like i really wanna know in depth?


@Assassin_M Also i hate you a lot and can't stand you.



Anyway yeah those are my questions :cool:

Wolfmeister1010
10-15-2015, 04:36 AM
@Assassin_M Also i hate you a lot and can't stand you.




*Infinite Facepalm*

STDlyMcStudpants
10-15-2015, 05:41 AM
Unity is the worst Assassins Creed game
Rogue is the worst overall game. (Not counting Freedom Cry even though its a standalone)

Best To Worst Assassins Creed Games
Assassin's Creed 2
Assassins Creed Brotherhood
Assassins Creed 3
Assassins Creed
Assassin's Creed Revelations
Assassin's Creed Rogue
Assassin's Creed IV
Assassin's Creed Liberation
Assassin's Creed Unity

Best to Worst Overall
AC2
AC3 (My personal favorite though :O, trying to be critical here ;D)
ACU
AC 4
ACB
ACR
AC1
ACL
ACRo

#Facts
<3

Eziodagreat
10-15-2015, 05:45 AM
In the hands of unimaginative bipolar children, yes.

http://teecraze.com/images/woot/irone.jpg

Assassin_M
10-15-2015, 05:48 AM
Best To Worst Assassins Creed Games
Assassin's Creed 2
Assassins Creed Brotherhood
Assassins Creed 3
Assassins Creed
Assassin's Creed Revelations
Assassin's Creed Rogue
Assassin's Creed IV
Assassin's Creed Liberation
Assassin's Creed Unity

Best to Worst Overall
AC2
AC3
ACU
AC 4
ACR
ACB
AC1
ACL
ACRo

#Facts
<3

More like:

AC IV
AC I
AC III
ACR
ACB
ACU
ACL
ACD
AC Bloodlines
AC CC
Ride to Hell
AC II

STDlyMcStudpants
10-15-2015, 05:51 AM
More like:

AC IV
AC I
AC III
ACR
ACB
ACU
ACL
ACD
AC Bloodlines
AC CC
Ride to Hell
AC II

lmao

Assassin_M
10-15-2015, 05:52 AM
lmao
:cool:

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 06:05 AM
More like:

AC IV
AC I
AC III
ACR
ACB
ACU
ACL
ACD
AC Bloodlines
AC CC
Ride to Hell
AC II

You're just a little hater that's it, lol flush yourself putting AC2 on the very last and also poor attempt at trolling fgt, i have no idea why you hate AC2 so much but just to make things clear


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY
:p:p:p:p:p:p

Assassin_M
10-15-2015, 06:12 AM
Hoooo Man, I remember AC II making me want to quit the franchise. Thankfully, it went back on track after Brotherhood.

booty_fiend
10-15-2015, 06:13 AM
You're just a little hater that's it, lol flush yourself putting AC2 on the very last and also poor attempt at trolling fgt, i have no idea why you hate AC2 so much but just to make things clear
reported for flaming

reported for name-calling

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 06:14 AM
Hoooo Man, I remember AC II making me want to quit the franchise. Thankfully, it went back on track after Brotherhood.


I would honestly like to hear actual points what you dislike AC2 and why did it almost made you quit the series? no troll no hate

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 06:15 AM
reported for flaming

reported for name-calling

Lol sensitive softy, man up, i called him a hater what a hell is that horrible? Lol?

Assassin_M
10-15-2015, 07:01 AM
I would honestly like to hear actual points what you dislike AC2 and why did it almost made you quit the series? no troll no hate
There you go, what a nice chap. Sure thing.

I'll start with the modern day. Modern day pretty much flopped at AC II for three reasons:

1) They completely ignored the already introduced overarching conflict of the satellite launch because for some reason, they changed their minds and didn't like it and thought "bleeehhhh, it's just not.....as destructive, bleeeehhhh", so they introduced the solar flare plot. That's terrible writing, there's no two ways about it. It was the start of the mess.

2) They didn't salvage that mess by tying the two conflicts together. They COMPLETELY threw the launch to the side and it suddenly had NO consequence whatsoever. So that's a WHOLE game of build up to a grand revelation thrown to waste.

3) AC II only had 10-15 minutes of modern day. Literally, that's ALL there was. That's less than AC I. And you could only walk and read emails in AC I. What can a story tell in 15 minutes? How many characters can it develop? How many loose ends can it tie? How many plot points can it introduce promptly and tie it all up in the end? Did you honestly feel anything for Desmond, Rebecca, Shaun and Lucy compared to Ezio and his story? Were there any strong, memorable moments that you can recall from AC II's modern day comparable to say....Ezio's speech at the end of the bonfire of the vanities? I bet you can't. Because you can't do much in 15 minutes. You can't advance the romance between Desmond and Lucy convincingly, you can't explore these new characters, Shaun and Rebecca, you literally can't do anything meaningful to justify pulling you out of the animus, pulling you away from Renaissance Italy and the parkour and the combat and the compelling story.

AC II restarted EVERYTHING that was established in AC I for absolutely no reason, throwing it all to waste. AC I had everything set up that AC II RE-set up, instead of advancing and developing.

Here's where AC I stood:
Overarching conflict? Satellite Launch.
Mysterious, knowledgeable figure? Subject 16
Looming, impeding threat? Bleeding effect

Here's where we stood after AC II:
Overarching satellite plot? Uhhh...What's that?
Mysterious and knowledgeable subject 16? Story wrapped up.
Looming, impeding threat of the bleeding effect? Uhhh....cutscene....and a dialogue about it.

People can talk all they want about the twists, and the mind-blows but from the start of AC II, it was destined to flop because the writers did not have a focused vision and they did not stick to what they introduced. They instead trudged along and made it up as they went, losing confidence in their original vision and this resulted in what we have now. The unfortunate state of what could have been an amazing narrative.

Now on to the historical story. I look back at my time with AC II's story....confusedly, to say the least. It starts well enough untillllll.....sequence 6...barely. Nice setup, cool historical conspiracies but then I realize that from the antagonists to the motivation of the hero, there really isn't much....there. The antagonists are a bunch of empty vessels at best and cartoonish, mustache twirling villains at worst. They had no redeeming value--They were cruel, power hungry, dishonorable, corrupt and brutal and that completely removed the grey area in the conflict that made AC I's narrative so great and engaging. Some say this can't be helped because the Borgia were "so evil". This game wasn't only about the Borgia. The Medicis were a bunch Renaissance Mafioso bastards in real life but the game totally white washes them and portrays the Pazzis COMPLETELY negatively.

AC I made us question our side and our motives because it showed us the other side (Templars) talk about their motivations and goals. In AC II, that whole layer was gone..completely gone. There're no more long conversations with our victims, no more blurry lines. Nothing. Just the victim blurting something out and Ezio conveniently saying a fancy cool line in Italian afterwards. That serves as nothing but a call-back to the time Ezio got angry at Vieri, to which Mario reprimands him. It does little else.

With Ezio, our revenge is finished with the death of Uberto (He is after all the one who pulled the trigger), which is all well and good-- Ezio continues to join the fight because the Pazzi were his family's rivals and they had a personal hand in his father's death; cool, very understandable. But then earlier he and Mario discuss Giovanni's work and Ezio "takes it up" with no reason or explanation as to why he's suddenly so willing to take responsibility when 5 minutes ago he was going to escape Italy with the remainder of his family. Mario keeps talking to him about the Assassins, how they're safe guarding man's freedoms, how his father fought to save that freedom. But there's nothing from Ezio. Right after training, Ezio scoffs Mario and says he's still leaving. Yeah, sorry old man, all that talking for a whole year during my training served squat.

Going back to Ezio's unexplained sudden "maturity", He's done with the Pazzi. He really has no reason to fight the Templars in Venice...or Templars at all, for that matter since he makes it pretty clear that he's only after revenge by pursuing Rodrigo. The quest is thus minimized to a list of names on a sheet of paper that Ezio has to eliminate....uhhh why? because his uncle told him so, although AGAIN, it was shown that Ezio never really cared for the dribble that his uncle talked about in the office about the Codex pages and Giovanni's work. We are then left with a story of a repoman....except instead of taking your stuff, he stabs you in the face. It's literally nothing more, Ezio said it himself to Salviati who questions why he wants to kill him--Ezio says "Sorry, friend...you are on my list...that seals your fate" That's all there is to it.

The biggest clustercluck and a minimized example of why AC II's writing is so bad and contrived is sequence 9--The carnival sequence. Ezio is told by Teodora (a reskinned Paola) that he needs a mask to enter the Carnival, a golden mask that can only be won in the carnival games and that he cannot forge nor steal one because each mask is numbered. Ezio plays all these games and wastes all this time only to have the victory be given to Dante...and then Ezio is told to steal it...woah ahhh, wasn't each Mask numbered? WHY DIDN'T HE STEAL IT FROM THE BEGINNING?? why go through all this crap? It rendered EVERYTHING we worked for in that sequence pointless and to top things off, Paola is inside the party....with no mask...matter of fact, no one else inside the party is wearing a mask..thus making the whole Mask story an awkward plot device placed there as an excuse for supposed story line progression.

