PDA

View Full Version : Revisiting Altair



RunningDeerSCHS
09-28-2011, 10:23 AM
I just broke out AC the original for the first time in probably 6 months. I started a new game and I got through the tutorial perfect. The jar carriers would always get me at least once. I am to Desmond's first Animus break. I am looking forward to finding flags again, killing Templars and exploring and maybe finding new things that I didn't when I got my first completion. Wish me luck http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

PirateRob
09-28-2011, 10:45 AM
i'm also going through the games from the beginning in the weeks running up to november 15th, the complexity of the series never fails to surprise me

RunningDeerSCHS
09-28-2011, 11:19 AM
Black Widow9's thread in the multiplayer forum about the different editions got me charged up and I preordered RevelationS, I'm not going to tell you which edition http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif, then I got home, slept on it and this morning I thought I would play the original a lil. I am a big original appreciater at the same time I like each new installment as an improvement. Not an easy task, but they've done it sew more.

joelsantos24
09-28-2011, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by PirateRob:
i'm also going through the games from the beginning in the weeks running up to november 15th, the complexity of the series never fails to surprise me
I do it all the time... I'm in a sort of endless loop, in that regard. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Although, there is absolutely nothing better than to play Assassin's 1. Alta´r is absolutely untouchable, epic really. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

PirateRob
09-28-2011, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PirateRob:
i'm also going through the games from the beginning in the weeks running up to november 15th, the complexity of the series never fails to surprise me
I do it all the time... I'm in a sort of endless loop, in that regard. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Although, there is absolutely nothing better than to play Assassin's 1. Alta´r is absolutely untouchable, epic really. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh dont get me wrong im exactly the same, dont know how im gonna spread my time around revelations and batman arkham city though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Altair661
09-28-2011, 12:36 PM
I recently played AC1 over the summer after beating ACB back in November (I was consumed by Portal 2, LA NOIRE, ACB MP, etc) And finally got back into the mood. After going through AC1 again, there seemed to be things that I never saw before or stuff that seemed so cool to me now since I know what it means. And on my most recent playthrough (#8) I finally got into the conference room! Not a huge thing but I always love going back and seeing the stuff that evolve through the story in the other games. And it makes me want to know what happens to Altair all the more!!

ProletariatPleb
09-28-2011, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by Altair661:
I recently played AC1 over the summer after beating ACB back in November (I was consumed by Portal 2, LA NOIRE, ACB MP, etc) And finally got back into the mood. After going through AC1 again, there seemed to be things that I never saw before or stuff that seemed so cool to me now since I know what it means. And on my most recent playthrough (#8) I finally got into the conference room! Not a huge thing but I always love going back and seeing the stuff that evolve through the story in the other games. And it makes me want to know what happens to Altair all the more!!
I hope you meant AC:B or else I need more info :P

joelsantos24
09-28-2011, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by PirateRob:
oh dont get me wrong im exactly the same, dont know how im gonna spread my time around revelations and batman arkham city though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I understand. I played Assassin's 1 back at the beginning of August, I finished in a week or so and then went forward to Assassin's 2. I missed Assassin's 1 and playing with Alta´r so much that I had to go back again after finishing Assassin's 2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I'm currently playing Brotherhood, but I'm really sort of disenchanted because it's definitely the one I enjoyed the least. What I really want is to go back to Assassin's 1, though, but I have to finish this first. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

RunningDeerSCHS
09-28-2011, 02:18 PM
I just got psyched about RevelationS. I like Ezio more than Altair only because Altair was full of himself at the beginning of the series and compromised the assassins. With that said, Altair is the foundation a good start for assassins while Ezio is an improvement on the line. I want to go through all three SP's chronologically before November, but I'm not a machine. I like the series and am invested in the story so I guess I will have to go through them in there own time. I am still working on two and Brotherhood. I am 36 right now and with the amount of content that is provided, AC should keep me busy like what, into my forties?

How long do you guys think it should take to unlock and enjoy all the content??

AltairsFinger
09-28-2011, 02:46 PM
I always thought Altair was basically as much a coming of age story as Ezio's was. Altair pretty much was always the Big Guy so to see him busted down and have to rebuild himself again, also I find it ironic, that somebody who showed total disregard for the creed ended up being its leader, and one of its most prominent figures.

RunningDeerSCHS
09-28-2011, 02:57 PM
I haven't seen that yet, but if it's true I think it would be cool for Altair's time.

Altair661
09-28-2011, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by sidspyker24:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Altair661:
I recently played AC1 over the summer after beating ACB back in November (I was consumed by Portal 2, LA NOIRE, ACB MP, etc) And finally got back into the mood. After going through AC1 again, there seemed to be things that I never saw before or stuff that seemed so cool to me now since I know what it means. And on my most recent playthrough (#8) I finally got into the conference room! Not a huge thing but I always love going back and seeing the stuff that evolve through the story in the other games. And it makes me want to know what happens to Altair all the more!!
I hope you meant AC:B or else I need more info :P </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha, I thought I changed that before anyone saw! But I meant ACB. I wish it was ACR...

apresmode
09-29-2011, 12:54 PM
Altair was awesome. I started playing AC a little again, and was just struck with his character. Love him more than Ezio. I can't wait to play him again. Hopefully things are improved and not ruined, but chances of ruination seem pretty slim.

luckyto
09-29-2011, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PirateRob:
oh dont get me wrong im exactly the same, dont know how im gonna spread my time around revelations and batman arkham city though http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif
I understand. I played Assassin's 1 back at the beginning of August, I finished in a week or so and then went forward to Assassin's 2. I missed Assassin's 1 and playing with Alta´r so much that I had to go back again after finishing Assassin's 2. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I'm currently playing Brotherhood, but I'm really sort of disenchanted because it's definitely the one I enjoyed the least. What I really want is to go back to Assassin's 1, though, but I have to finish this first. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed. I've gone back through all them. But I've played AC1 the most. And I am playing it currently every chance I get.

I think that if reviewers went back, they might score it differently and it would get better marks. I'd love to see a remake.

My next goal is start a new game and complete it in as few missions as possible as fast as possible. I'll probably start that little video project up really soon.

joelsantos24
09-29-2011, 01:43 PM
You know what? I'm not sure I'm gonna withstand playing Brotherhood all the way until the finish, I'm way to nostalgic regarding Assassin's 1. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

eagleforlife1
09-29-2011, 01:53 PM
I seem to be in the minority but I just can't stand AC1. I have just replayed it to see if I felt any different to it after playign it for the first time but felt no different. Altair just does nothing for me. Maybe that will change from what we see of him in Revelations.

luckyto
09-29-2011, 02:18 PM
What's really odd... and I noticed that after seeing the new Revelations trailers and thought about posting a topic about it. I get really excited seeing the character of Ezio - in cut scenes and story bits. I think, I'm really drawn to Ezio as a character and I love his story.

But what is weird... is that I prefer to play as Altair, and I just can't stand his character. I never really liked it - except what I superimpose on him. His narrative is not done well, he comes off as a jerk, and I never liked his voice work. But I LOOOOOOVEEE playing as Altair.

So I'm like trapped in this juxtaposition <-- point of post. Love Ezio's character, Love Altair's gameplay. Every time I see a cut scene with Ezio talking or a major mission, I'm giddy like a school boy. But put me in the sandbox playing around, and I'd take Altair any day. ACB was kind of a wash because they really didn't do Ezio's story justice nor have a decent sandbox.

I know that's a rather odd thing to say. I guess I understand why people don't like his character and reviewers slammed AC1 on story. But there is nothing as good as roaming the Kingdom, Masyaf, Acre, Damascus and Jerusalem controlling a Master Assassin... jerk or not.

joelsantos24
09-29-2011, 03:51 PM
Originally posted by eagleforlife1:
I seem to be in the minority but I just can't stand AC1. I have just replayed it to see if I felt any different to it after playign it for the first time but felt no different. Altair just does nothing for me. Maybe that will change from what we see of him in Revelations.
BLASPHEMY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I'm just kidding bro. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RunningDeerSCHS
09-29-2011, 05:23 PM
Altair is roots, foundations, the cross. Ezio is the tree, the building, the church (maybe).

luckyto
09-30-2011, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by RDSCHS:
Altair is roots, foundations, the cross. Ezio is the tree, the building, the church (maybe).

Niiiiiice! That's a got a nice poetic ring to it.

joelsantos24
09-30-2011, 01:40 PM
Still, if it is so, the building very much pales in comparison to it's foundations. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

RunningDeerSCHS
09-30-2011, 04:17 PM
Without the building, the foundation never reaches to better itself. Without the foundation, there is no building.

joelsantos24
10-01-2011, 04:23 AM
And who says the "building" is a good one? Ezio is everything Alta´r is not, he is shallow, superficial and even vulgar, as opposed to Alta´r who is misterious, introspective, cultured and a very much complex character. On the other hand I suppose one's surroundings shapes oneself, in that perspective we can begin to understand the differences between them, but still there are many and very blatant, and definitely not very positive for Ezio.

LightRey
10-01-2011, 04:45 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
And who says the "building" is a good one? Ezio is everything Alta´r is not, he is shallow, superficial and even vulgar, as opposed to Alta´r who is misterious, introspective, cultured and a very much complex character. On the other hand I suppose one's surroundings shapes oneself, in that perspective we can begin to understand the differences between them, but still there are many and very blatant, and definitely not very positive for Ezio.
What are you talking about? Ezio is shown to be courteous, friendly, wise and so many more things. Oh, and if you think saying things like "cazzo" every once in a while is vulgar, you should go to Italy more often. What many western cultures consider to be vulgar, is just part of the general cultural behaviour in countries like Italy.

CRUDFACE
10-01-2011, 05:17 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
And who says the "building" is a good one? Ezio is everything Alta´r is not, he is shallow, superficial and even vulgar, as opposed to Alta´r who is misterious, introspective, cultured and a very much complex character. On the other hand I suppose one's surroundings shapes oneself, in that perspective we can begin to understand the differences between them, but still there are many and very blatant, and definitely not very positive for Ezio.

And Altair wasn't? that was the whole point of AC1, Altair finding redemption through the targets he has to kill.

-Ezio never said he was better than except when he made a joke to Bartolomeo when he was joking. Altair stuffed it in your face.

-Altair killed a civilian becaus it was easier, Ezio has never killed an innocent

-Altair spoke up agaisnt his master, and superiors, Ezio never did.

-when was Ezio superficial? Or vulgar? He cursed a little, made some sex jokes and he didn't bang Christina just because she was hot, he actually loved her.

-And, tbh, i'm maximizing the ****** level for Altair since he was born into the brotherhood and acted against it on occasions.

I think it's jsut that we've had so much time as Ezio, we're use to his personality. though we played first as Altair, I think we're forgetting what he was like sometimes.

LightRey
10-01-2011, 05:57 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
And who says the "building" is a good one? Ezio is everything Alta´r is not, he is shallow, superficial and even vulgar, as opposed to Alta´r who is misterious, introspective, cultured and a very much complex character. On the other hand I suppose one's surroundings shapes oneself, in that perspective we can begin to understand the differences between them, but still there are many and very blatant, and definitely not very positive for Ezio.

And Altair wasn't? that was the whole point of AC1, Altair finding redemption through the targets he has to kill.

-Ezio never said he was better than except when he made a joke to Bartolomeo when he was joking. Altair stuffed it in your face.

-Altair killed a civilian becaus it was easier, Ezio has never killed an innocent

-Altair spoke up agaisnt his master, and superiors, Ezio never did.

-when was Ezio superficial? Or vulgar? He cursed a little, made some sex jokes and he didn't bang Christina just because she was hot, he actually loved her.

-And, tbh, i'm maximizing the ****** level for Altair since he was born into the brotherhood and acted against it on occasions.

I think it's jsut that we've had so much time as Ezio, we're use to his personality. though we played first as Altair, I think we're forgetting what he was like sometimes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. A whole lot of the love for AC1 and Alta´r is just nostalgia. I've replayed it quite a lot of times and I really can say that, though I love the game, ACII and ACB have improved upon a lot of the annoyances in AC1, both story-wise and gameplay-wise.

CRUDFACE
10-01-2011, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
And who says the "building" is a good one? Ezio is everything Alta´r is not, he is shallow, superficial and even vulgar, as opposed to Alta´r who is misterious, introspective, cultured and a very much complex character. On the other hand I suppose one's surroundings shapes oneself, in that perspective we can begin to understand the differences between them, but still there are many and very blatant, and definitely not very positive for Ezio.