Many of the alliances that Ezio makes throughout the story make absolutely no sense--There's no way that a 20 something kid who was betrayed by a close family friend would be so huggy huggy and friendly with EACH and EVERY person he meets, it just doesn't make any sense. He's all friendly with Paola and leaves his mom and his sister with her when SHE'S A PROSTITUTE AND COULD HAVE BEEN PAYED BY THE TEMPLARS TO MURDER THEM. He's all friendly with Antonio when he's suspicious as hell "we know all about you Ezio and we know your name too lol" and why in god's name would Ezio friggin risk getting killed or imprisoned on his FIRST DAY in Venice--during his revenge vendetta, no less--by helping Rosa? oooooh the lady in distress plot device and we all know how ***** Ezio is because that makes sense, right? Ezio spends the next 5 years helping Antonio...5 years to assassinate ONE target and then the script strips all that away when Grimaldi says "the Assassin has been here for weeks" No, man....no, I haven't, I'v been here for years.

This brings me to the Revelation that EVERYONE Ezio has met and allied with was an Assassin (The cast of characters that was just a copy and paste from each other with not a single interesting one apart from La Volpe)....yaaaaaay, surpriiiiiiiise, I wont speak about how contrived and nonsensical this is but how in the hell is shoving Machiavelli in there in any way relevant? He was friggin 19 and he was supposed to be some big boss.....WHAT? You know, I was watching a TV cartoon called Avatar: The last Air bender. It's about a few kids who try to ave the world from a tyrant. Each of these kids gets a teacher and close to the end, all of these teachers are revealed to have been members of a secret society. This is a kids show. So AC did what a kids show did. Assassins Creed. A kids show. Let that sink in for a bit.

In comparison to Altair, Ezio's pretty weak because he has no end goal. Not an objective or mission but a character end goal, a destination. Think about Altair. His problem at first is his arrogance and pride. His mission/objective is to reattain his rank and honor. Ezio's mission/objective is revenge. They both have missions/objectives but only Altair's character has an end goal. You don't really see where Ezio's character is going. The story doesn't help either. With Altair, there's Malik who constantly brings up his failure and his arrogance. Al-Mualim constantly brings up his rebellious nature. There's no such person with Ezio, no people or scenarios to show us his mistakes nor his flaws. Nothing to show where his character is going. Oh, he's going to grow into a Master Assassin. We don't see that, we don't see this growth (Well, apart from a fancy beard). No one tells him what it means to be a true Assassin, no one tells him how revenge is pointless. it just comes out of no where.

Ezio's motivations are also another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great. Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle. Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game. We're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands. So no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No...

"I thought i was beyond this but i'm not"

This is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. Oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then...

"Killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"

WAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? How does this make any sense? We went on a 23 year journey, killing OVER 20 people because their names were on a list and one of those people was a friggin ****** and NOOOWWWW you have the big boss, the reason for ALLLL of this and you're....done? Wow, Ezio, real mature. I guess you wont lose any sleep now after all those people you killed. It was pretty much pointless after all. The writers shot themselves in the foot with this sequence of events because they went with the wrong thought process. The first thing they thought about is revenge. Then, the resolution would obviously be that Ezio gets over it and spares his family's killer. This didn't work because of what I explained above. Ezio can't be both, an Assassin dedicated to killing Templars and then get over revenge by sparing a Templar in the last minute.

In terms of level design, AC II was decent. The missions were not as open as the Assassinations from AC I but they were decent in that they were all really varied, but unfortunately, the missions started becoming REALLY repetitive beginning from sequence 7. Meet faction leader, rescue faction soldiers, scatter faction soldiers around, end, rinse and repeat. It was a pretty annoying loop and it lasted for 4 sequences. The Idea behind it was fine once imo but it wasn't enough to really make use of the various gadgets the game gives you like bombs and poison--those would be REALLY fun to tinker with the AI.

Some other missions were really boring and mundane too like the carnival missions. I am an Assassin, I should be out in the field investigating, tailing, assassinating not playing with ribbons and capture the flag.

Sequence 13, though was probably my favorite ever in that game in terms of level design. 9 Savonarola targets, positioned really well, surrounded by great archetypes and you can approach how you like. What made AC I great right there. Too bad that was PAID DLC.
Now we come to mechanics. AC has a loop that consists of 3 core elements--navigation, combat and stealth. AC II is top notch in navigation. Responsive controls, fast parkour if only marred by a few platforming glitches and bugs and the inconsistent guard detection and AI on rooftops.
Combat was terrible in AC II, though. it was slowed down from AC I because the developers decided to shorten the time between combo kills and the initiating animation. The numerous swords and their stats had no compromise on the battles whatsoever, they were just aesthetic--It didn't matter how many blocks speed had or block had, every sword, knife,hammer and axe was the exact same.

Throwing dust at an enemy was really pointless because the attack initiative form the enemy AI is non-existent which makes the battle slow as it is so the mechanic is only there to make the battle EVEN SLOWER. Armor is meaningless because the game is easy as chuck and damage is proportional to how much armor you have, medicine makes no sense because you never really need it because AGAIN the combat is easy as hell and the amount of health lost is proportionate to the number of squares you have, meaning that no matter how much armor you get hit, the amount of damage you take is only proportionate to the amount of health you have and every other weapon is also pointless because the Hidden blade was OP as hell.

The stealth mechanics improvements were not enough for AC II. Assassinating from hiding spot does not work unless the guard is positioned directly there, there's no way to call a guard to you and there's no way to alert them to your presence to lure them. it was basically AC I with a few pointless touches.

The open world activities of AC II were hit and miss for me. I LOVED the Tombs, Glyphs, Assassination contracts BUT I hated races, beating husbands up and courier missions. For the the races, they just felt unnecessary. I already had timed platforming puzzles in the shape of tombs, I don't need them reskinned around the city for no reason.
For the husbands, why would some random woman who i NEVER met stop a random guy who's armored to the teeth and tell him her marital problems and ask him to beat up her husband? it's non-sensical.
For the couriers, it's just dumb--again, we already have timed platforming puzzles, I don't need them again, not to mention the idiocy of thinking that Ezio actually wasted his time for this...oh hey, let me just delay my revenge mission to deliver your letters.

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 07:44 AM
There you go, what a nice chap. Sure thing.

I'll start with the modern day. Modern day pretty much flopped at AC II for three reasons:

1) They completely ignored the already introduced overarching conflict of the satellite launch because for some reason, they changed their minds and didn't like it and thought "bleeehhhh, it's just not.....as destructive, bleeeehhhh", so they introduced the solar flare plot. That's terrible writing, there's no two ways about it. It was the start of the mess.

2) They didn't salvage that mess by tying the two conflicts together. They COMPLETELY threw the launch to the side and it suddenly had NO consequence whatsoever. So that's a WHOLE game of build up to a grand revelation thrown to waste.

3) AC II only had 10-15 minutes of modern day. Literally, that's ALL there was. That's less than AC I. And you could only walk and read emails in AC I. What can a story tell in 15 minutes? How many characters can it develop? How many loose ends can it tie? How many plot points can it introduce promptly and tie it all up in the end? Did you honestly feel anything for Desmond, Rebecca, Shaun and Lucy compared to Ezio and his story? Were there any strong, memorable moments that you can recall from AC II's modern day comparable to say....Ezio's speech at the end of the bonfire of the vanities? I bet you can't. Because you can't do much in 15 minutes. You can't advance the romance between Desmond and Lucy convincingly, you can't explore these new characters, Shaun and Rebecca, you literally can't do anything meaningful to justify pulling you out of the animus, pulling you away from Renaissance Italy and the parkour and the combat and the compelling story.

AC II restarted EVERYTHING that was established in AC I for absolutely no reason, throwing it all to waste. AC I had everything set up that AC II RE-set up, instead of advancing and developing.

Here's where AC I stood:
Overarching conflict? Satellite Launch.
Mysterious, knowledgeable figure? Subject 16
Looming, impeding threat? Bleeding effect

Here's where we stood after AC II:
Overarching satellite plot? Uhhh...What's that?
Mysterious and knowledgeable subject 16? Story wrapped up.
Looming, impeding threat of the bleeding effect? Uhhh....cutscene....and a dialogue about it.

People can talk all they want about the twists, and the mind-blows but from the start of AC II, it was destined to flop because the writers did not have a focused vision and they did not stick to what they introduced. They instead trudged along and made it up as they went, losing confidence in their original vision and this resulted in what we have now. The unfortunate state of what could have been an amazing narrative.

Now on to the historical story. I look back at my time with AC II's story....confusedly, to say the least. It starts well enough untillllll.....sequence 6...barely. Nice setup, cool historical conspiracies but then I realize that from the antagonists to the motivation of the hero, there really isn't much....there. The antagonists are a bunch of empty vessels at best and cartoonish, mustache twirling villains at worst. They had no redeeming value--They were cruel, power hungry, dishonorable, corrupt and brutal and that completely removed the grey area in the conflict that made AC I's narrative so great and engaging. Some say this can't be helped because the Borgia were "so evil". This game wasn't only about the Borgia. The Medicis were a bunch Renaissance Mafioso bastards in real life but the game totally white washes them and portrays the Pazzis COMPLETELY negatively.

AC I made us question our side and our motives because it showed us the other side (Templars) talk about their motivations and goals. In AC II, that whole layer was gone..completely gone. There're no more long conversations with our victims, no more blurry lines. Nothing. Just the victim blurting something out and Ezio conveniently saying a fancy cool line in Italian afterwards. That serves as nothing but a call-back to the time Ezio got angry at Vieri, to which Mario reprimands him. It does little else.

With Ezio, our revenge is finished with the death of Uberto (He is after all the one who pulled the trigger), which is all well and good-- Ezio continues to join the fight because the Pazzi were his family's rivals and they had a personal hand in his father's death; cool, very understandable. But then earlier he and Mario discuss Giovanni's work and Ezio "takes it up" with no reason or explanation as to why he's suddenly so willing to take responsibility when 5 minutes ago he was going to escape Italy with the remainder of his family. Mario keeps talking to him about the Assassins, how they're safe guarding man's freedoms, how his father fought to save that freedom. But there's nothing from Ezio. Right after training, Ezio scoffs Mario and says he's still leaving. Yeah, sorry old man, all that talking for a whole year during my training served squat.

Going back to Ezio's unexplained sudden "maturity", He's done with the Pazzi. He really has no reason to fight the Templars in Venice...or Templars at all, for that matter since he makes it pretty clear that he's only after revenge by pursuing Rodrigo. The quest is thus minimized to a list of names on a sheet of paper that Ezio has to eliminate....uhhh why? because his uncle told him so, although AGAIN, it was shown that Ezio never really cared for the dribble that his uncle talked about in the office about the Codex pages and Giovanni's work. We are then left with a story of a repoman....except instead of taking your stuff, he stabs you in the face. It's literally nothing more, Ezio said it himself to Salviati who questions why he wants to kill him--Ezio says "Sorry, friend...you are on my list...that seals your fate" That's all there is to it.

The biggest clustercluck and a minimized example of why AC II's writing is so bad and contrived is sequence 9--The carnival sequence. Ezio is told by Teodora (a reskinned Paola) that he needs a mask to enter the Carnival, a golden mask that can only be won in the carnival games and that he cannot forge nor steal one because each mask is numbered. Ezio plays all these games and wastes all this time only to have the victory be given to Dante...and then Ezio is told to steal it...woah ahhh, wasn't each Mask numbered? WHY DIDN'T HE STEAL IT FROM THE BEGINNING?? why go through all this crap? It rendered EVERYTHING we worked for in that sequence pointless and to top things off, Paola is inside the party....with no mask...matter of fact, no one else inside the party is wearing a mask..thus making the whole Mask story an awkward plot device placed there as an excuse for supposed story line progression.

Many of the alliances that Ezio makes throughout the story make absolutely no sense--There's no way that a 20 something kid who was betrayed by a close family friend would be so huggy huggy and friendly with EACH and EVERY person he meets, it just doesn't make any sense. He's all friendly with Paola and leaves his mom and his sister with her when SHE'S A PROSTITUTE AND COULD HAVE BEEN PAYED BY THE TEMPLARS TO MURDER THEM. He's all friendly with Antonio when he's suspicious as hell "we know all about you Ezio and we know your name too lol" and why in god's name would Ezio friggin risk getting killed or imprisoned on his FIRST DAY in Venice--during his revenge vendetta, no less--by helping Rosa? oooooh the lady in distress plot device and we all know how ***** Ezio is because that makes sense, right? Ezio spends the next 5 years helping Antonio...5 years to assassinate ONE target and then the script strips all that away when Grimaldi says "the Assassin has been here for weeks" No, man....no, I haven't, I'v been here for years.

This brings me to the Revelation that EVERYONE Ezio has met and allied with was an Assassin (The cast of characters that was just a copy and paste from each other with not a single interesting one apart from La Volpe)....yaaaaaay, surpriiiiiiiise, I wont speak about how contrived and nonsensical this is but how in the hell is shoving Machiavelli in there in any way relevant? He was friggin 19 and he was supposed to be some big boss.....WHAT? You know, I was watching a TV cartoon called Avatar: The last Air bender. It's about a few kids who try to ave the world from a tyrant. Each of these kids gets a teacher and close to the end, all of these teachers are revealed to have been members of a secret society. This is a kids show. So AC did what a kids show did. Assassins Creed. A kids show. Let that sink in for a bit.

In comparison to Altair, Ezio's pretty weak because he has no end goal. Not an objective or mission but a character end goal, a destination. Think about Altair. His problem at first is his arrogance and pride. His mission/objective is to reattain his rank and honor. Ezio's mission/objective is revenge. They both have missions/objectives but only Altair's character has an end goal. You don't really see where Ezio's character is going. The story doesn't help either. With Altair, there's Malik who constantly brings up his failure and his arrogance. Al-Mualim constantly brings up his rebellious nature. There's no such person with Ezio, no people or scenarios to show us his mistakes nor his flaws. Nothing to show where his character is going. Oh, he's going to grow into a Master Assassin. We don't see that, we don't see this growth (Well, apart from a fancy beard). No one tells him what it means to be a true Assassin, no one tells him how revenge is pointless. it just comes out of no where.

Ezio's motivations are also another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great. Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle. Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game. We're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands. So no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No...

"I thought i was beyond this but i'm not"

This is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. Oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then...

"Killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"

WAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? How does this make any sense? We went on a 23 year journey, killing OVER 20 people because their names were on a list and one of those people was a friggin ****** and NOOOWWWW you have the big boss, the reason for ALLLL of this and you're....done? Wow, Ezio, real mature. I guess you wont lose any sleep now after all those people you killed. It was pretty much pointless after all. The writers shot themselves in the foot with this sequence of events because they went with the wrong thought process. The first thing they thought about is revenge. Then, the resolution would obviously be that Ezio gets over it and spares his family's killer. This didn't work because of what I explained above. Ezio can't be both, an Assassin dedicated to killing Templars and then get over revenge by sparing a Templar in the last minute.

In terms of level design, AC II was decent. The missions were not as open as the Assassinations from AC I but they were decent in that they were all really varied, but unfortunately, the missions started becoming REALLY repetitive beginning from sequence 7. Meet faction leader, rescue faction soldiers, scatter faction soldiers around, end, rinse and repeat. It was a pretty annoying loop and it lasted for 4 sequences. The Idea behind it was fine once imo but it wasn't enough to really make use of the various gadgets the game gives you like bombs and poison--those would be REALLY fun to tinker with the AI.

Some other missions were really boring and mundane too like the carnival missions. I am an Assassin, I should be out in the field investigating, tailing, assassinating not playing with ribbons and capture the flag.

Sequence 13, though was probably my favorite ever in that game in terms of level design. 9 Savonarola targets, positioned really well, surrounded by great archetypes and you can approach how you like. What made AC I great right there. Too bad that was PAID DLC.
Now we come to mechanics. AC has a loop that consists of 3 core elements--navigation, combat and stealth. AC II is top notch in navigation. Responsive controls, fast parkour if only marred by a few platforming glitches and bugs and the inconsistent guard detection and AI on rooftops.
Combat was terrible in AC II, though. it was slowed down from AC I because the developers decided to shorten the time between combo kills and the initiating animation. The numerous swords and their stats had no compromise on the battles whatsoever, they were just aesthetic--It didn't matter how many blocks speed had or block had, every sword, knife,hammer and axe was the exact same.

Throwing dust at an enemy was really pointless because the attack initiative form the enemy AI is non-existent which makes the battle slow as it is so the mechanic is only there to make the battle EVEN SLOWER. Armor is meaningless because the game is easy as chuck and damage is proportional to how much armor you have, medicine makes no sense because you never really need it because AGAIN the combat is easy as hell and the amount of health lost is proportionate to the number of squares you have, meaning that no matter how much armor you get hit, the amount of damage you take is only proportionate to the amount of health you have and every other weapon is also pointless because the Hidden blade was OP as hell.

The stealth mechanics improvements were not enough for AC II. Assassinating from hiding spot does not work unless the guard is positioned directly there, there's no way to call a guard to you and there's no way to alert them to your presence to lure them. it was basically AC I with a few pointless touches.

The open world activities of AC II were hit and miss for me. I LOVED the Tombs, Glyphs, Assassination contracts BUT I hated races, beating husbands up and courier missions. For the the races, they just felt unnecessary. I already had timed platforming puzzles in the shape of tombs, I don't need them reskinned around the city for no reason.
For the husbands, why would some random woman who i NEVER met stop a random guy who's armored to the teeth and tell him her marital problems and ask him to beat up her husband? it's non-sensical.
For the couriers, it's just dumb--again, we already have timed platforming puzzles, I don't need them again, not to mention the idiocy of thinking that Ezio actually wasted his time for this...oh hey, let me just delay my revenge mission to deliver your letters.