And Altair wasn't? that was the whole point of AC1, Altair finding redemption through the targets he has to kill.

-Ezio never said he was better than except when he made a joke to Bartolomeo when he was joking. Altair stuffed it in your face.

-Altair killed a civilian becaus it was easier, Ezio has never killed an innocent

-Altair spoke up agaisnt his master, and superiors, Ezio never did.

-when was Ezio superficial? Or vulgar? He cursed a little, made some sex jokes and he didn't bang Christina just because she was hot, he actually loved her.

-And, tbh, i'm maximizing the ****** level for Altair since he was born into the brotherhood and acted against it on occasions.

I think it's jsut that we've had so much time as Ezio, we're use to his personality. though we played first as Altair, I think we're forgetting what he was like sometimes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. A whole lot of the love for AC1 and Alta´r is just nostalgia. I've replayed it quite a lot of times and I really can say that, though I love the game, ACII and ACB have improved upon a lot of the annoyances in AC1, both story-wise and gameplay-wise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Though I have two problems with AC 2 and up, I'm FAR more willing to deal with AC: 2 and brotherhood alongside Revelations if it means it don't have to be as repetitive as 1 was.

I want to play the Altair segments to see how he lead the order, how he gained importance and what he left behind along with the codex...and I better get a memory of Altair wearing that unbreakable armor.

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 05:20 AM
LightRey and t260z, from the content of your posts, I'd say you're merely arguing semantics, and in some cases you're being blatantly reductive towards Alta´r (and Ezio, for that matter). The differences I pointed out earlier, are visible and noticeable throughout the games, they aren't limited to a specific sequence/chapter.

Alta´r's arrogant outburst at the beginning of Assassin's 1, it's genesis, came from it's superior talent, from the full acknowledgement that he was the best in the brotherhood, something which can produce inadequate behaviour, and it happened to him, he didn't deal with the fact graciously enough, let's put it that way.
But if I'm to deal with this subject in the same manner you have, then what to say of Ezio's disgraceful behaviour towards Vieri's corpse, in Tuscany? What about the shamefully displaying of the mutilated corpse of Vieri's father, half-naked and hanging on a building's facade in center Florence? You speak of a mere arrogant outburst of a young Alta´r - something which can also be said of Eio, for that matter - while neglecting Ezio's disgraceful and the cold disregard for death and the dying. After all it's Mario who teaches him to deal with death and the dying, even if they're his enemies.

Alta´r killed one innocent, which was a disgrace, true, but he learned his lesson. He talked back at Al Mualim because he sensed from the beginning that something was wrong, he was then swayed by the grandmaster but as he uncovered the conspiracy, he discovered he was right all along. He found that the master was binding everyone hostage to the creed, while he himself was working with the enemy and defiling it in the process.

If you love Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood so much, that's fine, I love them also, I just believe - and there are many, many whom agree with me - that Assassin's 1 was far better and that Alta´r is by far a more deep and complex character than the vulgar Ezio. Plus, there are many who believe that your precious Ezio and both his games, destroyed the saga. I don't exactly agree with this, it's true that there are many things which I dislike on both the games, but as you see opinions are by the dozens.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 05:54 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
LightRey and t260z, from the content of your posts, I'd say you're merely arguing semantics, and in some cases you're being blatantly reductive towards Alta´r (and Ezio, for that matter). The differences I pointed out earlier, are visible and noticeable throughout the games, they aren't limited to a specific sequence/chapter.

Alta´r's arrogant outburst at the beginning of Assassin's 1, it's genesis, came from it's superior talent, from the full acknowledgement that he was the best in the brotherhood, something which can produce inadequate behaviour, and it happened to him, he didn't deal with the fact graciously enough, let's put it that way.
But if I'm to deal with this subject in the same manner you have, then what to say of Ezio's disgraceful behaviour towards Vieri's corpse, in Tuscany? What about the shamefully displaying of the mutilated corpse of Vieri's father, half-naked and hanging on a building's facade in center Florence? You speak of a mere arrogant outburst of a young Alta´r - something which can also be said of Eio, for that matter - while neglecting Ezio's disgraceful and the cold disregard for death and the dying. After all it's Mario who teaches him to deal with death and the dying, even if they're his enemies.

Alta´r killed one innocent, which was a disgrace, true, but he learned his lesson. He talked back at Al Mualim because he sensed from the beginning that something was wrong, he was then swayed by the grandmaster but as he uncovered the conspiracy, he discovered he was right all along. He found that the master was binding everyone hostage to the creed, while he himself was working with the enemy and defiling it in the process.

If you love Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood so much, that's fine, I love them also, I just believe - and there are many, many whom agree with me - that Assassin's 1 was far better and that Alta´r is by far a more deep and complex character than the vulgar Ezio. Plus, there are many who believe that your precious Ezio and both his games, destroyed the saga. I don't exactly agree with this, it's true that there are many things which I dislike on both the games, but as you see opinions are by the dozens.
All of this makes them equals, not one superior to the other. Neither of us has argued either to be "better" than the other, so I don't see your point. We were trying to discount all the stuff about AC1 being a better game.

NoirEvil
10-02-2011, 06:47 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
LightRey and t260z, from the content of your posts, I'd say you're merely arguing semantics, and in some cases you're being blatantly reductive towards Alta´r (and Ezio, for that matter). The differences I pointed out earlier, are visible and noticeable throughout the games, they aren't limited to a specific sequence/chapter.

Alta´r's arrogant outburst at the beginning of Assassin's 1, it's genesis, came from it's superior talent, from the full acknowledgement that he was the best in the brotherhood, something which can produce inadequate behaviour, and it happened to him, he didn't deal with the fact graciously enough, let's put it that way.
But if I'm to deal with this subject in the same manner you have, then what to say of Ezio's disgraceful behaviour towards Vieri's corpse, in Tuscany? What about the shamefully displaying of the mutilated corpse of Vieri's father, half-naked and hanging on a building's facade in center Florence? You speak of a mere arrogant outburst of a young Alta´r - something which can also be said of Eio, for that matter - while neglecting Ezio's disgraceful and the cold disregard for death and the dying. After all it's Mario who teaches him to deal with death and the dying, even if they're his enemies.

Alta´r killed one innocent, which was a disgrace, true, but he learned his lesson. He talked back at Al Mualim because he sensed from the beginning that something was wrong, he was then swayed by the grandmaster but as he uncovered the conspiracy, he discovered he was right all along. He found that the master was binding everyone hostage to the creed, while he himself was working with the enemy and defiling it in the process.

If you love Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood so much, that's fine, I love them also, I just believe - and there are many, many whom agree with me - that Assassin's 1 was far better and that Alta´r is by far a more deep and complex character than the vulgar Ezio. Plus, there are many who believe that your precious Ezio and both his games, destroyed the saga. I don't exactly agree with this, it's true that there are many things which I dislike on both the games, but as you see opinions are by the dozens.
All of this makes them equals, not one superior to the other. Neither of us has argued either to be "better" than the other, so I don't see your point. We were trying to discount all the stuff about AC1 being a better game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And his point was that in his opinion while Altair and Ezio were close to equal to each other he prefers Altair and the plot of AC1 over the other two and respects that everyone has their different opinions...

RunningDeerSCHS
10-02-2011, 06:49 AM
The one thing that makes me like Ezio better than Altair is the fact that Altair at the very beginning of the "Assassin's Creed" story is that Altair slaughtered an innocent and broke one of the three tenets of the code. Those Ezio may be a ladies man, and you may even consider him vulger, I don't, but if you do, he still hasn't betrayed the code, yet anyway.

dxsxhxcx
10-02-2011, 07:05 AM
Originally posted by RDSCHS:
The one thing that makes me like Ezio better than Altair is the fact that Altair at the very beginning of the "Assassin's Creed" story is that Altair slaughtered an innocent and broke one of the three tenets of the code. Those Ezio may be a ladies man, and you may even consider him vulger, I don't, but if you do, he still hasn't betrayed the code, yet anyway.

Ezio broke a tenet when Cesare attacked Monteriggioni..


Never Compromise the Brotherhood

"Your actions must never bring harm upon us - direct or indirect!"
?Al Mualim.


I believe the only tenet Ezio didn't break yet was to kill an innocent (at least not directly, because the blood of the people who died in Monteriggioni that day is in Ezio's hands)...

Animuses
10-02-2011, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
Ezio broke a tenet when Cesare attacked Monteriggioni..


Never Compromise the Brotherhood

You've got to be kidding me? How did he compromise the Brotherhood? Because Cesare knew of Monteriggioni? Because Ezio risked his life to save the city and the many people that lived there? Nothing Ezio did in AC2 was just because he wanted to. The brotherhood backed up his every move.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 08:30 AM
Originally posted by NoirEvil:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
LightRey and t260z, from the content of your posts, I'd say you're merely arguing semantics, and in some cases you're being blatantly reductive towards Alta´r (and Ezio, for that matter). The differences I pointed out earlier, are visible and noticeable throughout the games, they aren't limited to a specific sequence/chapter.

Alta´r's arrogant outburst at the beginning of Assassin's 1, it's genesis, came from it's superior talent, from the full acknowledgement that he was the best in the brotherhood, something which can produce inadequate behaviour, and it happened to him, he didn't deal with the fact graciously enough, let's put it that way.
But if I'm to deal with this subject in the same manner you have, then what to say of Ezio's disgraceful behaviour towards Vieri's corpse, in Tuscany? What about the shamefully displaying of the mutilated corpse of Vieri's father, half-naked and hanging on a building's facade in center Florence? You speak of a mere arrogant outburst of a young Alta´r - something which can also be said of Eio, for that matter - while neglecting Ezio's disgraceful and the cold disregard for death and the dying. After all it's Mario who teaches him to deal with death and the dying, even if they're his enemies.

Alta´r killed one innocent, which was a disgrace, true, but he learned his lesson. He talked back at Al Mualim because he sensed from the beginning that something was wrong, he was then swayed by the grandmaster but as he uncovered the conspiracy, he discovered he was right all along. He found that the master was binding everyone hostage to the creed, while he himself was working with the enemy and defiling it in the process.

If you love Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood so much, that's fine, I love them also, I just believe - and there are many, many whom agree with me - that Assassin's 1 was far better and that Alta´r is by far a more deep and complex character than the vulgar Ezio. Plus, there are many who believe that your precious Ezio and both his games, destroyed the saga. I don't exactly agree with this, it's true that there are many things which I dislike on both the games, but as you see opinions are by the dozens.
All of this makes them equals, not one superior to the other. Neither of us has argued either to be "better" than the other, so I don't see your point. We were trying to discount all the stuff about AC1 being a better game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
And his point was that in his opinion while Altair and Ezio were close to equal to each other he prefers Altair and the plot of AC1 over the other two and respects that everyone has their different opinions... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never contradicted that. I contradicted his statement about us arguing semantics.

Ezio never compromised the brotherhood. First of all he was sent to Rome by the brotherhood, so it was a shared responsibility if anything. Second, he was going to prevent the Templars from getting to the supposed weapon inside the vault. The fact that he didn't kill Rodrigo did not make any difference, since Cesare could and would have retaliated, if not more so had he killed Rodrigo.

dxsxhxcx
10-02-2011, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by Animuses:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
Ezio broke a tenet when Cesare attacked Monteriggioni..


Never Compromise the Brotherhood

You've got to be kidding me? How did he compromise the Brotherhood? Because Cesare knew of Monteriggioni? Because Ezio risked his life to save the city and the many people that lived there? Nothing Ezio did in AC2 was just because he wanted to. The brotherhood backed up his every move. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

just one question: Cesare knew about Monteriggioni, and Ezio and the apple because of who?!



Originally posted by LightRey:

Ezio never compromised the brotherhood. First of all he was sent to Rome by the brotherhood, so it was a shared responsibility if anything. Second, he was going to prevent the Templars from getting to the supposed weapon inside the vault. The fact that he didn't kill Rodrigo did not make any difference, since Cesare could and would have retaliated, if not more so had he killed Rodrigo.

was Altair's decision to go to Jerusalem?! If we see the things the way you do then Altair didn't compromised the Brotherhood either, but as can we see in the game, Al Mualim doesn't think this way...