Read all srs

Well, i actually agree, i will admit the solar flare was something i did not like, really really sucked how they replaced something so not lame but so "natural" and neglected something more epic like Abstergo Sattelite with Apple Of Eden inserted in it and ultimate launch that will start Templars New World Order, i was not impressed with the big of END OF THE WORLD crap, so cliche.



The ending weirdly enough did not make me mad, but i was kind of mind boggled wtf you are not gonna kill Rodrigo, after all these years, as much as one wants to find reasons that Ezio "matured" that crap at the end of so off.



Regarding his motivations, personally i understood them and this is probably just my personal mindset but i like stories like AC2 in terms of villains, i like the evil, no compassion bad guys, greedy and like just pure darkness type, i understand modern day was not huge but it was epic for me enough, same i also loved puzzles, gylphs they are just freaking deep and gave that "AC Vibe we all miss :cool:)



What i liked a lot too was multiple locations, i loved the feeling of "traveling" if that makes sense, i'm not a fan of one location thing that Unity did or now Syndicate is doing, idk about combat, i have my gripes with it, but overall i enjoyed it, but AC1 was more polished and smooth i swear i have so many hours on both that i am convinced i'm not seeing things lol



The Tombs, one of my favorite things in AC2, very very hard at some points haha but they felt legit, the beginning sequence, escape from Abstergo was so awesome, felt really good when i played it and when you have convo with Lucy she says "templars are only part of the problem" that made it so much more epic. Regarding that those people were actually Assassins, mentors felt great, but at the time LOL i was like "you're not assasiin where's your hood and blade" but i like how Mario then says "we are not so literal as our ancestors"



Overall for me AC2 is among the top, i liked the whole overarching plot and Ezio's story of course we said above and your post, you have **** ton of flaws, of course ACB is pinnacle of AC for me, it perfected combat to the max, world/environment, i loooved the recruit system so much how Assassins could level up, change and you can see them fight with you etc, the soundtrack was amazing more specifically ambient music was done so well made me feel like i'm in heaven, the story was amazing for me, i had blast playing ACB, exotic missions were probably my favorite side content i have ever seen in AC game, how we went on mission across Italy and quite frankly those levels pretty not small idk a lot to say lol tired of writing.

Assassin_M
10-15-2015, 08:23 AM
Read all srs
I honestly commend you.


Well, i actually agree, i will admit the solar flare was something i did not like, really really sucked how they replaced something so not lame but so "natural" and neglected something more epic like Abstergo Sattelite with Apple Of Eden inserted in it and ultimate launch that will start Templars New World Order, i was not impressed with the big of END OF THE WORLD crap, so cliche.
Right? It just came out of no where. It would have been better if they tied the launch with the solar flare, but it was a whole new thing.




The ending weirdly enough did not make me mad, but i was kind of mind boggled wtf you are not gonna kill Rodrigo, after all these years, as much as one wants to find reasons that Ezio "matured" that crap at the end of so off.
Exactly how I felt.




Regarding his motivations, personally i understood them and this is probably just my personal mindset but i like stories like AC2 in terms of villains, i like the evil, no compassion bad guys, greedy and like just pure darkness type, i understand modern day was not huge but it was epic for me enough, same i also loved puzzles, gylphs they are just freaking deep and gave that "AC Vibe we all miss :cool:)
His motivations are easy to understand, but they just make no sense to me. Regarding villains, i'm fine with evil, mustache twirly villains, but AC set a standard with AC I. The whole premise of the war between Assassins and Templars is that neither is truly good nor evil, they're both for noble goals but how they go about it is the point of contention. Both can have honorable men and both can slimy bastards.




What i liked a lot too was multiple locations, i loved the feeling of "traveling" if that makes sense, i'm not a fan of one location thing that Unity did or now Syndicate is doing, idk about combat, i have my gripes with it, but overall i enjoyed it, but AC1 was more polished and smooth i swear i have so many hours on both that i am convinced i'm not seeing things lol
I definitely know what you're saying about travelling. I love that feeling too in games like Witcher and RDR. I still don't mind self contained cities, though. They have their own charm.

AC II's combat's philosophy was that the system was there, and they just added stuff on that system. It doesn't make sense to have throwing dust mechanic to slow down guards when the combat is slow on its own. Same thing with the gun and throwing knives. It's better to design a system and build the mechanics AROUND that system. Instead of thinking "Hmm...We want a gun...that'd be cool...but we have throwing knives and its silent...okay then. Lets make guards die from two knife throws"




The Tombs, one of my favorite things in AC2, very very hard at some points haha but they felt legit, the beginning sequence, escape from Abstergo was so awesome, felt really good when i played it and when you have convo with Lucy she says "templars are only part of the problem" that made it so much more epic. Regarding that those people were actually Assassins, mentors felt great, but at the time LOL i was like "you're not assasiin where's your hood and blade" but i like how Mario then says "we are not so literal as our ancestors"
Eh....I thought the escape was boring.



lol tired of writing.
:cool:

Zafar1981
10-15-2015, 08:48 AM
i didn't make this thread because i hate ac2. i made this thread because i want to see legit personal reasons why people think this game is still better than ac4.

i seriously think the soundtrack pretty much made ac2 and that without it the game would have scored only slightly higher than ac1.

Mate looks like you are using very strong drugs.

Assassin_M
10-15-2015, 09:27 AM
Mate looks like you are using very strong drugs.
Or you could argue properly instead of throwing around cheap, snide remarks that do nothing but derail the thread.

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 09:44 AM
I honestly commend you.


Right? It just came out of no where. It would have been better if they tied the launch with the solar flare, but it was a whole new thing.




Exactly how I felt.




His motivations are easy to understand, but they just make no sense to me. Regarding villains, i'm fine with evil, mustache twirly villains, but AC set a standard with AC I. The whole premise of the war between Assassins and Templars is that neither is truly good nor evil, they're both for noble goals but how they go about it is the point of contention. Both can have honorable men and both can slimy bastards.




I definitely know what you're saying about travelling. I love that feeling too in games like Witcher and RDR. I still don't mind self contained cities, though. They have their own charm.

AC II's combat's philosophy was that the system was there, and they just added stuff on that system. It doesn't make sense to have throwing dust mechanic to slow down guards when the combat is slow on its own. Same thing with the gun and throwing knives. It's better to design a system and build the mechanics AROUND that system. Instead of thinking "Hmm...We want a gun...that'd be cool...but we have throwing knives and its silent...okay then. Lets make guards die from two knife throws"




Eh....I thought the escape was boring.



:cool:



I seriously hope Assassin's Creed comes back in full force soon or some day with everything we want, a great big modern day portion and actual third person gameplay in it, a deep very hard connected historical story with modern day, a huge progression of overarching plot, big things like Juno finally taking over the world literally, multiple cities and location size we have never seen before, this perhaps may be reaching but this is next gen and i always was thinking in my head, why not UP QUALITY and QUANTITY, i truly believe if they took modern day really to heart and made it real epic people who don't like it would love it, and i will say again how RinoTheBouncer said few months ago can't remember letter to letter "If you want modern day exciting and epic you have to MAKE it exciting and epic", plain and simple, with that said let us stop with filler games, hopefully Syndicate will break the cycle of fillers, how to make modern day exciting is i guess for another thread.



All in all, lol it's AC i don't hate any of the games, just dislike few, even Unity, in reality only real dislike i have with Unity is pointless filler story, absolutely lame modern day, and some holes with Shay (same crap that is in AC3), City was beautiful and amazing, truly crafted well, voice acting as always superb in every AC game, i think even Arno is legit, i just miss my AC :( , i really believe that you actually can please everyone, every type of fan of AC. I don't think annual releases is number one problem but it is to certain extent. ACB threw me out of water, mind=blow very first time playing it it was developed in less than 12 months, ahh we shall see what happens i just don't want AC to get burned out completely and fatigued.

Wolfmeister1010
10-15-2015, 03:10 PM
The worst in the series is AC revelations


That's a fact


Don't even try to argue with me. You will only embarrass yourself.




I actually have a bunch of reasons why as well. Here we go:


1. tower defense

Hans684
10-15-2015, 03:17 PM
There you go, what a nice chap. Sure thing.

I'll start with the modern day. Modern day pretty much flopped at AC II for three reasons:

1) They completely ignored the already introduced overarching conflict of the satellite launch because for some reason, they changed their minds and didn't like it and thought "bleeehhhh, it's just not.....as destructive, bleeeehhhh", so they introduced the solar flare plot. That's terrible writing, there's no two ways about it. It was the start of the mess.

2) They didn't salvage that mess by tying the two conflicts together. They COMPLETELY threw the launch to the side and it suddenly had NO consequence whatsoever. So that's a WHOLE game of build up to a grand revelation thrown to waste.

3) AC II only had 10-15 minutes of modern day. Literally, that's ALL there was. That's less than AC I. And you could only walk and read emails in AC I. What can a story tell in 15 minutes? How many characters can it develop? How many loose ends can it tie? How many plot points can it introduce promptly and tie it all up in the end? Did you honestly feel anything for Desmond, Rebecca, Shaun and Lucy compared to Ezio and his story? Were there any strong, memorable moments that you can recall from AC II's modern day comparable to say....Ezio's speech at the end of the bonfire of the vanities? I bet you can't. Because you can't do much in 15 minutes. You can't advance the romance between Desmond and Lucy convincingly, you can't explore these new characters, Shaun and Rebecca, you literally can't do anything meaningful to justify pulling you out of the animus, pulling you away from Renaissance Italy and the parkour and the combat and the compelling story.

AC II restarted EVERYTHING that was established in AC I for absolutely no reason, throwing it all to waste. AC I had everything set up that AC II RE-set up, instead of advancing and developing.

Here's where AC I stood:
Overarching conflict? Satellite Launch.
Mysterious, knowledgeable figure? Subject 16
Looming, impeding threat? Bleeding effect

Here's where we stood after AC II:
Overarching satellite plot? Uhhh...What's that?
Mysterious and knowledgeable subject 16? Story wrapped up.
Looming, impeding threat of the bleeding effect? Uhhh....cutscene....and a dialogue about it.

People can talk all they want about the twists, and the mind-blows but from the start of AC II, it was destined to flop because the writers did not have a focused vision and they did not stick to what they introduced. They instead trudged along and made it up as they went, losing confidence in their original vision and this resulted in what we have now. The unfortunate state of what could have been an amazing narrative.

Now on to the historical story. I look back at my time with AC II's story....confusedly, to say the least. It starts well enough untillllll.....sequence 6...barely. Nice setup, cool historical conspiracies but then I realize that from the antagonists to the motivation of the hero, there really isn't much....there. The antagonists are a bunch of empty vessels at best and cartoonish, mustache twirling villains at worst. They had no redeeming value--They were cruel, power hungry, dishonorable, corrupt and brutal and that completely removed the grey area in the conflict that made AC I's narrative so great and engaging. Some say this can't be helped because the Borgia were "so evil". This game wasn't only about the Borgia. The Medicis were a bunch Renaissance Mafioso bastards in real life but the game totally white washes them and portrays the Pazzis COMPLETELY negatively.

AC I made us question our side and our motives because it showed us the other side (Templars) talk about their motivations and goals. In AC II, that whole layer was gone..completely gone. There're no more long conversations with our victims, no more blurry lines. Nothing. Just the victim blurting something out and Ezio conveniently saying a fancy cool line in Italian afterwards. That serves as nothing but a call-back to the time Ezio got angry at Vieri, to which Mario reprimands him. It does little else.

With Ezio, our revenge is finished with the death of Uberto (He is after all the one who pulled the trigger), which is all well and good-- Ezio continues to join the fight because the Pazzi were his family's rivals and they had a personal hand in his father's death; cool, very understandable. But then earlier he and Mario discuss Giovanni's work and Ezio "takes it up" with no reason or explanation as to why he's suddenly so willing to take responsibility when 5 minutes ago he was going to escape Italy with the remainder of his family. Mario keeps talking to him about the Assassins, how they're safe guarding man's freedoms, how his father fought to save that freedom. But there's nothing from Ezio. Right after training, Ezio scoffs Mario and says he's still leaving. Yeah, sorry old man, all that talking for a whole year during my training served squat.

Going back to Ezio's unexplained sudden "maturity", He's done with the Pazzi. He really has no reason to fight the Templars in Venice...or Templars at all, for that matter since he makes it pretty clear that he's only after revenge by pursuing Rodrigo. The quest is thus minimized to a list of names on a sheet of paper that Ezio has to eliminate....uhhh why? because his uncle told him so, although AGAIN, it was shown that Ezio never really cared for the dribble that his uncle talked about in the office about the Codex pages and Giovanni's work. We are then left with a story of a repoman....except instead of taking your stuff, he stabs you in the face. It's literally nothing more, Ezio said it himself to Salviati who questions why he wants to kill him--Ezio says "Sorry, friend...you are on my list...that seals your fate" That's all there is to it.

The biggest clustercluck and a minimized example of why AC II's writing is so bad and contrived is sequence 9--The carnival sequence. Ezio is told by Teodora (a reskinned Paola) that he needs a mask to enter the Carnival, a golden mask that can only be won in the carnival games and that he cannot forge nor steal one because each mask is numbered. Ezio plays all these games and wastes all this time only to have the victory be given to Dante...and then Ezio is told to steal it...woah ahhh, wasn't each Mask numbered? WHY DIDN'T HE STEAL IT FROM THE BEGINNING?? why go through all this crap? It rendered EVERYTHING we worked for in that sequence pointless and to top things off, Paola is inside the party....with no mask...matter of fact, no one else inside the party is wearing a mask..thus making the whole Mask story an awkward plot device placed there as an excuse for supposed story line progression.

Many of the alliances that Ezio makes throughout the story make absolutely no sense--There's no way that a 20 something kid who was betrayed by a close family friend would be so huggy huggy and friendly with EACH and EVERY person he meets, it just doesn't make any sense. He's all friendly with Paola and leaves his mom and his sister with her when SHE'S A PROSTITUTE AND COULD HAVE BEEN PAYED BY THE TEMPLARS TO MURDER THEM. He's all friendly with Antonio when he's suspicious as hell "we know all about you Ezio and we know your name too lol" and why in god's name would Ezio friggin risk getting killed or imprisoned on his FIRST DAY in Venice--during his revenge vendetta, no less--by helping Rosa? oooooh the lady in distress plot device and we all know how ***** Ezio is because that makes sense, right? Ezio spends the next 5 years helping Antonio...5 years to assassinate ONE target and then the script strips all that away when Grimaldi says "the Assassin has been here for weeks" No, man....no, I haven't, I'v been here for years.

This brings me to the Revelation that EVERYONE Ezio has met and allied with was an Assassin (The cast of characters that was just a copy and paste from each other with not a single interesting one apart from La Volpe)....yaaaaaay, surpriiiiiiiise, I wont speak about how contrived and nonsensical this is but how in the hell is shoving Machiavelli in there in any way relevant? He was friggin 19 and he was supposed to be some big boss.....WHAT? You know, I was watching a TV cartoon called Avatar: The last Air bender. It's about a few kids who try to ave the world from a tyrant. Each of these kids gets a teacher and close to the end, all of these teachers are revealed to have been members of a secret society. This is a kids show. So AC did what a kids show did. Assassins Creed. A kids show. Let that sink in for a bit.

In comparison to Altair, Ezio's pretty weak because he has no end goal. Not an objective or mission but a character end goal, a destination. Think about Altair. His problem at first is his arrogance and pride. His mission/objective is to reattain his rank and honor. Ezio's mission/objective is revenge. They both have missions/objectives but only Altair's character has an end goal. You don't really see where Ezio's character is going. The story doesn't help either. With Altair, there's Malik who constantly brings up his failure and his arrogance. Al-Mualim constantly brings up his rebellious nature. There's no such person with Ezio, no people or scenarios to show us his mistakes nor his flaws. Nothing to show where his character is going. Oh, he's going to grow into a Master Assassin. We don't see that, we don't see this growth (Well, apart from a fancy beard). No one tells him what it means to be a true Assassin, no one tells him how revenge is pointless. it just comes out of no where.

Ezio's motivations are also another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great. Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle. Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game. We're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands. So no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No...

"I thought i was beyond this but i'm not"

This is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. Oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then...

"Killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"

WAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? How does this make any sense? We went on a 23 year journey, killing OVER 20 people because their names were on a list and one of those people was a friggin ****** and NOOOWWWW you have the big boss, the reason for ALLLL of this and you're....done? Wow, Ezio, real mature. I guess you wont lose any sleep now after all those people you killed. It was pretty much pointless after all. The writers shot themselves in the foot with this sequence of events because they went with the wrong thought process. The first thing they thought about is revenge. Then, the resolution would obviously be that Ezio gets over it and spares his family's killer. This didn't work because of what I explained above. Ezio can't be both, an Assassin dedicated to killing Templars and then get over revenge by sparing a Templar in the last minute.

In terms of level design, AC II was decent. The missions were not as open as the Assassinations from AC I but they were decent in that they were all really varied, but unfortunately, the missions started becoming REALLY repetitive beginning from sequence 7. Meet faction leader, rescue faction soldiers, scatter faction soldiers around, end, rinse and repeat. It was a pretty annoying loop and it lasted for 4 sequences. The Idea behind it was fine once imo but it wasn't enough to really make use of the various gadgets the game gives you like bombs and poison--those would be REALLY fun to tinker with the AI.

Some other missions were really boring and mundane too like the carnival missions. I am an Assassin, I should be out in the field investigating, tailing, assassinating not playing with ribbons and capture the flag.