Animuses
10-02-2011, 08:33 AM
His father, the Grandmaster of the Templars.

RzaRecta357
10-02-2011, 08:34 AM
Because he DIDN'T do his job like a good Assassin and let Rodrigo live. Thus prompting the attack on Monteriggioni.

It was totally what HE wanted to do, in AC2.

I think most people just liked the time setting and his quiet thinking self who was badass. Unlike Ezio who announces everything before doing it and waves his hands around super italian style.



I'm actually looking forward to him being an old man and acting like it and a little wiser. Not a joke cracking playboy robin hood which I know is exaggerated but you get what I'm saying.

I can't believe the Jersey Shore house is practically living in Ezios families house. Disgrace!

Animuses
10-02-2011, 08:38 AM
Cesare would've attacked anyway.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 08:39 AM
Oh come on people. Cesare would have done nothing different had Ezio killed Rodrigo other than that he might have been more cruel had Ezio done so. Rodrigo was even very much against the idea of attacking Monterrigioni, so if anything letting him live was a good decision, not a bad one.

The brotherhood was compromised the moment Ezio entered the Vatican and it was in order to save humanity from possible full Templar control because of what lay in the vault.

dxsxhxcx
10-02-2011, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Animuses:
His father, the Grandmaster of the Templars.

who Ezio allowed to live, making possible for him to tell Cesare about the Apple and Ezio...


I don't think Cesare would attack Monteriggioni for vengeance, the only thing he cared about was power, the reason why he attacked Monteriggioni was his knowledge about the apple, nothing more...

LightRey
10-02-2011, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
His father, the Grandmaster of the Templars.

who Ezio allowed to live, making possible for him to tell Cesare about the Apple and Ezio... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're assuming that Rodrigo told Cesare about it after his almost-assassination, even though many lesser Templar agents knew about the apple?

CRUDFACE
10-02-2011, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
His father, the Grandmaster of the Templars.

who Ezio allowed to live, making possible for him to tell Cesare about the Apple and Ezio... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



So you're assuming that Rodrigo told Cesare about it after his almost-assassination, even though many lesser Templar agents knew about the apple? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The templar agents, like never talked about anything. Few only got like two to five lines of dialogue. Most got none.

If you're talking about the banker or Cesare's assassin along with the guy who thought he was going to be king, I think Cesare told them if he ever did at that.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
His father, the Grandmaster of the Templars.

who Ezio allowed to live, making possible for him to tell Cesare about the Apple and Ezio... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



So you're assuming that Rodrigo told Cesare about it after his almost-assassination, even though many lesser Templar agents knew about the apple? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The templar agents, like never talked about anything. Few only got like two to five lines of dialogue. Most got none.

If you're talking about the banker or Cesare's assassin along with the guy who thought he was going to be king, I think Cesare told them if he ever did at that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Barbarigo family knew about it. Hell, even their mentally challenged bodyguard knew about it.

Animuses
10-02-2011, 09:01 AM
Poor Dante and Carlotta. A love story that did not end well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

CRUDFACE
10-02-2011, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by t260z:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
His father, the Grandmaster of the Templars.

who Ezio allowed to live, making possible for him to tell Cesare about the Apple and Ezio... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



So you're assuming that Rodrigo told Cesare about it after his almost-assassination, even though many lesser Templar agents knew about the apple? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The templar agents, like never talked about anything. Few only got like two to five lines of dialogue. Most got none.

If you're talking about the banker or Cesare's assassin along with the guy who thought he was going to be king, I think Cesare told them if he ever did at that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The Barbarigo family knew about it. Hell, even their mentally challenged bodyguard knew about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aren't we talking about the function of the apple, not just who knew it existed?

And I was talking about people after that whole thing with Ezio and Rodrigo went down.

dxsxhxcx
10-02-2011, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
His father, the Grandmaster of the Templars.

who Ezio allowed to live, making possible for him to tell Cesare about the Apple and Ezio... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So you're assuming that Rodrigo told Cesare about it after his almost-assassination, even though many lesser Templar agents knew about the apple? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes, if he knew about the apple before the final events of AC2 it would be much easier for Cesare just kill the Pope and get the apple instead of moving an army to Monteriggioni for the same reason...

LightRey
10-02-2011, 09:50 AM
Originally posted by t260z:
Aren't we talking about the function of the apple, not just who knew it existed?

And I was talking about people after that whole thing with Ezio and Rodrigo went down.
I know, but if those guys got to know about the apple, then Cesare most likely got to as well long before the events in ACB.

dewgel
10-02-2011, 10:04 AM
I hated AC1. Worst game, however, it's the foundations on a great series so I still own it :P

I've went back to replay it and it's so slow paced. I don't really feel like I know the characters at all, they lack soul. The assassinations are annoying, the combat is so slow.

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
I never contradicted that. I contradicted his statement about us arguing semantics.

Ezio never compromised the brotherhood. First of all he was sent to Rome by the brotherhood, so it was a shared responsibility if anything. Second, he was going to prevent the Templars from getting to the supposed weapon inside the vault. The fact that he didn't kill Rodrigo did not make any difference, since Cesare could and would have retaliated, if not more so had he killed Rodrigo.
NoirEvil understood perfectly that which I meant. As for the "arguing semantics" issue, I still believe you did: all the arguments you used to rationalize his (Ezio) character and actions, could as well be regarded as vulgar, shallow and insipid, exactly how I see it and exactly what I believe Ezio to be. The irony in all of this is that I never said I didn't like Ezio, but merely believe Alta´r to be a far more deep and complex character, while everything Ezio is, on the other hand, is right on the surface. Having been born in a golden crib and having lived "la dolce vita", he never had a sense of need or difficulty, everything he wanted, he would get. On the other hand, Alta´r was born into the time of the Crusades, in the Middle East, a time of misery and poverty when the average life expectancy was about 20-30 years, so his coldness, hardness, social distance and somewhat anti-social traces, were very much a by-product of that fact. I repeat, I never said that I didn't like Ezio, I solely believe Alta´r to be, by far, a deeper, richer/more complex character.

As for the possibility of Ezio having broken a tenant, I agree. Fully acknowledging the fact that Rodrigo would not rest until Ezio himself and all of Ezio's family and friends were dead and gone, and by not ending his life and not destroying any possibility of the Templars reuniting under a new leader, he put his brotherhood and family in danger, in such way that his home was basically destroyed, his uncle Mario killed along with dozens of innocent people, with his own mother and sister barely getting out alive. If you believe Alta´r to be arrogant, then Ezio made the ultimate display of arrogance and idiocy, at the end of Assassin's 2, by simply believing that someone like Rodrigo would simply and humbly recognize Ezio's merciful behaviour towards him as a token of goodness/kindness. Well, regardlessly, and without arguing semantics once again, his actions cost him his uncle's life and manny other innocent's. Ironic, isn't it? He didn't only put the brotherhood in danger, he was to blame for it's near destruction, while also provoking the death of many innocents along the way. That's two tenants, right out the window, and in blatantly dramatic fashion, I might add. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

LightRey
10-02-2011, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I never contradicted that. I contradicted his statement about us arguing semantics.

Ezio never compromised the brotherhood. First of all he was sent to Rome by the brotherhood, so it was a shared responsibility if anything. Second, he was going to prevent the Templars from getting to the supposed weapon inside the vault. The fact that he didn't kill Rodrigo did not make any difference, since Cesare could and would have retaliated, if not more so had he killed Rodrigo.
NoirEvil understood perfectly that which I meant. As for the "arguing semantics" issue, I still believe you did: all that you used to rationalize his (Ezio) character and actions, could as well be seen as vulgar, shallow and insipid, exactly what I believe Ezio to be. The irony in all of this is that I never said I didn't like Ezio, but merely believe Alta´r to be a far more deep and complex character, while everything Ezio is, is right on the surface. Having been born in a golden crib and having lived "la dolce vita", he never had a sense of need or difficulty, on the other hand, Alta´r was born into the time of the Crusades, in the Middle East, a time when the average life expectancy was about 20-30 years, so his coldness, hardness, distance and somewhat anti-social traces, were very much a by-product of that fact. I repeat, I necer said that I didn't like Ezio, I solely believe that Alta´r is by far a deeper, richer/more complex character.

As for the possibility of Ezio having broken a tenant, I agree, fully acknowledging the fact that Rodrigo would not rest until all of Ezio's family and friends were dead and gone, by not ending his life and not destroying any possibility of the Templars reunifying under a new leader, he put his brotherhood and family in danger, in such way that his home was basically destroyed, Mario killed along with dozens of innocent people, with his mother and sister barely getting out alive. If you believe Alta´r to be arrogant, then Ezio made the ultimate display of arrogance and idiocy, at the end of Assassin's 2, by simply believing that someone like Rodrigo would humbly recognize Ezio's merciful behaviour towards him as a token of goodness/kindness. Well, regardlessly, and without arguing semantics once again, his actions cost him his uncle's life and manny other innocent's. Ironic, isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I never cared about what your opinion of Alta´r was, I was merely stating that a lot of the love for Alta´r and AC1 comes from nostalgia. Ezio was in many ways a much more developed character than Alta´r was. That you don't like him really has nothing to do with my point.

As for Ezio not killing Rodrigo. He didn't spare his life so that he might one day spare his, he spared his life because killing him wouldn't serve any purpose, a concept which is explained in ACB and further by the events in ACB.

The only thing that triggered the attack on Monterrigioni was the fact that Ezio went to the Vatican and he really had to go for obvious reasons, so the attack on Monterrigioni was inevitable unless they wanted to risk the Templars becoming an unstoppable power-machine.

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by LightRey:
I never cared about what your opinion of Alta´r was, I was merely stating that a lot of the love for Alta´r and AC1 comes from nostalgia. Ezio was in many ways a much more developed character than Alta´r was. That you don't like him really has nothing to do with my point.

As for Ezio not killing Rodrigo. He didn't spare his life so that he might one day spare his, he spared his life because killing him wouldn't serve any purpose, a concept which is explained in ACB and further by the events in ACB.

The only thing that triggered the attack on Monterrigioni was the fact that Ezio went to the Vatican and he really had to go for obvious reasons, so the attack on Monterrigioni was inevitable unless they wanted to risk the Templars becoming an unstoppable power-machine.
The love for Alta´r comes from the character, not your twisted notion/rationalization of nostalgia, either you want it or not, either you like it or not. If it occured to you, it doesn't mean it occured to anyone else on this planet. You don't have to like it, but you do have to live and deal with it.

The only reason Mario and many innocent were killed was due to Ezio's idiocy and arrogance, nothing more, nothing less, regardless of what disfunctional notion of an explanation/rationalization you believe you had with/in Brotherhood. Mario and all the innocent were killed because the Borgia were still in power, still had power, which occured because Ezio was delusionally unwilling to kill Rodrigo and destroy them all, period. You can say what you will, rationalize all you will, it still won't erase this fact.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 11:07 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
I never cared about what your opinion of Alta´r was, I was merely stating that a lot of the love for Alta´r and AC1 comes from nostalgia. Ezio was in many ways a much more developed character than Alta´r was. That you don't like him really has nothing to do with my point.

As for Ezio not killing Rodrigo. He didn't spare his life so that he might one day spare his, he spared his life because killing him wouldn't serve any purpose, a concept which is explained in ACB and further by the events in ACB.

The only thing that triggered the attack on Monterrigioni was the fact that Ezio went to the Vatican and he really had to go for obvious reasons, so the attack on Monterrigioni was inevitable unless they wanted to risk the Templars becoming an unstoppable power-machine.
The love for Alta´r comes from the character, not your twisted notion/rationalization of nostalgia, either you want it or not, either you like it or not. If it occured to you, it doesn't mean it occured to anyone else on this planet. You don't have to like it, but you do have to live and deal with it.