Sequence 13, though was probably my favorite ever in that game in terms of level design. 9 Savonarola targets, positioned really well, surrounded by great archetypes and you can approach how you like. What made AC I great right there. Too bad that was PAID DLC.
Now we come to mechanics. AC has a loop that consists of 3 core elements--navigation, combat and stealth. AC II is top notch in navigation. Responsive controls, fast parkour if only marred by a few platforming glitches and bugs and the inconsistent guard detection and AI on rooftops.
Combat was terrible in AC II, though. it was slowed down from AC I because the developers decided to shorten the time between combo kills and the initiating animation. The numerous swords and their stats had no compromise on the battles whatsoever, they were just aesthetic--It didn't matter how many blocks speed had or block had, every sword, knife,hammer and axe was the exact same.

Throwing dust at an enemy was really pointless because the attack initiative form the enemy AI is non-existent which makes the battle slow as it is so the mechanic is only there to make the battle EVEN SLOWER. Armor is meaningless because the game is easy as chuck and damage is proportional to how much armor you have, medicine makes no sense because you never really need it because AGAIN the combat is easy as hell and the amount of health lost is proportionate to the number of squares you have, meaning that no matter how much armor you get hit, the amount of damage you take is only proportionate to the amount of health you have and every other weapon is also pointless because the Hidden blade was OP as hell.

The stealth mechanics improvements were not enough for AC II. Assassinating from hiding spot does not work unless the guard is positioned directly there, there's no way to call a guard to you and there's no way to alert them to your presence to lure them. it was basically AC I with a few pointless touches.

The open world activities of AC II were hit and miss for me. I LOVED the Tombs, Glyphs, Assassination contracts BUT I hated races, beating husbands up and courier missions. For the the races, they just felt unnecessary. I already had timed platforming puzzles in the shape of tombs, I don't need them reskinned around the city for no reason.
For the husbands, why would some random woman who i NEVER met stop a random guy who's armored to the teeth and tell him her marital problems and ask him to beat up her husband? it's non-sensical.
For the couriers, it's just dumb--again, we already have timed platforming puzzles, I don't need them again, not to mention the idiocy of thinking that Ezio actually wasted his time for this...oh hey, let me just delay my revenge mission to deliver your letters.

I'd also like to add this, you missed something.

La Volpe, the guy that supposedly knows everything in Florence. If that's the case, how could he not know Uberto was a Templar and was planning on turning on the Auditore family? Or the Pazzi conspiracy? I mean he got a spy network for himself that is in every corner of Florence, If he knew everything he must have known of that as well. He could have prevented the arrest and execution of the Auditore with his band of thieves. He could have gotten news about Uberto getting a personal visit by the Grand Master. The Templars don't teleport trough Florance, they walk the streets like all else. Then there is also the fact that Ezio delivered a letter from his father to a thief before the hanging and the same thief appears in the event. How could he not know?

Sushiglutton
10-15-2015, 03:21 PM
Well if you just look at the game in isolation and compare to modern standards AC2 has tons of problems like lackluster mechanics, poor missions, problematic pacing and so on. When I play now and roam around Venice a bit the city looks like garbage tbh. Especially the milky-water. This is a massive problem as the atmosphere is lost and that was one of the game's greatest strengths.

But when released back in 2009 (?) I really loved it. AC2 felt epic. It's not that later AC games have been worse really, it's just that they haven't been that much better.

Kaschra
10-15-2015, 04:24 PM
There you go, what a nice chap. Sure thing.

I'll start with the modern day. Modern day pretty much flopped at AC II for three reasons:

1) They completely ignored the already introduced overarching conflict of the satellite launch because for some reason, they changed their minds and didn't like it and thought "bleeehhhh, it's just not.....as destructive, bleeeehhhh", so they introduced the solar flare plot. That's terrible writing, there's no two ways about it. It was the start of the mess.

2) They didn't salvage that mess by tying the two conflicts together. They COMPLETELY threw the launch to the side and it suddenly had NO consequence whatsoever. So that's a WHOLE game of build up to a grand revelation thrown to waste.

3) AC II only had 10-15 minutes of modern day. Literally, that's ALL there was. That's less than AC I. And you could only walk and read emails in AC I. What can a story tell in 15 minutes? How many characters can it develop? How many loose ends can it tie? How many plot points can it introduce promptly and tie it all up in the end? Did you honestly feel anything for Desmond, Rebecca, Shaun and Lucy compared to Ezio and his story? Were there any strong, memorable moments that you can recall from AC II's modern day comparable to say....Ezio's speech at the end of the bonfire of the vanities? I bet you can't. Because you can't do much in 15 minutes. You can't advance the romance between Desmond and Lucy convincingly, you can't explore these new characters, Shaun and Rebecca, you literally can't do anything meaningful to justify pulling you out of the animus, pulling you away from Renaissance Italy and the parkour and the combat and the compelling story.

AC II restarted EVERYTHING that was established in AC I for absolutely no reason, throwing it all to waste. AC I had everything set up that AC II RE-set up, instead of advancing and developing.

Here's where AC I stood:
Overarching conflict? Satellite Launch.
Mysterious, knowledgeable figure? Subject 16
Looming, impeding threat? Bleeding effect

Here's where we stood after AC II:
Overarching satellite plot? Uhhh...What's that?
Mysterious and knowledgeable subject 16? Story wrapped up.
Looming, impeding threat of the bleeding effect? Uhhh....cutscene....and a dialogue about it.

People can talk all they want about the twists, and the mind-blows but from the start of AC II, it was destined to flop because the writers did not have a focused vision and they did not stick to what they introduced. They instead trudged along and made it up as they went, losing confidence in their original vision and this resulted in what we have now. The unfortunate state of what could have been an amazing narrative.

Now on to the historical story. I look back at my time with AC II's story....confusedly, to say the least. It starts well enough untillllll.....sequence 6...barely. Nice setup, cool historical conspiracies but then I realize that from the antagonists to the motivation of the hero, there really isn't much....there. The antagonists are a bunch of empty vessels at best and cartoonish, mustache twirling villains at worst. They had no redeeming value--They were cruel, power hungry, dishonorable, corrupt and brutal and that completely removed the grey area in the conflict that made AC I's narrative so great and engaging. Some say this can't be helped because the Borgia were "so evil". This game wasn't only about the Borgia. The Medicis were a bunch Renaissance Mafioso bastards in real life but the game totally white washes them and portrays the Pazzis COMPLETELY negatively.

AC I made us question our side and our motives because it showed us the other side (Templars) talk about their motivations and goals. In AC II, that whole layer was gone..completely gone. There're no more long conversations with our victims, no more blurry lines. Nothing. Just the victim blurting something out and Ezio conveniently saying a fancy cool line in Italian afterwards. That serves as nothing but a call-back to the time Ezio got angry at Vieri, to which Mario reprimands him. It does little else.

With Ezio, our revenge is finished with the death of Uberto (He is after all the one who pulled the trigger), which is all well and good-- Ezio continues to join the fight because the Pazzi were his family's rivals and they had a personal hand in his father's death; cool, very understandable. But then earlier he and Mario discuss Giovanni's work and Ezio "takes it up" with no reason or explanation as to why he's suddenly so willing to take responsibility when 5 minutes ago he was going to escape Italy with the remainder of his family. Mario keeps talking to him about the Assassins, how they're safe guarding man's freedoms, how his father fought to save that freedom. But there's nothing from Ezio. Right after training, Ezio scoffs Mario and says he's still leaving. Yeah, sorry old man, all that talking for a whole year during my training served squat.

Going back to Ezio's unexplained sudden "maturity", He's done with the Pazzi. He really has no reason to fight the Templars in Venice...or Templars at all, for that matter since he makes it pretty clear that he's only after revenge by pursuing Rodrigo. The quest is thus minimized to a list of names on a sheet of paper that Ezio has to eliminate....uhhh why? because his uncle told him so, although AGAIN, it was shown that Ezio never really cared for the dribble that his uncle talked about in the office about the Codex pages and Giovanni's work. We are then left with a story of a repoman....except instead of taking your stuff, he stabs you in the face. It's literally nothing more, Ezio said it himself to Salviati who questions why he wants to kill him--Ezio says "Sorry, friend...you are on my list...that seals your fate" That's all there is to it.

The biggest clustercluck and a minimized example of why AC II's writing is so bad and contrived is sequence 9--The carnival sequence. Ezio is told by Teodora (a reskinned Paola) that he needs a mask to enter the Carnival, a golden mask that can only be won in the carnival games and that he cannot forge nor steal one because each mask is numbered. Ezio plays all these games and wastes all this time only to have the victory be given to Dante...and then Ezio is told to steal it...woah ahhh, wasn't each Mask numbered? WHY DIDN'T HE STEAL IT FROM THE BEGINNING?? why go through all this crap? It rendered EVERYTHING we worked for in that sequence pointless and to top things off, Paola is inside the party....with no mask...matter of fact, no one else inside the party is wearing a mask..thus making the whole Mask story an awkward plot device placed there as an excuse for supposed story line progression.

Many of the alliances that Ezio makes throughout the story make absolutely no sense--There's no way that a 20 something kid who was betrayed by a close family friend would be so huggy huggy and friendly with EACH and EVERY person he meets, it just doesn't make any sense. He's all friendly with Paola and leaves his mom and his sister with her when SHE'S A PROSTITUTE AND COULD HAVE BEEN PAYED BY THE TEMPLARS TO MURDER THEM. He's all friendly with Antonio when he's suspicious as hell "we know all about you Ezio and we know your name too lol" and why in god's name would Ezio friggin risk getting killed or imprisoned on his FIRST DAY in Venice--during his revenge vendetta, no less--by helping Rosa? oooooh the lady in distress plot device and we all know how ***** Ezio is because that makes sense, right? Ezio spends the next 5 years helping Antonio...5 years to assassinate ONE target and then the script strips all that away when Grimaldi says "the Assassin has been here for weeks" No, man....no, I haven't, I'v been here for years.

This brings me to the Revelation that EVERYONE Ezio has met and allied with was an Assassin (The cast of characters that was just a copy and paste from each other with not a single interesting one apart from La Volpe)....yaaaaaay, surpriiiiiiiise, I wont speak about how contrived and nonsensical this is but how in the hell is shoving Machiavelli in there in any way relevant? He was friggin 19 and he was supposed to be some big boss.....WHAT? You know, I was watching a TV cartoon called Avatar: The last Air bender. It's about a few kids who try to ave the world from a tyrant. Each of these kids gets a teacher and close to the end, all of these teachers are revealed to have been members of a secret society. This is a kids show. So AC did what a kids show did. Assassins Creed. A kids show. Let that sink in for a bit.

In comparison to Altair, Ezio's pretty weak because he has no end goal. Not an objective or mission but a character end goal, a destination. Think about Altair. His problem at first is his arrogance and pride. His mission/objective is to reattain his rank and honor. Ezio's mission/objective is revenge. They both have missions/objectives but only Altair's character has an end goal. You don't really see where Ezio's character is going. The story doesn't help either. With Altair, there's Malik who constantly brings up his failure and his arrogance. Al-Mualim constantly brings up his rebellious nature. There's no such person with Ezio, no people or scenarios to show us his mistakes nor his flaws. Nothing to show where his character is going. Oh, he's going to grow into a Master Assassin. We don't see that, we don't see this growth (Well, apart from a fancy beard). No one tells him what it means to be a true Assassin, no one tells him how revenge is pointless. it just comes out of no where.

Ezio's motivations are also another point of frustration. He joins the Assassins and becomes fully dedicated to eradicating Templar tyranny--which FINALLY brings his actions in sync with his motivations after 5 sequences of aimlessness--No more revenge "Revenge would have consumed me but i'm fine now" GREAT, man...great. Do you remember Altair's conversation with Richard in Arsuf after killing Robert? when Richard asks why Altair came this far to kill one man? Altair's entire motivations, progression and goals were summarized in that bit. Richard erroneously thinks Altair was here for revenge--and he would have been correct if it was in the beginning of the game--but Altair corrects him and tells him that it was rather justice, than revenge. BOOM, full circle. Now, with Ezio...he shifts and jumps in the last 5 minutes of the game. We're under the impression that Ezio is only pursuing Rodrigo because he's a dangerous Templar with access to the vault which houses a powerful weapon and the staff of Eden in his hands. So no more revenge because he's totally over it, right? No...

"I thought i was beyond this but i'm not"

This is what Ezio says when he reaches Rodrigo. Oh....okay then, so...you're still kinda finding your place in the dedication to the Creed, yeah? okay, mate...kill him, one less Templar for the Creed but then...

"Killing you wont bring my family back, i'm done"

WAT? so you're not over revenge but wait you're over it and you're a dedicated assassin but wait, you're not because you're...over revenge? How does this make any sense? We went on a 23 year journey, killing OVER 20 people because their names were on a list and one of those people was a friggin ****** and NOOOWWWW you have the big boss, the reason for ALLLL of this and you're....done? Wow, Ezio, real mature. I guess you wont lose any sleep now after all those people you killed. It was pretty much pointless after all. The writers shot themselves in the foot with this sequence of events because they went with the wrong thought process. The first thing they thought about is revenge. Then, the resolution would obviously be that Ezio gets over it and spares his family's killer. This didn't work because of what I explained above. Ezio can't be both, an Assassin dedicated to killing Templars and then get over revenge by sparing a Templar in the last minute.

In terms of level design, AC II was decent. The missions were not as open as the Assassinations from AC I but they were decent in that they were all really varied, but unfortunately, the missions started becoming REALLY repetitive beginning from sequence 7. Meet faction leader, rescue faction soldiers, scatter faction soldiers around, end, rinse and repeat. It was a pretty annoying loop and it lasted for 4 sequences. The Idea behind it was fine once imo but it wasn't enough to really make use of the various gadgets the game gives you like bombs and poison--those would be REALLY fun to tinker with the AI.

Some other missions were really boring and mundane too like the carnival missions. I am an Assassin, I should be out in the field investigating, tailing, assassinating not playing with ribbons and capture the flag.

Sequence 13, though was probably my favorite ever in that game in terms of level design. 9 Savonarola targets, positioned really well, surrounded by great archetypes and you can approach how you like. What made AC I great right there. Too bad that was PAID DLC.
Now we come to mechanics. AC has a loop that consists of 3 core elements--navigation, combat and stealth. AC II is top notch in navigation. Responsive controls, fast parkour if only marred by a few platforming glitches and bugs and the inconsistent guard detection and AI on rooftops.
Combat was terrible in AC II, though. it was slowed down from AC I because the developers decided to shorten the time between combo kills and the initiating animation. The numerous swords and their stats had no compromise on the battles whatsoever, they were just aesthetic--It didn't matter how many blocks speed had or block had, every sword, knife,hammer and axe was the exact same.

Throwing dust at an enemy was really pointless because the attack initiative form the enemy AI is non-existent which makes the battle slow as it is so the mechanic is only there to make the battle EVEN SLOWER. Armor is meaningless because the game is easy as chuck and damage is proportional to how much armor you have, medicine makes no sense because you never really need it because AGAIN the combat is easy as hell and the amount of health lost is proportionate to the number of squares you have, meaning that no matter how much armor you get hit, the amount of damage you take is only proportionate to the amount of health you have and every other weapon is also pointless because the Hidden blade was OP as hell.

The stealth mechanics improvements were not enough for AC II. Assassinating from hiding spot does not work unless the guard is positioned directly there, there's no way to call a guard to you and there's no way to alert them to your presence to lure them. it was basically AC I with a few pointless touches.

The open world activities of AC II were hit and miss for me. I LOVED the Tombs, Glyphs, Assassination contracts BUT I hated races, beating husbands up and courier missions. For the the races, they just felt unnecessary. I already had timed platforming puzzles in the shape of tombs, I don't need them reskinned around the city for no reason.
For the husbands, why would some random woman who i NEVER met stop a random guy who's armored to the teeth and tell him her marital problems and ask him to beat up her husband? it's non-sensical.
For the couriers, it's just dumb--again, we already have timed platforming puzzles, I don't need them again, not to mention the idiocy of thinking that Ezio actually wasted his time for this...oh hey, let me just delay my revenge mission to deliver your letters.

http://i.imgur.com/AINrq2h.gif
Perfectly said, man!

cawatrooper9
10-15-2015, 04:31 PM
What i liked a lot too was multiple locations, i loved the feeling of "traveling" if that makes sense, i'm not a fan of one location thing that Unity did or now Syndicate is doing, idk about combat, i have my gripes with it, but overall i enjoyed it, but AC1 was more polished and smooth i swear i have so many hours on both that i am convinced i'm not seeing things lol



[/B]
That's an interesting point. I do like the ability to travel between varied locations. I just don't think many AC games get this quite down.

AC1 had The Kingdom, and it was huge and beautiful, but there wasn't much to do in it. After visiting every city, you only really had to go back once more to get to Arsuf. I guess there were flags and view points, but that's not very much motivation for me. I wish that there was more reason to explore the Kingdom, but it was little more than a wasteland.

ACIII's Frontier was a little better. There were forts, which I loved, but only a handful of them. The rest of the activities in it were hit and miss. Again, though, the Frontier was at least very beautiful.

ACIV got it right, at least for me. Traversal between locations was actually an entirely different game mechanic, in that it was sailing. Throw in the rather random (or planned by the player) ship encounters, the plethora of island and explorable locations, and you're got a world worth exploring.

Now, I've saved ACII for last:
I love the visual variety between the cities. I love how they are separated by travel areas. And, most of all, I love Tuscany and how it combines city gameplay with travel.