The only reason Mario and many innocent were killed was due to Ezio's idiocy and arrogance, nothing more, nothing less, regardless of what disfunctional notion of an explanation/rationalization you believe you had with/in Brotherhood. Mario and all the innocent were killed because the Borgia were still in power, still had power, which occured because Ezio was delusionally unwilling to kill Rodrigo and destroy them all, period. You can say what you will, rationalize all you will, it still won't erase this fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
stop being so arrogant as to think that your opinions are fact. If you believe this to be the case then that is fine, but many of us disagree with basically everything you said right there. If you don't like Ezio and think he's arrogant or whatever, that's fine, but that doesn't mean that any of us agree with that.

itsamea-mario
10-02-2011, 11:41 AM
My appreciation for Altair isn't nostalgia, I recently just replayed the game and still think he's a good character, he starts of arrogant, brash and irresponsible of his actions and becomes quite the opposite in time.
Sure he killed an un armed man, but u doubt that guy was 100% innocent, think about why he wad there in the first place. They needed to keep him quiet and the best way to do this in altairs eyes was to kill him.
We even see Altair tackle the emotions that come with killing, showing he wasn't a total psychopath.
We also know how he revamps the order in his older age.

Ezio is also a good character, though for him it's much more personal, it starts of simply as revenge but then he slowly realises the weight of his actions. We see him learn how to become an assassin, but not just how to kill people. Though Rodrigo was the grandmaster of the Templars, he was also the pope, the pope has a lot if supporters, if they found out the assassins killed him they would hunt them down and kill them.
Though ezio is not perfect, in the name of revenge he mercilessly kills all those responsible. He wipes out an entire family at the command if lorrenzo Medici, I don't think we see him show any regret at all (though that doesn't mean he doesn't).

They are both as good as eachother in different ways, Altair has always been more innovative, more of a philosopher.
Whereas ezio is more of a 'hero' if you will.
We know ezio even looks up to Altair, Altair created the order that ezio reestablished.

If this seems very incoherent and rambling, it's because I'm quite tired.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 12:02 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
My appreciation for Altair isn't nostalgia, I recently just replayed the game and still think he's a good character, he starts of arrogant, brash and irresponsible of his actions and becomes quite the opposite in time.
Sure he killed an un armed man, but u doubt that guy was 100% innocent, think about why he wad there in the first place. They needed to keep him quiet and the best way to do this in altairs eyes was to kill him.
We even see Altair tackle the emotions that come with killing, showing he wasn't a total psychopath.
We also know how he revamps the order in his older age.

Ezio is also a good character, though for him it's much more personal, it starts of simply as revenge but then he slowly realises the weight of his actions. We see him learn how to become an assassin, but not just how to kill people. Though Rodrigo was the grandmaster of the Templars, he was also the pope, the pope has a lot if supporters, if they found out the assassins killed him they would hunt them down and kill them.
Though ezio is not perfect, in the name of revenge he mercilessly kills all those responsible. He wipes out an entire family at the command if lorrenzo Medici, I don't think we see him show any regret at all (though that doesn't mean he doesn't).

They are both as good as eachother in different ways, Altair has always been more innovative, more of a philosopher.
Whereas ezio is more of a 'hero' if you will.
We know ezio even looks up to Altair, Altair created the order that ezio reestablished.

If this seems very incoherent and rambling, it's because I'm quite tired.
Don't get me wrong, I love Alta´r, but that doesn't mean he's the perfect god of AC characters. That's mostly what I was criticizing really. Imo bot Alta´r and Ezio are very interesting characters.

Animuses
10-02-2011, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
The only reason Mario and many innocent were killed was due to Ezio's idiocy and arrogance, nothing more, nothing less, regardless of what disfunctional notion of an explanation/rationalization you believe you had with/in Brotherhood. Mario and all the innocent were killed because the Borgia were still in power, still had power, which occured because Ezio was delusionally unwilling to kill Rodrigo and destroy them all, period. You can say what you will, rationalize all you will, it still won't erase this fact.
Rodrigo faced the fact the he wasn't the prophet. He was 100% defeated. Killing him would serve no purpose. Cesare would've still attacked the villa and Mario would still be dead. It was inevitable.

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
Rodrigo faced the fact the he wasn't the prophet. He was 100% defeated. Killing him would serve no purpose. Cesare would've still attacked the villa and Mario would still be dead. It was inevitable.
100% defeated? Hardly. And the proof of that is that his crazy son came on blazing through Monteriggioni, destroying it, killing Mario along with hundreds of innocent people. What Ezio succeeded at, was merely on humiliating a sociopath/psycopath, giving him a reason to crusade on a personal vendetta against Ezio and his brotherhood/family. He had the oportunity to destroy the Borgia forever, ending this war, instead he believed it would all end there, with his hypocritical merciful act. The irony in this, is that this so-called 100% defeatted man was still able to rule Rome, Italy and most of Europe, aftter being 100% defeated. All he did was give the enemy an oportunity to re-group while giving them the ultimate reason to attack, which they did.

I told that other guy the same which I'm gonna tell you: if some believe Alta´r broke the brotherhood's rules and displayed arrogance, thatt's true, but then what Ezio did was much worse, because effectively he almost succeeded on singlehandledly destroying is own order. And this is a fact, it's not an opinion, it happened. Some of you are rationalizing Ezio's actions in order to justify them but the truth is that the outcome is the same, that's what I meant by arguing semantics, since that's what some seem to enjoy doing with this subject.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Animuses:
Rodrigo faced the fact the he wasn't the prophet. He was 100% defeated. Killing him would serve no purpose. Cesare would've still attacked the villa and Mario would still be dead. It was inevitable.
100% defeated? Hardly. And the proof of that is that his crazy son came on blazing through Monteriggioni, destroying it, killing Mario along with hundreds of innocent people. What Ezio succeeded at, was merely on humiliating a sociopath/psycopath, giving him a reason to crusade on a personal vendetta against Ezio and his brotherhood/family. He had the oportunity to destroy the Borgia forever, ending this war, instead he believed it would all end there. The irony in this, is that this so-called 100% defeatted man was still able to rule Rome, Italy and most of Europe, aftter being 100% defeated.

I told that other guy the same which I'm gonna tell you: if some believe Alta´r broke the brotherhood's rules and displayed arrogance, then what Ezio did was much worse, because effectively he almost succeeded on singlehandledly destroying is own order. And this is a fact, it's not an opinion, it happened, some of you are rationalizing Ezio's actions to justify them but the truth is that the outcome is the same, that's what I meant by arguing semantics, since that's what some seem to enjoy doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
did you even play ACB? The whole point of the damn story was to illustrate just why killing Rodrigo, or Cesare during the start of ACB, wouldn't have mattered.

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 02:02 PM
Here we go again, it's an endless loop this... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

So let's see, Ezio has the opportunity to destroy the Borgia, first Rodrigo and then, obviously, he had to take care of Cesare. With the Borgia effectively destroyed there would be no possibility for the Templars to re-group and go forward with their plans, but it doesn't matter, right? :facepalm:

LightRey
10-02-2011, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
Here we go again, it's an endless loop this... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

So let's see, Ezio has the opportunity to destroy the Borgia, first Rodrigo and then, obviously, he had to take care of Cesare. With the Borgia effectively destroyed there would be no possibility for the Templars to re-group and go forward with their plans, but it doesn't matter, right? :facepalm:
How exactly would killing Rodrigo destroy the Borgia? Cesare would just have attacked anyways, since he'd still be in control of the Papal army and at the time he had so much control over the Cardinals that he could have had any lackey of his, or even himself elected pope. It would have changed absolutely nothing. In fact, it would probably have made things harder since it would have made Cesare more reluctant to leave Rome.

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 02:12 PM
:facepalm:

Killing Rodrigo would inherently mean Cesare would have to be next, one decision makes absolutely no sense without the other. If he could get to Rodrigo as he did, killing Cesare would not be any harder. With them dead, the threat would have ended. Furthermore, it is obvious (and logical) that the attack on Rodrigo certainly forced Cesare's move on Monteriggioni, I have little doubts about that. So, in that logic, Ezio's actions were irrevocably responsible, in my opinion, for the subsequent occurences. Many fans agree with this, and I certainly do not have to justify myself.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 02:16 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
:facepalm:

Killing Rodrigo would inherently mean Cesare would have to be next, one decision makes absolutely no sense without the other. If he could get to Rodrigo as he did, killing Cesare would not be any harder. With them dead, the threat would have ended. Furthermore, it is obvious (an logical) that the attack on Rodrigo certainly forced Cesare's move on Monteriggioni, I have little doubts about that. So, in that logic, Ezio's actions were irrevocably responsible by the subsequent occurences. Many agree with this, and I certainly do not have to justify myself.
Ezio didn't even know about Cesare when he went to the Vatican at the end of ACII, so he would not even have tried to kill Cesare. Cesare wasn't forced to go to Monterrigioni either. As stated in the game he went against Rodrigo's wishes. He did so because he was arrogant. He was challenging Ezio to come to Rome, literally "inviting" him by killing Mario.

Btw, it's only logical if your statements actually have a solid basis, not if you feel that it makes sense and that you have no doubt. That's not how logic works.

Your statements are directly contradictory to things that have been stated several times in the games. If anything, they're illogical

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 02:42 PM
Ezio didn't even know about Rodrigo's son, fellow Templar and captain of the Papal army? LOOOL
Ok then, this marks the end of this discussion, at least from my part. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

LightRey
10-02-2011, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
Ezio didn't even know about Rodrigo's son, fellow Templar and captain of the Papal army? LOOOL
Ok then, this marks the end of this discussion, at least from my part. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Yes, Ezio didn't know. He had to hear about him from Machiavelli in ACB after meeting with him in Rome.

Thanks for ignoring all my other points.

itsamea-mario
10-02-2011, 03:10 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
My appreciation for Altair isn't nostalgia, I recently just replayed the game and still think he's a good character, he starts of arrogant, brash and irresponsible of his actions and becomes quite the opposite in time.
Sure he killed an un armed man, but u doubt that guy was 100% innocent, think about why he wad there in the first place. They needed to keep him quiet and the best way to do this in altairs eyes was to kill him.
We even see Altair tackle the emotions that come with killing, showing he wasn't a total psychopath.
We also know how he revamps the order in his older age.

Ezio is also a good character, though for him it's much more personal, it starts of simply as revenge but then he slowly realises the weight of his actions. We see him learn how to become an assassin, but not just how to kill people. Though Rodrigo was the grandmaster of the Templars, he was also the pope, the pope has a lot if supporters, if they found out the assassins killed him they would hunt them down and kill them.
Though ezio is not perfect, in the name of revenge he mercilessly kills all those responsible. He wipes out an entire family at the command if lorrenzo Medici, I don't think we see him show any regret at all (though that doesn't mean he doesn't).

They are both as good as eachother in different ways, Altair has always been more innovative, more of a philosopher.
Whereas ezio is more of a 'hero' if you will.
We know ezio even looks up to Altair, Altair created the order that ezio reestablished.

If this seems very incoherent and rambling, it's because I'm quite tired.
Don't get me wrong, I love Alta´r, but that doesn't mean he's the perfect god of AC characters. That's mostly what I was criticizing really. Imo bot Alta´r and Ezio are very interesting characters. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know he's not perfect, hes flawed and eventually becomes much less flawed. He lets Maria live, despite being a Templar.
And I think there was some other stuff in the secret crusade but I've not read it.

It's quite hard to find proper flaws in ezio though, which I think is a bad thing, they made him too good.
So I'll just go with he's very unremorseful when it comes to killing. And that he often let's his emotions get the better of him, this can often compromise his objectives, I.e. Rescuing caterina instead of killing cesare.

joelsantos24
10-02-2011, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
My appreciation for Altair isn't nostalgia, I recently just replayed the game and still think he's a good character, he starts of arrogant, brash and irresponsible of his actions and becomes quite the opposite in time.
Sure he killed an un armed man, but u doubt that guy was 100% innocent, think about why he wad there in the first place. They needed to keep him quiet and the best way to do this in altairs eyes was to kill him.
We even see Altair tackle the emotions that come with killing, showing he wasn't a total psychopath.
We also know how he revamps the order in his older age.

Ezio is also a good character, though for him it's much more personal, it starts of simply as revenge but then he slowly realises the weight of his actions. We see him learn how to become an assassin, but not just how to kill people. Though Rodrigo was the grandmaster of the Templars, he was also the pope, the pope has a lot if supporters, if they found out the assassins killed him they would hunt them down and kill them.
Though ezio is not perfect, in the name of revenge he mercilessly kills all those responsible. He wipes out an entire family at the command if lorrenzo Medici, I don't think we see him show any regret at all (though that doesn't mean he doesn't).

They are both as good as eachother in different ways, Altair has always been more innovative, more of a philosopher.
Whereas ezio is more of a 'hero' if you will.
We know ezio even looks up to Altair, Altair created the order that ezio reestablished.

If this seems very incoherent and rambling, it's because I'm quite tired.
I agree, in general. You globally cover the specifics that I have been referring to, that define Alta´r as a much more deeper and fundamentally complex character. He is essentially introspective, misterious, blatantly cultured, I would say, with over-developed sentences and over-refined vocabulary, it almost feels like he is slapping people on the face while he is speaking to them. But this is that sense of social distance I previously alluded to, he is a bit disconnected with everyone around him, particularly at the beginning of Assassin's 1, although he re-invents himself throughout the game. He is all about the mission, the goals, the targets, he is not one for politics, minutiae and trivialities, so in some way he is almost anti-social in his overly-sober manners.

Regarding the kill of an innocent issue, I have always wondered about that same fact, what was that man doing there in a secret place near the Templars? For all we know he was one of them.

As for Ezio, he is the what you see is exactly what you get kind of character, extremely unoriginal and banal. I always wondered about his psycopathic tendencies, he shows absolutely no mercy and regret, he has no regard for death and the dying, as I pointed out earlier, and he is very gross and base-minded on his approach to people. He is fundamentally the antagonist of the overly-developed and/or elaborate Alta´r.

As for not killing Rodrigo, that was a joke, that is the only way I can approach this matter, and even if Cesare would have attacked Monteriggioni just the same and in some way this attack on Rodrigo did not compell him somehow to go in front with it, something which I do not believe, it still does not make that decision any less foolish and/or pathetic than it already is in hindsight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

LightRey
10-02-2011, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
I know he's not perfect, hes flawed and eventually becomes much less flawed. He lets Maria live, despite being a Templar.
And I think there was some other stuff in the secret crusade but I've not read it.

It's quite hard to find proper flaws in ezio though, which I think is a bad thing, they made him too good.
So I'll just go with he's very unremorseful when it comes to killing. And that he often let's his emotions get the better of him, this can often compromise his objectives, I.e. Rescuing caterina instead of killing cesare.
You're right, Ezio seems a little too perfect sometimes. Maybe that'll change in ACR, seeing as he'll be making some decisions he (and we) might be regretting afterwards.

itsamea-mario
10-02-2011, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
My appreciation for Altair isn't nostalgia, I recently just replayed the game and still think he's a good character, he starts of arrogant, brash and irresponsible of his actions and becomes quite the opposite in time.
Sure he killed an un armed man, but u doubt that guy was 100% innocent, think about why he wad there in the first place. They needed to keep him quiet and the best way to do this in altairs eyes was to kill him.
We even see Altair tackle the emotions that come with killing, showing he wasn't a total psychopath.
We also know how he revamps the order in his older age.

Ezio is also a good character, though for him it's much more personal, it starts of simply as revenge but then he slowly realises the weight of his actions. We see him learn how to become an assassin, but not just how to kill people. Though Rodrigo was the grandmaster of the Templars, he was also the pope, the pope has a lot if supporters, if they found out the assassins killed him they would hunt them down and kill them.
Though ezio is not perfect, in the name of revenge he mercilessly kills all those responsible. He wipes out an entire family at the command if lorrenzo Medici, I don't think we see him show any regret at all (though that doesn't mean he doesn't).

They are both as good as eachother in different ways, Altair has always been more innovative, more of a philosopher.
Whereas ezio is more of a 'hero' if you will.
We know ezio even looks up to Altair, Altair created the order that ezio reestablished.

If this seems very incoherent and rambling, it's because I'm quite tired.
I agree, in general. You globally cover the specifics that I have been referring to, that define Alta´r as a much more deeper and fundamentally complex character. He is essentially introspective, misterious, blatantly cultured, I would say, with over-developed sentences and over-refined vocabulary, it almost feels like he is slapping people on the face while he is speaking to them. But this is that sense of social distance I previously alluded to, he is a bit disconnected with everyone around him, particularly at the beginning of Assassin's 1, although he re-invents himself throughout the game. He is all about the mission, the goals, the targets, he is not one for politics, minutiae and trivialities, so in some way he is almost anti-social in his overly-sober manners.

Regarding the kill of an innocent issue, I have always wondered about that same fact, what was that man doing there in a secret place near the Templars? For all we know he was one of them.

As for Ezio, he is the what you see is exactly what you get kind of character, extremely unoriginal and banal. I always wondered about his psycopathic tendencies, he shows absolutely no mercy and regret, he has no regard for death and the dying, as I pointed out earlier, and he is very gross and base-minded on his approach to people. He is fundamentally the antagonist of the overly-developed and/or elaborate Alta´r.

As for not killing Rodrigo, that was a joke, that is the only way I can approach this matter, and even if Cesare would have attacked Monteriggioni just the same and in some way this attack on Rodrigo did not compell him somehow to go in front with it, something which I do not believe, it still does not make that decision any less foolish and/or pathetic than it already is in hindsight. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think you understand what I meant at all.

I think ezio was actually written quite badly, but I still think he's a very interesting character.

He gets destroyed, his father and brothers killed, family name ruined, future over he had to leave his friends and Christina. Then he built himself up again, found a way to redeem himself, at first it was revenge, then it became duty.
He never wanted to be an assassin, his original plan was to run away to Spain. He helped mario fight vieri because he felt guilty, killed the pazzi because he sought revenge, eventually he realised revenge was pointless, he knew his actions did more than satisfy his thirst for vengeance, he was freeing the people the Templars had opressed. And when he gave up revenge in the vault he had truly become an assassin. He let Rodrigo live, because killing him would only cause trouble for the assassin order. Rodrigo's master plan had failed, his spirit destroyed and he no longer posed a real threat.
Ezio however never foresaw cesare, not driven by the same motives as Rodrigo, he sought only power and control for himself, so he attacked.
Even if ezio had killed Rodrigo cesare would have attacked, except then he'd be able to use justice as an excuse.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
I don't think you understand what I meant at all.

I think ezio was actually written quite badly, but I still think he's a very interesting character.

He gets destroyed, his father and brothers killed, family name ruined, future over he had to leave his friends and Christina. Then he built himself up again, found a way to redeem himself, at first it was revenge, then it became duty.
He never wanted to be an assassin, his original plan was to run away to Spain. He helped mario fight vieri because he felt guilty, killed the pazzi because he sought revenge, eventually he realised revenge was pointless, he knew his actions did more than satisfy his thirst for vengeance, he was freeing the people the Templars had opressed. And when he gave up revenge in the vault he had truly become an assassin. He let Rodrigo live, because killing him would only cause trouble for the assassin order. Rodrigo's master plan had failed, his spirit destroyed and he no longer posed a real threat.
Ezio however never foresaw cesare, not driven by the same motives as Rodrigo, he sought only power and control for himself, so he attacked.
Even if ezio had killed Rodrigo cesare would have attacked, except then he'd be able to use justice as an excuse.
I agree. Btw, do you have a cold Mario?

itsamea-mario
10-02-2011, 03:58 PM
Why do you say this?

masterfenix2009
10-02-2011, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
:facepalm:

Killing Rodrigo would inherently mean Cesare would have to be next, one decision makes absolutely no sense without the other. If he could get to Rodrigo as he did, killing Cesare would not be any harder. With them dead, the threat would have ended. Furthermore, it is obvious (and logical) that the attack on Rodrigo certainly forced Cesare's move on Monteriggioni, I have little doubts about that. So, in that logic, Ezio's actions were irrevocably responsible, in my opinion, for the subsequent occurences. Many fans agree with this, and I certainly do not have to justify myself. Stop face palming every logical post. The reason Rodrigo was killed so easily was because
A: They did not expect the Assassins to strike like that or
B: Since Rodrigo didn't have the apple,he left himself more open, so Ezio could come to him.
Rodrigo dying would solve nothing. Cesare, being a high ranking Templar,would already know about the Assassins and the apple. They certainly had enough cardinals bought to where another Templar would become Pope, and Cesare would still keep his position as general. So he would have attacked anyway.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
Why do you say this?
Because your original, unedited post had some typos that made it seem like you did, had you spoken the words aloud.

itsamea-mario
10-02-2011, 04:16 PM
Thought that's 'wad' you meant.

No, what I do have is an iPod with an awkward touchscreen keypad and irritating auto correct.

LightRey
10-02-2011, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
Thought that's 'wad' you meant.

No, what I do have is an iPod with an awkward touchscreen keypad and irritating auto correct.
ugh autocorrect. My ipad has it too. I turned it off quite soon after I got it. Why would someone even need autocorrect on a device the size of a small laptop?

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 06:08 PM
Altiar slaps people in the face verbally and you call Ezio vulgar?

o.o

LightRey
10-02-2011, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Altiar slaps people in the face verbally and you call Ezio vulgar?

o.o
Good point. It always kinda bothered me that Alta´r had to "silence" the people he beat up for information.

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 06:25 PM
I always thought that Ezio showed respect for most of his targets besides the current roster of rudeness of Alberti, Vieri, and Leandros.

Sarari
10-02-2011, 06:39 PM
I think Altair showed respect, in a brutal manner......if that makes any sense. He never said, bastard, or any other foul words. He just made them tell what he needed to know....Also, it would've been nice to here Altair say Rest in Peace lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sarari
10-02-2011, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Sarari:
I think Altair showed respect, in a brutal manner......if that makes any sense. He never said, bastard, or any other foul words. He just made them tell what he needed to know....Also, it would've been nice to here Altair say Rest in Peace lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
hear* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif lol

dxsxhxcx
10-02-2011, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Altiar slaps people in the face verbally and you call Ezio vulgar?

o.o
Good point. It always kinda bothered me that Alta´r had to "silence" the people he beat up for information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some friends who think like you in this situation too (I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that there's more people who think this way), but I see those deaths like "necessary" deaths for the success of the mission, let those informants live could mean expose Altair's plans to their enemies (Altair explain this to one informant before kill him), and then he would break the second tenet "hide in plain sight", what could make him break another tenet "never compromise the Brotherhood", if their enemies decided to attack the assassins after they knew their intentions..

I believe Al Mualim gives a good explanation about the second tenet in the game:

"Hide in plain sight. Let the people mask you such that you become one with the crowd. Do you remember? Because as I hear it, you chose to expose yourself, drawing attention before you struck!"

so, if he allowed an informant to live and this informant decided to tell Altair's target about his plans, this would draw attention to Altair...

NoirEvil
10-02-2011, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Altiar slaps people in the face verbally and you call Ezio vulgar?

o.o
Good point. It always kinda bothered me that Alta´r had to "silence" the people he beat up for information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some friends who think like you in this situation too (I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that there's more people who think this way), but I see those deaths like "necessary" deaths for the success of the mission, let those informants live could mean expose Altair's plans to their enemies (Altair explain this to one informant before kill him), and then he would break the second tenet "hide in plain sight", what could make him break another tenet "never compromise the Brotherhood", if their enemies decided to attack the assassins after they knew their intentions..

I believe Al Mualim gives a good explanation about the second tenet in the game:

"Hide in plain sight. Let the people mask you such that you become one with the crowd. Do you remember? Because as I hear it, you chose to expose yourself, drawing attention before you struck!"

so, if he allowed an informant to live and this informant decided to tell Altair's target about his plans, this would draw attention to Altair... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
This.

E-Zekiel
10-02-2011, 09:01 PM
I don't think Ezio is a bad character... I like him. I also like that he's kind of a "nice guy" so to speak, too. And I think, canonically, referring to him as "remorseless" in regards to killing is inaccurate - or at least, it is after he has gotten over the initial shock of his family being torn apart by the murders.

So whether or not he is "remorseless" depends somewhat on the player playing him. That's why I say canonically, I think it's inaccurate. I play him as a nice guy, and always go for knockouts instead of kills when I can afford it. But then there are people like a good buddy of mine who pretty much just kill every guard they come across because they can.


Alta´r I just have a great reverence for because he became an excellent philosopher, in a general sense. Ezio is cool, but I just see Alta´r as having matured earlier in his life.

But again, don't get me wrong. I really like both characters, I just like Alta´r more, especially in terms of someone being an assassin.

Jexx21
10-02-2011, 09:04 PM
I like the Assassin the most because he Assassinates people that are corrupt.

Assassin power go!

No but seriously, I like both characters equally >.<

joelsantos24
10-03-2011, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by assassino151:
Stop face palming every logical post. The reason Rodrigo was killed so easily was because
A: They did not expect the Assassins to strike like that or
B: Since Rodrigo didn't have the apple,he left himself more open, so Ezio could come to him.
Rodrigo dying would solve nothing. Cesare, being a high ranking Templar,would already know about the Assassins and the apple. They certainly had enough cardinals bought to where another Templar would become Pope, and Cesare would still keep his position as general. So he would have attacked anyway.
Still, like I said, it does not make Ezio's decision less foolish and/or ridiculous than it already is, in hindsight of course. Bortherhood might have legitimized this view of your's, but it does not make it any less pathetic, for a high ranking member of the Templars like Cesare, as you so eloquently put it, to pass unnoticed right until the end. A high ranking member of the Templars, captain of the Papal army, son of Rodrigo Borgia, absolutely at ease to do his will, shows only how neglectful Ezio and his brotherhood became. Not only did he not kill the grandmaster of the Templars, but he allowed them to re-unite and re-group, and he (apparently) knew nothing of the psycopath Cesare and his impending move on Monteriggioni and the brotherhood. Now you realize some of the reasons why so many people have so many problems with Assassin's 2 (particularly the ending) and Brotherhood (in general).

Toxotes47
10-03-2011, 03:13 AM
Remember the start of ACB. Ezio was convinced that his days as an assassin were over as he had nothing left to do. That proves he knew nothing about Cesare because if he had he wouldn't had been so casual. It can also be the fact that he thought his revenge was over and now it was none of his business but I doubt that.

joelsantos24
10-03-2011, 03:19 AM
True. What proves he was absolutely reckless and neglectful in what regards information/intelligence, in my opinion.

Silvermoth
10-03-2011, 03:26 AM
I also like Ezio but I agree with what people are saying (that is, unless it's a new character it kind of feels like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood, a sort of Assassin's Creed 2.5.5

Oh well, I'll live. Here's to more Assassin's Creed!

LightRey
10-03-2011, 04:37 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LightRey:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
Altiar slaps people in the face verbally and you call Ezio vulgar?

o.o
Good point. It always kinda bothered me that Alta´r had to "silence" the people he beat up for information. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have some friends who think like you in this situation too (I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that there's more people who think this way), but I see those deaths like "necessary" deaths for the success of the mission, let those informants live could mean expose Altair's plans to their enemies (Altair explain this to one informant before kill him), and then he would break the second tenet "hide in plain sight", what could make him break another tenet "never compromise the Brotherhood", if their enemies decided to attack the assassins after they knew their intentions..

I believe Al Mualim gives a good explanation about the second tenet in the game:

"Hide in plain sight. Let the people mask you such that you become one with the crowd. Do you remember? Because as I hear it, you chose to expose yourself, drawing attention before you struck!"

so, if he allowed an informant to live and this informant decided to tell Altair's target about his plans, this would draw attention to Altair... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I understand that they have to die, but it's not really something I like. Some of them didn't even want to help the Templars, but were scared, so not all of their deaths were ones that one could feel indifferent about, because they were just as bad as guards or something. It's just a little unsettling having to kill people so that they won't talk. Sometimes it feels like it goes against the creed.

itsamea-mario
10-03-2011, 04:42 AM
"we work in the dark so others may walk in the light"
This doesn't just mean they lurk in the shadows.

LightRey
10-03-2011, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
"we work in the dark so others may walk in the light"
This doesn't just mean they lurk in the shadows.
They do unspeakable things to ensure that regular people won't have to.

joelsantos24
10-03-2011, 06:16 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
Altiar slaps people in the face verbally and you call Ezio vulgar?

o.o
Yes. Like I said, that is one of his trades, I never made a judgement call on his character trades, I merely gave a description of them. However, that trade says nothing of vulgarity though, I cannot even begin to understand the association you have just made to imply such an idea. That comes from his (Alta´r's) social distance, almost that anti-social tendency, and of course the way in which he approaches others, with spectacular over-developed sentences and/or vocabulary. The vulgarity notion I associated Ezio with, came essentially from his overly gross manners, that is all, it is also not a judgement call but solely a description, based on my personal opinion, of course.


Originally posted by Sarari:
I think Altair showed respect, in a brutal manner......if that makes any sense. He never said, bastard, or any other foul words. He just made them tell what he needed to know....Also, it would've been nice to here Altair say Rest in Peace lol http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Yes, I agree. Alta´r showed pure, hard respect, which may sometimes be regarded as a brutal action/act. But even so, he was not always so hard as some might think:

"Be at peace now. Their words can no longer do harm." - Alta´r to the Merchant King.
"Let go your burden." - Alta´r to Garnier de Naplouse.


Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
I have some friends who think like you in this situation too (I'm not saying you're wrong, just saying that there's more people who think this way), but I see those deaths like "necessary" deaths for the success of the mission, let those informants live could mean expose Altair's plans to their enemies (Altair explain this to one informant before kill him), and then he would break the second tenet "hide in plain sight", what could make him break another tenet "never compromise the Brotherhood", if their enemies decided to attack the assassins after they knew their intentions..

I believe Al Mualim gives a good explanation about the second tenet in the game:

"Hide in plain sight. Let the people mask you such that you become one with the crowd. Do you remember? Because as I hear it, you chose to expose yourself, drawing attention before you struck!"

so, if he allowed an informant to live and this informant decided to tell Altair's target about his plans, this would draw attention to Altair...
Not to mention that, if allowed to leave free, he would pose quite a serious threat to the brotherhood. Not only could he warn the target of Alta´r's plans but he could also give rise to the target's move on Alta´r (and the brotherhood) in advance. So one could argue that allowing the informants to go free, could compromise the brotherhood and therefore mean the breaking of a tenant.

luckyto
10-03-2011, 08:47 AM
Altair is a punk and a brat. He mouths off and acts foolishly, and then gets his hand slapped for it when he almost destroys the whole Order. Altair's character is not likable, but it is interesting. Yes, Altair changes... but even as he does, he still shows signs of arrogance and rudeness.

But I think even moreso, the presentation of the character (voice acting and animation) do Altair ZERO justice. The voice acting for him is bland, phoned in and uninspiring. They took little time to dress up cut scenes or animate key conversations in an interesting way. How can you expect most people to look past HOW they are being presented a character to see the actual character?

Ezio is a likable character. He is complex, it's just that we know all the major issues in his life, making him not so mysterious. Ezio didn't choose the Assassin life, he was thrown into it by the tragic loss of his father and brothers. Even moreso, he is narrated with care.

I don't like to compare the two, because I personally like them both. But in a fair "critics" contest, Ezio would win. And it has less to do with the story, and everything to do with how well it was told.

On the flip, I still think Altair is more fun and would rather play as bad A Altair than Ezio any day of the week.

joelsantos24
10-03-2011, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
Altair is a punk and a brat. He mouths off and acts foolishly, and then gets his hand slapped for it when he almost destroys the whole Order. Altair's character is not likable, but it is interesting. Yes, Altair changes... but even as he does, he still shows signs of arrogance and rudeness.

But I think even moreso, the presentation of the character (voice acting and animation) do Altair ZERO justice. The voice acting for him is bland, phoned in and uninspiring. They took little time to dress up cut scenes or animate key conversations in an interesting way. How can you expect most people to look past HOW they are being presented a character to see the actual character?

Ezio is a likable character. He is complex, it's just that we know all the major issues in his life, making him not so mysterious. Ezio didn't choose the Assassin life, he was thrown into it by the tragic loss of his father and brothers. Even moreso, he is narrated with care.

I don't like to compare the two, because I personally like them both. But in a fair "critics" contest, Ezio would win. And it has less to do with the story, and everything to do with how well it was told.

On the flip, I still think Altair is more fun and would rather play as bad A Altair than Ezio any day of the week.
Well, that is your opinion, and your prerogative obviously. It goes without saying though, that I fundamentally and absolutely disagree in every aspect and every single point, but then again that is also my opinion.

luckyto
10-03-2011, 10:09 AM
Oh yeah, it's totally opinion. And I think you make some good points about Altair's character being more complex and mysterious. I agree, that just doesn't make me like him.

But I do disagree with you that Ezio is "less complex." Or less mysterious. Perhaps he is, because we are privy to more events in his life and Ubisoft did a better job sharing his thoughts and narrative. He should be less mysterious, the author successfully involved you in the character.

With Altair, I don't believe Ubisoft did a good job telling "his story." I think the presentation (cutscenes and dialogue only) is really poor.

That's my take. I do prefer Altair, but it's because he is a badass. Not because of some narrative edge he has over Ezio. My opinion.

joelsantos24
10-03-2011, 02:24 PM
Ezio might be a complex character, no doubt, but I personally consider him far more linear, if you will, than Alta´r. One could say that Alta´r's character is more refined, more elaborate, on the other hand, Ezio's character is more raw/rought, perhaps.

I started my journey through Assassin's with Assassin's 2, since I only got my PS3 quite recently (just before Easter) and I could not find the first chapter of the saga anywhere I would look. Video game store employees would all tell me the same, that it would be very difficult for me to find the first game nowadays, so despite dissapointed I did what anyone in my place would, and bought Assassin's 2. That was my first experience in the saga and the first experience is always special, and for me it is a special game, however, a week or so later I was lucky enough to find the first chapter in an online video game store, and after finishing Assassin's 2, I played the first game and everything changed.

My personal take on the matter is that the difference between Alta´r and Ezio is essentially immeasurable, in Alta´r's benefit, of course. I cannot even stand Ezio in Brotherhood, for instance, on the other hand, I cannot stand that game in general anymore. I played it once and re-started playing it quite recently but I just could not take it anymore and had to go back to Assassin's 1 once again. I know many people who think alike and cannot stand that game as much as I and were also very displeased with several parts of Assassin's 2, some related to Ezio and others not quite. He is not a bad character, obviously, he is just nowhere near Alta´r, though. In my humble opinion, mind you.

luckyto
10-03-2011, 02:35 PM
Well, ACB being junk compared to AC1 is a fair assessment. One I share, just not for preference of character or story. I can't hardly stand to play ACB anymore either, and I still play AC1 almost daily. AC1's graphics and the size of the sandbox blow Brotherhood away ... that's not even debatable. And personally, I prefer AC1's gameplay, though many others have different opinions. For me, the combat is more diverse and actual assassinations are much more entertaining. I still find new ways to enjoy AC1 after hundreds, yes hundreds, of hours of gameplay. Plus, I favor the Crusades over the Renaissance. I just don't favor it for reasons of character (Altair vs. Ezio).

(though, ACB did nothing to help - and may have even hurt - Ezio's character)

Calvarok
10-03-2011, 02:43 PM
It's not debatable that Brotherhood had a bigger free-roam area or weapon sandbox than AC1? Yes it is.

Altair is "more refined"?

People find Altair easier to roleplay because he doesn't say much. They can project themselves into him. Ezio was portrayed as more of a real character. A lot of the time, we get to hear his thoughts, and his interactions with fellow assassins are not so truncated. Altair was a blank slate.

Without going into specifics, the enjoyableness of just messing around without any mission or objective has increased with every game in the series. I am gauging this on my own experience with how long I can stand to do that in AC1, AC2, and ACB.

But generally when someone is convinced that the first version of anything was perfect, it is a fools errand to tell them otherwise.

luckyto
10-03-2011, 02:49 PM
It's not debatable. The Kingdom alone is bigger than Rome. Add Masyaf, Acre, Jerusalem and Damascus. Pick two cities and it is bigger than Rome. The sandbox in ACB is TIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNYYYYYYYYY. I'm not even sure it's as big as Damascus by itself, and 2/3s of Rome is country. Rome is barely the size of Florence (or maybe not) from AC2. And AC2 also had Venice, the Villa, Tuscany and Forli. Ubisoft cheated on the environment in Brotherhood so they could make their 1-year turnaround.

LightRey
10-03-2011, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
It's not debatable. The Kingdom alone is bigger than Rome. Add Masyaf, Acre, Jerusalem and Damascus. Pick two cities and it is bigger than Rome. The sandbox in ACB is TIIIIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNYYYYYYYYY. I'm not even sure it's as big as Damascus by itself.
The Kingdom wasn't bigger than Rome. If you add up all the surface area of both respectively, Rome is significantly bigger than the Kingdom.
Also, the Kingdom was the most boring area in any of the games and as soon as I could skip it, I never went there again except for Templars and flags.

Oh, and Rome is also the largest area they've made to date.

luckyto
10-03-2011, 02:57 PM
Rome may be the largest single area. Perhaps it is bigger than the Kingdom, but not by much. The thing is --- there are FOUR other areas. Each almost as big as Rome by themselves (except Masyaf.) I'd bet AC1's square surface area is about 350%-450% larger than Rome.

PS - I think the Kingdom is one of the best places in all the games. You can get into bigger fights there than anywhere else. Try slugging it out against 50 or so Crusaders at one of their encampments. There is plenty to do --- there's just not "sync" missions there to tell you how to have fun. You just go have fun.

itsamea-mario
10-03-2011, 03:00 PM
And some pretty interesting areas and cool Easter eggs.

LightRey
10-03-2011, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
Rome may be the largest single area. Perhaps it is bigger than the Kingdom, but not by much. The thing is --- there are FOUR other areas. Each almost as big as Rome by themselves (except Masyaf.) I'd bet AC1's square surface area is about 350%-450% larger than Rome.

PS - I think the Kingdom is one of the best places in all the games. You can get into bigger fights there than anywhere else. Try slugging it out against 50 or so Crusaders at one of their encampments. There is plenty to do --- there's just not "sync" missions there to tell you how to have fun. You just go have fun.
Actually, that again is not true. Rome is significantly bigger than any city in AC1. They don't even come close to Rome's size. It's all been discussed in ACB interviews btw.

luckyto
10-03-2011, 03:29 PM
They have said that Rome is their largest environment. And that ACR's Constantinople is the same. But that is salesmanship, ignoring a key fact to offset what is a major major downgrade. Clever accounting. Yes, Brotherhood's one sandbox maybe bigger than any ONE city in ACI. Yet, there are four huge locations in AC1 plus the smaller Masyaf.

There is no way that ACB's sandbox is bigger than AC1. Bigger than one of the cities, barely. But bigger than all of them, no way. Not even close. Not even half.

And compared to other games, ACB is tiny. I can make it, walking, across all of Rome in about 10 minutes. Almost exactly as long as it would take to do any ONE city in AC1. To do all cities in AC1 would take a very long time. Compared to outside the franchise, I can't even fly in a supersonic jet from one end of Just Cause's 2 sandbox to the other in 10 minutes. Red Dead's Wild West can't be crossed by horse in less than 20 minutes. LA Noire is bigger. Grand Theft Auto is bigger. AC1 and AC2 is bigger. Not just by a little bit, but 2-5 times larger.

LightRey
10-03-2011, 03:34 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
They have said that Rome is their largest environment. And that ACR's Constantinople is the same. But that is salesmanship, ignoring a key fact to offset what is a major major downgrade. Clever accounting. Yes, Brotherhood's one sandbox maybe bigger than any ONE city in ACI. Yet, there are four huge locations in AC1 plus the smaller Masyaf.

There is no way that ACB's sandbox is bigger than AC1. Bigger than one of the cities, barely. But bigger than all of them, no way. Not even close. Not even half.

And compared to other games, ACB is tiny. I can make it, walking, across all of Rome in about 10 minutes. Almost exactly as long as it would take to do any ONE city in AC1. To do all cities in AC1 would take a very long time. Compared to outside the franchise, I can't even fly in a supersonic jet from one end of Just Cause's 2 sandbox to the other in 10 minutes. Red Dead's Wild West can't be crossed by horse in less than 20 minutes. LA Noire is bigger. Grand Theft Auto is bigger. AC1 and AC2 is bigger. Not just by a little bit, but 2-5 times larger.
I'm not saying all cities from AC1 combined aren't larger than Rome, but it would certainly take at least two to come even close to the size of Rome. You mustn't forget that moving around in AC1 went a lot more slowly compared to ACB and really I've replayed both games more than enough times to know just how much larger Rome is. Rome was huge, especially for a city.

Calvarok
10-03-2011, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
They have said that Rome is their largest environment. And that ACR's Constantinople is the same. But that is salesmanship, ignoring a key fact to offset what is a major major downgrade. Clever accounting. Yes, Brotherhood's one sandbox maybe bigger than any ONE city in ACI. Yet, there are four huge locations in AC1 plus the smaller Masyaf.

There is no way that ACB's sandbox is bigger than AC1. Bigger than one of the cities, barely. But bigger than all of them, no way. Not even close. Not even half.

And compared to other games, ACB is tiny. I can make it, walking, across all of Rome in about 10 minutes. Almost exactly as long as it would take to do any ONE city in AC1. To do all cities in AC1 would take a very long time. Compared to outside the franchise, I can't even fly in a supersonic jet from one end of Just Cause's 2 sandbox to the other in 10 minutes. Red Dead's Wild West can't be crossed by horse in less than 20 minutes. LA Noire is bigger. Grand Theft Auto is bigger. AC1 and AC2 is bigger. Not just by a little bit, but 2-5 times larger.
Actually, Rome is actually a lot closer to being bigger than all AC1 cities than you would think. And Regardless, Brotherhood had lots more mission-only locations like Vianna and War machine and Romulous missions, which actually makes it bigger by a long shot.

Plus, AC1's size was entirely pointless. I felt no difference between being in either city. None of them had the kind of content or level of atmosphere an attention to detail that Rome did.

And about the graphics, AC1 overstepped what its engine could handle safely. All of the terrible frame-rate issues and screen tear in that game was from too many high quality textures. AC2 and Brotherhood run much better, and Brotherhood is better visually in a lot of ways.

Constantinoples is almost as big as rome, but more dense in terms of buildings, and there are at least THREEE other cities. So...

luckyto
10-03-2011, 04:01 PM
No offense, I don't think you guys remember AC1's environments that well. Moving is no slower. I might even argue that it is easier to navigate across rooftops in AC1. But if we are touting our gaming war scars and how long we've played them, I've played all three for hundreds of hours each. Rome felt small to me on my first time through the city, and the only other environment in AC's franchise that I felt that way with was Forli. There is no way Rome is bigger than AC1 nor even close to AC2. I bet it's not bigger than just two cities in AC1.

Whether each was atmospheric or not, that's pure opinion. I find it quite the opposite, each of the four areas had a very distinct and different look and feel to them. Each city was filled with real locations and based on the actual maps of their historic districts. AC2 had the best variation. Still, nothing gets more boring than one environment/one look.

I will concede that Rome had more detail. And more important, the NPCs had much more variety. As for looks, Brotherhood is the least among the three in my opinion.

LightRey
10-03-2011, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
No offense, I don't think you guys remember AC1's environments that well. Moving is no slower. I might even argue that it is easier to navigate across rooftops in AC1. But if we are touting our gaming war scars and how long we've played them, I've played all three for hundreds of hours each. Rome felt small to me on my first time through the city, and the only other environment in AC's franchise that I felt that way with was Forli. There is no way Rome is bigger than AC1 nor even close to AC2. I bet it's not bigger than just two cities in AC1.

Whether each was atmospheric or not, that's pure opinion. I find it quite the opposite, each of the four areas had a very distinct and different look and feel to them. Each city was filled with real locations and based on the actual maps of their historic districts. AC2 had the best variation. Still, nothing gets more boring than one environment/one look.

I will concede that Rome had more detail. And more important, the NPCs had much more variety. As for looks, Brotherhood is the least among the three in my opinion.
Ehm, do you remember climbing in AC1? It takes waaaaay longer than in ACB.

joelsantos24
10-04-2011, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
Well, ACB being junk compared to AC1 is a fair assessment. One I share, just not for preference of character or story. I can't hardly stand to play ACB anymore either, and I still play AC1 almost daily. AC1's graphics and the size of the sandbox blow Brotherhood away ... that's not even debatable. And personally, I prefer AC1's gameplay, though many others have different opinions. For me, the combat is more diverse and actual assassinations are much more entertaining. I still find new ways to enjoy AC1 after hundreds, yes hundreds, of hours of gameplay. Plus, I favor the Crusades over the Renaissance. I just don't favor it for reasons of character (Altair vs. Ezio).

(though, ACB did nothing to help - and may have even hurt - Ezio's character)
Agreed.


Originally posted by Calvarok:
It's not debatable that Brotherhood had a bigger free-roam area or weapon sandbox than AC1? Yes it is.

Altair is "more refined"?

People find Altair easier to roleplay because he doesn't say much. They can project themselves into him. Ezio was portrayed as more of a real character. A lot of the time, we get to hear his thoughts, and his interactions with fellow assassins are not so truncated. Altair was a blank slate.

Without going into specifics, the enjoyableness of just messing around without any mission or objective has increased with every game in the series. I am gauging this on my own experience with how long I can stand to do that in AC1, AC2, and ACB.

But generally when someone is convinced that the first version of anything was perfect, it is a fools errand to tell them otherwise.
Brotherhood had one huge city, true. However, Assassin's 1 had several big cities. Only Damascus and Jerusalem alone would be enough to cover Rome's area, I believe.

And yes, Alta´r is a more refined character and it has nothing to do with whether or not he spoke more than Ezio. Character is not equal to spoken language, that is unfathomably reductive. There are countless ways to measure and/or decribe/determine character. Alta´r is much more introspective, intense, misterious, cultured and generally complex. On the other hand, Ezio is much vulgar, like I have stated before, what you see is what you get of him. That is not to say that he is shallow or insipid, but I do find him more superficial, yes.

Of course it is not my place to question, but you mess around in Brotherhood without any purpose and/or goal? This is in no way a judgement value on you and/or it, I just find it mind-boggling since it is almost like chinese torture for me to just try to play the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

With what I do take offense though, despite not judging your opinion of course, since it is your opinion and your privilege to have one and make it count, is that precise notion that because we love the first game and prefer it to the rest, we do so simply because we are blindly nostalgic. Well, I can only speak for myself, but I love the first game simply because it is better, in my humble opinion. It looks better, the main character is better, the mechanic is better, I favor the medieval period to the renaissance (despite it's obvious aesthetic appeal) and it is vastly more credible, particularly in what means to be an assassin, since the main character is an assassin to begin with and not a warrior, if you know what I mean.

itsamea-mario
10-04-2011, 04:10 AM
There's also less in Rome, a lot of it is just countryside, and tbh the AC2/B countryside was far worse that AC1's.

RunningDeerSCHS
10-04-2011, 06:51 AM
AC2 is an improvement on 1 and AC:B is an improvement on 2 imo.

joelsantos24
10-04-2011, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
There's also less in Rome, a lot of it is just countryside, and tbh the AC2/B countryside was far worse that AC1's.
Completely agreed. A lot of Rome is just ruins, nothing else.


Originally posted by RDSCHS:
AC2 is an improvement on 1 and AC:B is an improvement on 2 imo.
Opinions differ.

Animuses
10-04-2011, 02:05 PM
Originally posted by itsamea-mario:
There's also less in Rome, a lot of it is just countryside, and tbh the AC2/B countryside was far worse that AC1's.
I thought the countryside in Tuscany was great.

Jexx21
10-04-2011, 02:11 PM
I think that a lot of the AC1 lovers are looking at it with rose-tinted glasses.

Grandmaster_Z
10-04-2011, 02:21 PM
AC1 is what the franchise was meant to be, and it is not like any other game. Thats why we love it more than the sequels..

joelsantos24
10-04-2011, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
AC1 is what the franchise was meant to be, and it is not like any other game. Thats why we love it more than the sequels..
Perfectly put. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Animuses
10-04-2011, 04:33 PM
I'm guessing the series was meant to be repetitive.

Calvarok
10-04-2011, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
I'm guessing the series was meant to be repetitive.
And endlessly moody.

And extremely glitchy.

And with terrible voice acting for the main character.

EDIT:

And really, Assassin's Creed has become MORE unique with each game. AC1 was stuck in the boring hyperrealistic brown/grey/blue stage that modern shooters and action games went through. AC2 and B introduced color and inventive set-pieces and more historical accuracy and tons of entries on the places you go and the buildings and people you see.

No other game is anywhere close to that, but tons of other games are totally serious the entire time and are drably lit.

Jexx21
10-04-2011, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
AC1 is what the franchise was meant to be, and it is not like any other game. Thats why we love it more than the sequels..

You realize that your group is a minority even among the hardcore fans right?

dxsxhxcx
10-04-2011, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
AC1 is what the franchise was meant to be, and it is not like any other game. Thats why we love it more than the sequels..

You realize that your group is a minority even among the hardcore fans right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so just because he is part of a minority he can't have his own opinions now?! I don't see him trying to change other people's mind with what he said, he was just expressing his opinion..

Jexx21
10-04-2011, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
AC1 is what the franchise was meant to be, and it is not like any other game. Thats why we love it more than the sequels..

You realize that your group is a minority even among the hardcore fans right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

so just because he is part of a minority he can't have his own opinions now?! I don't see him trying to change other people's mind with what he said, he was just expressing his opinion.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I never said that he can't have an opinion, it's just that he seemed to lack any care at all for someone else's opinion.

Animuses
10-04-2011, 06:39 PM
Assassin's Creed is meant to have significant elements from each game. There is no perfect Assassin's Creed game.

If you want to talk about the best Assassin's Creed game, it's Assassin's Creed II. It's not a matter of opinion, it is factual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jexx21
10-04-2011, 06:49 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
Assassin's Creed is meant to have significant elements from each game. There is no perfect Assassin's Creed game.

If you want to talk about the best Assassin's Creed game, it's Assassin's Creed II. It's not a matter of opinion, it is factual. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I believe it to be a matter of opinion myself, :P

Animuses
10-04-2011, 06:54 PM
Yeah, but I said it was factual. Isn't that enough? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Jexx21
10-04-2011, 07:02 PM
Are you God?

No, you aren't. Because I am.

Now bow!

Animuses
10-04-2011, 07:03 PM
I thought we've been over this, smoothskin! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

Calvarok
10-04-2011, 08:56 PM
I agree with you on which game is best so far, God. : P

LightRey
10-04-2011, 11:30 PM
Yes, we should all listen to Mr. God (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mW9PvYYH9lA).

joelsantos24
10-05-2011, 04:32 AM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
You realize that your group is a minority even among the hardcore fans right?
Oh really? And how is it that you know that? You read people's minds, perhaps. Because from my experience, it is the exact opposite. In fact, it is commonly considered that Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood destroyed the series.

CRUDFACE
10-05-2011, 07:15 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
You realize that your group is a minority even among the hardcore fans right?
Oh really? And how is it that you know that? You read people's minds, perhaps. Because from my experience, it is the exact opposite. In fact, it is commonly considered that Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood destroyed the series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually people say that just about ACB though I do have problems with all of them.

Grandmaster_Z
10-05-2011, 07:24 AM
sorry, i don't consider people who started playing AC2 before AC1 as "hardcore" fans...my OPINION..lol

dxsxhxcx
10-05-2011, 07:41 AM
Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
sorry, i don't consider people who started playing AC2 before AC1 as "hardcore" fans...my OPINION..lol



one thing has nothing to do with another, it's not because a person know the franchise since the first game was released that this will make him/her "hardcore", I know some people who know the franchise since AC1 and doesn't care much about it, they see it just as another cool game, while some people who started in AC2 or even ACB have more dedication/consideration for the franchise than those who started from AC1..

luckyto
10-05-2011, 08:02 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
You realize that your group is a minority even among the hardcore fans right?
Oh really? And how is it that you know that? You read people's minds, perhaps. Because from my experience, it is the exact opposite. In fact, it is commonly considered that Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood destroyed the series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the "real" people (I mean, ones I've met personally) I've talked with rank them AC2 first and then AC1... but almost all of them called Brotherhood, "expensive DLC." I've heard that said repeatedly from totally different sources.

"Brotherhood is a nice little tack-on to AC2, and not much more, and not quite worth $60."

Again, that is what gamers I've actually met have said, which to be honest, I probably only know a few dozen or so face-to-face. On the internet, Brotherhood does seem to have a die-hard base.

Calvarok
10-05-2011, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jexx21:
You realize that your group is a minority even among the hardcore fans right?
Oh really? And how is it that you know that? You read people's minds, perhaps. Because from my experience, it is the exact opposite. In fact, it is commonly considered that Assassin's 2 and Brotherhood destroyed the series. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of the "real" people (I mean, ones I've met personally) I've talked with rank them AC2 first and then AC1... but almost all of them called Brotherhood, "expensive DLC." I've heard that said repeatedly from totally different sources.

"Brotherhood is a nice little tack-on to AC2, and not much more, and not quite worth $60."

Again, that is what gamers I've actually met have said, which to be honest, I probably only know a few dozen or so face-to-face. On the internet, Brotherhood does seem to have a die-hard base. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is generally accepted that Brotherhood was not quite as good as AC2.

But it is also generally accepted that it was amazing it was so good for coming out so soon after AC2.

I could list the reasons Brotherhood was worth 60 bucks, one of them being that it was better than AC1. But I don't think you'll listen.

Anyways, to the annoying elitists, I started the series on AC1, but I hated every moment of the terrible repeititive quests. I finished sad that a game that I liked so much got held back by just not having enough interesting content.

Then I got AC2, and I saw AC1 as it should have been.

So what's your excuse, huh? If AC1 is such a revolutionary and perfect game, why did I only enjoy it for 10 minute periods every once in a while?

Why did I get tired of pseudo philosophical drivel, the SAME philosophical drivel from each target?

Why did I not appreciate that a game that felt opressing and annoying made its story opressing and moody at all times? There is no way that a story about someone travelling to several different cities and being a bamf should be depressing all the time. Real life doesn't work like that, and people who read stories notice. It makes it seem weird.

I liked so many things about the game, but it feels like it was designed to obscure those things. For every assassination, there are 3 lower-level quests. For every cool environment, there are guards that spawn in and notice you immediately right in front of you.

Sure it's a stealth game, but it's also about blending in with the crowd. How does that make any sense when the only way to hide without physically hiding is to adopt a posture that clashes with the equipment on your outfit and is radically different from the rest of the crowd? The crowd was so shallow!

And all the 5 different voice tracks that played again and again, none of them clever or interesting.

It was in no way a perfect game, and every critic at least acnowledged that. Look at the metacritic scores for Assassin's Creed games. AC1 scored lowest, AC2 scored highest, and Brotherhood got slightly lower than AC2.

If anything, metacritic is an example of the general feel of the gaming populace about games. And if oyu don't trust professional reviewers who have played lots of games, just look at the user reviews. They mirror the professional ones.

EDIT: most of this post is not directed at the quoted person, just people who feel this way in general. The reasons I list that AC1 is imperfect don't mean I dislike it. It is just not that great.

joelsantos24
10-05-2011, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
sorry, i don't consider people who started playing AC2 before AC1 as "hardcore" fans...my OPINION..lol
one thing has nothing to do with another, it's not because a person know the franchise since the first game was released that this will make him/her "hardcore", I know some people who know the franchise since AC1 and doesn't care much about it, they see it just as another cool game, while some people who started in AC2 or even ACB have more dedication/consideration for the franchise than those who started from AC1.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Leave it, it does not matter nor is it worth it. Unfortunately some people come here with the single purpose of picking a fight. I am not one of those people. But I do find it ironic though, since I might have played both Assassin's 1 and 2 more often than most people here. Anyway, it does not matter, like I said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif


Originally posted by luckyto:
Most of the "real" people (I mean, ones I've met personally) I've talked with rank them AC2 first and then AC1... but almost all of them called Brotherhood, "expensive DLC." I've heard that said repeatedly from totally different sources.

"Brotherhood is a nice little tack-on to AC2, and not much more, and not quite worth $60."

Again, that is what gamers I've actually met have said, which to be honest, I probably only know a few dozen or so face-to-face. On the internet, Brotherhood does seem to have a die-hard base.
Yes, I have heard that about Brotherhood as well. I think it is interesting though, when most fans, myself included of course, do not even consider it to be at the same level as Assassin's 2.

LightRey
10-05-2011, 10:12 AM
Calvarok's words ring true.

Calvarok
10-05-2011, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Grandmaster_Z:
sorry, i don't consider people who started playing AC2 before AC1 as "hardcore" fans...my OPINION..lol
one thing has nothing to do with another, it's not because a person know the franchise since the first game was released that this will make him/her "hardcore", I know some people who know the franchise since AC1 and doesn't care much about it, they see it just as another cool game, while some people who started in AC2 or even ACB have more dedication/consideration for the franchise than those who started from AC1.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Leave it, it does not matter nor is it worth it. Unfortunately some people come here with the single purpose of picking a fight. I am not one of those people. But I do find it ironic though, since I might have played both Assassin's 1 and 2 more often than most people here. Anyway, it does not matter, like I said. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So what, the opinions of people who didn't have the time to play as much as you did don't matter?

I've played almost 300 hours of AC2.

I've played more than 100 hours of ACB.

And if you've played 100 times more than that, it doesn't really make a difference.

Someone who has played for 15 hours has enough data to decide wether they like it or not, and if it is objectively good.

You may have disliked any of the AC games, but objectiely, they have been getting better and better: more fun to play, control improvements, added mechanics, bigger environments. Of course, difficulty needs to be raised, but it's not difficulty that makes a game great.

You don't have to like it, but you really should be able to admit if something is objectively good.

luckyto
10-05-2011, 10:21 AM
No need to call us "Elitists." The gamers I spoke to are not hard-core AC fans like me, they just like games. Most of them have fond memories of AC1, and most of them see Brotherhood as "DLC" - why they have those perceptions, I do not know.

I know why I rank AC1 over ACB. I do because the environment is bigger and more diverse. It is the least linear of the three, giving me the most freedom. The combat, to me, is random and more challenging which allows for greater replayability (15 hours is not enough to scratch the surface of today's games.) There are higher guard populations, and the notoriety system seems to work better. And lastly, the graphics are more appealing, the musical mood is more mysterious and I find the Crusades more interesting. Those are my reasons and my perceptions.

And I rank AC2 better because they introduced armor and weapon systems, even bigger maps, and it has an incredibly solid story and presentation. Even if it altered some core mechanics I preferred from the original, it added some improvements like fast travel which are direly needed.

ACB has smaller maps and even less of the core mechanics I preferred. The combat is even more pigeon-holed, the missions are even more linear and it doesn't even have the story to rest on that AC2 had in its favor. And I'm even more overpowered with even less guards than ever before.


Is ACB liked by more people than AC1? Who knows. Your metacritic score seems as good a measure as any. Maybe there is more people, I wouldn't be surprised. There's people always willing to buy into a hype machine and believe that a few extra bells and whistles make for "AwEzomEness." Quantity is no indicator of quality, and more people may eat at McD's but it's not the best restaurant in town.

Personally, if people want recommendations, I even recommend AC2 as the game of choice --- because I know it is going to satisfy most appetites and is the most mainstream.

AC1 had presentation problems. It had seriously repetitive moments. It has glitch issues. It's NPC crowd isn't nearly as diverse as its successors. AC1's experience was not a blockbuster movie action popcorn spectacle, it was quiet, subdued and eerie. AC1 is missing some key mechanics like crowd blending and fast travel that hurt it severely. It is not perfect, and I don't think any AC1 fan would argue.

AC1's mood is just not going to work for everyone. Especially in today's ADD Micheal Bay world. But for people who just wanted to lose themselves in a far-off time and place, it is a fantastic experience. It is slow, and deliberate, and mysterious and cerebral. It's for people who like to play in a sandbox, not have their hands held along the way. And it is delightfully different than a lot of games. I still have no problem entertaining myself in that world, it's pros outweigh its cons.

It may not be everyone's tea. But it is worth having just the same, if nothing else, so that every damn game isn't running a 1000 mph and playing just like Uncharted.... scripted.

joelsantos24
10-05-2011, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
So what, the opinions of people who didn't have the time to play as much as you did don't matter?

I've played almost 300 hours of AC2.

I've played more than 100 hours of ACB.

And if you've played 100 times more than that, it doesn't really make a difference.

Someone who has played for 15 hours has enough data to decide wether they like it or not, and if it is objectively good.

You may have disliked any of the AC games, but objectiely, they have been getting better and better: more fun to play, control improvements, added mechanics, bigger environments. Of course, difficulty needs to be raised, but it's not difficulty that makes a game great.

You don't have to like it, but you really should be able to admit if something is objectively good.
No. It means that, despite people being absolutely entitled to their own opinions and being absolutely responsible for them, we should not feed the disregard and disconsideration of those who merely come here to tease others and make fun of them. That is