For the bad, though:
The travel areas seem kind of broken and contrived to me. Travel between Florence-Monterigionni-Tuscany was decent, but to get from Florence-Forli-Venice was a pain.
The first sequence with Leonardo in the carriage was fun and action packed, but having to trek through the mountains by horse after that is just ridiculous (I know there's fast travel, I'll discuss that later). Also, Forli seems so shoehorned in. I'd have loved missions there, and I know it's in the DLC, but it should have been in the original game. Otherwise, why make us walk through it?

Now, for fast travel. It's essentially necessary for this game, particularly to get to or from the Forli side of the map. However, it's convenient, sure, but you still have to find a travel kiosk (which could be very far away from your current position) and it costs some money for the process. This makes going from Venice (where you spend the latter half of the game) to the villa (to collect your income) a pain at best and too expensive to be profitable at worst.

strigoi1958
10-15-2015, 05:21 PM
What did you think of Story in AC2 how it progressed and what do you think of Ezio in general? Did you like the world in AC2? You started at AC3, i wanna know if you were confused with story and if perhaps the modern day parts of AC3 affected your view on previous ones? also i really want to know specifically why you dislike the modern day, no troll like i really wanna know in depth?

Anyway yeah those are my questions :cool:

I started with AC(1)... and at the time... it totally destroyed any other game I had played... it's potential was huge but it's limitations made it slightly repetitive but still very very enjoyable... TBH it should really be everyones number 1 game because everything since, we owe to the original game.

Although I never played again until AC3 (which probably gets criticized because Ezio is no longer in it) it was an incredible jump forward... it immediately made me buy AC2, ACB and ACR.

Ezio is without a doubt the most charismatic of all the protagonists although Haytham is close... Ezio also appears in more games, which is something I like... I have often asked for us to "grow" with a character again... from initiation into the creed right through until old age/ death... and not in 1 game but over 2 or 3 as it gives us a stronger bond to the game, character and series.

The world... well anywhere around the Mediterranean is where I like AC games to be... the Ubi team did an absolutely fantastic job with the cities. (The one year I didn't travel across Europe on motorcycle... my mate went to Florence and the game does justice to the city) I often would hang on a building and look around.

The story is very linear and easy to follow and as you bond with Ezio you become more involved. I still play ACR regularly for my homage to Ezio.

MD... hmm... my only problems with MD are....

Firstly, the "shock" factor..... kill Lucy, Desmonds death.... they felt as though they were going to have to escalate into more and more unbelievable endings in order to beat the previous one... and that might have brought sneers from other non AC fans...

Secondly the lack of interaction.... AC3 came close with collecting the battery cell from the sports arena (not the climbing around the cave bit) and rescuing Desmonds father... but the MD is just not integrated for me.... it is like a separate entity that breaks the game immersion rather than glues it together. The MD gives us a good reason to go back into the past but not a good reason to return.... BUT if we could go back and find artefacts (maybe 1st CIV machine parts locations) and return to MD and locate them and assemble components over 1 game and a machine over a few games... it would make MD a vital part or the game.... I'd love that.

Also Templars could be in the memories and the MD allowing for multiplayer MD and memory fights and racing to locate the components.

So that is my only problems with MD... they don't have enough interaction and excitement as the memories.

ACZanius
10-15-2015, 11:25 PM
I started with AC(1)... and at the time... it totally destroyed any other game I had played... it's potential was huge but it's limitations made it slightly repetitive but still very very enjoyable... TBH it should really be everyones number 1 game because everything since, we owe to the original game.

Although I never played again until AC3 (which probably gets criticized because Ezio is no longer in it) it was an incredible jump forward... it immediately made me buy AC2, ACB and ACR.

Ezio is without a doubt the most charismatic of all the protagonists although Haytham is close... Ezio also appears in more games, which is something I like... I have often asked for us to "grow" with a character again... from initiation into the creed right through until old age/ death... and not in 1 game but over 2 or 3 as it gives us a stronger bond to the game, character and series.

The world... well anywhere around the Mediterranean is where I like AC games to be... the Ubi team did an absolutely fantastic job with the cities. (The one year I didn't travel across Europe on motorcycle... my mate went to Florence and the game does justice to the city) I often would hang on a building and look around.

The story is very linear and easy to follow and as you bond with Ezio you become more involved. I still play ACR regularly for my homage to Ezio.

MD... hmm... my only problems with MD are....

Firstly, the "shock" factor..... kill Lucy, Desmonds death.... they felt as though they were going to have to escalate into more and more unbelievable endings in order to beat the previous one... and that might have brought sneers from other non AC fans...

Secondly the lack of interaction.... AC3 came close with collecting the battery cell from the sports arena (not the climbing around the cave bit) and rescuing Desmonds father... but the MD is just not integrated for me.... it is like a separate entity that breaks the game immersion rather than glues it together. The MD gives us a good reason to go back into the past but not a good reason to return.... BUT if we could go back and find artefacts (maybe 1st CIV machine parts locations) and return to MD and locate them and assemble components over 1 game and a machine over a few games... it would make MD a vital part or the game.... I'd love that.

Also Templars could be in the memories and the MD allowing for multiplayer MD and memory fights and racing to locate the components.

So that is my only problems with MD... they don't have enough interaction and excitement as the memories.



Ahhh finally i understand you completely, yeah i know the feeling and where you are coming from, and as i said above, it's completely possible that they drop the ball and satisfy everyone, that's what i wanted too, AC3 was like you said the connection to go back to present to collect the cubes but it was still not even tip of the iceberg what could be done. They have to make it engaging, exciting, deep and race against time, that fully connects to historical part we play, I really believe they can do this, make the "Ultimate AC Game" that" my term lol or what AC was "supposed" to be, the jesus of AC. Couple of days to Syndicate, i don't have a console but i will see the forums just so i know what is up with modern day, fingers crossed that they have something in store for us :cool:

lothario-da-be
10-16-2015, 11:28 AM
I always though ac2 was one of the best ac games untill I replayed it this summer. The game really aged a lot compared to the other games. The mechanics feel pretty outdated compared to other games in the genre and even other ac games. I didn't even complete the game. I hope this feeling won't hit me when I replay acb.

Jessigirl2013
10-16-2015, 06:04 PM
AC2 is probably my least favourite, along with AC Rogue.

I just couldn't get into the story, it wasn't engaging at all to me. Ezio was more annoying than likeable, but that's just my opinion. Plus the gameplay was clunky, especially when it came to parkour and combat.

The only thing I liked about it was the 'Ezio's Family' soundtrack and Leonardo Da Vinci. That's it really.

I don't want to sound like an AC2 hater or anything, but I just really can't understand how it can still be called the 'best' AC of all time. AC4 took that title for me. I guess it just all comes down to personal preference.

ACII and AC Rogue had the best story IMO.:rolleyes:

But I agree... the soundtrack is gorgeous.


Read all srs

Well, i actually agree, i will admit the solar flare was something i did not like, really really sucked how they replaced something so not lame but so "natural" and neglected something more epic like Abstergo Sattelite with Apple Of Eden inserted in it and ultimate launch that will start Templars New World Order, i was not impressed with the big of END OF THE WORLD crap, so cliche.



The ending weirdly enough did not make me mad, but i was kind of mind boggled wtf you are not gonna kill Rodrigo, after all these years, as much as one wants to find reasons that Ezio "matured" that crap at the end of so off.



Regarding his motivations, personally i understood them and this is probably just my personal mindset but i like stories like AC2 in terms of villains, i like the evil, no compassion bad guys, greedy and like just pure darkness type, i understand modern day was not huge but it was epic for me enough, same i also loved puzzles, gylphs they are just freaking deep and gave that "AC Vibe we all miss :cool:)



What i liked a lot too was multiple locations, i loved the feeling of "traveling" if that makes sense, i'm not a fan of one location thing that Unity did or now Syndicate is doing, idk about combat, i have my gripes with it, but overall i enjoyed it, but AC1 was more polished and smooth i swear i have so many hours on both that i am convinced i'm not seeing things lol



The Tombs, one of my favorite things in AC2, very very hard at some points haha but they felt legit, the beginning sequence, escape from Abstergo was so awesome, felt really good when i played it and when you have convo with Lucy she says "templars are only part of the problem" that made it so much more epic. Regarding that those people were actually Assassins, mentors felt great, but at the time LOL i was like "you're not assasiin where's your hood and blade" but i like how Mario then says "we are not so literal as our ancestors"



Overall for me AC2 is among the top, i liked the whole overarching plot and Ezio's story of course we said above and your post, you have **** ton of flaws, of course ACB is pinnacle of AC for me, it perfected combat to the max, world/environment, i loooved the recruit system so much how Assassins could level up, change and you can see them fight with you etc, the soundtrack was amazing more specifically ambient music was done so well made me feel like i'm in heaven, the story was amazing for me, i had blast playing ACB, exotic missions were probably my favorite side content i have ever seen in AC game, how we went on mission across Italy and quite frankly those levels pretty not small idk a lot to say lol tired of writing.

I agree, I preferred having fewer, multiple locations.
It was also good to actually learn the area and not rely on the map as heavily.
The ambient music was also fitting for the game.:rolleyes: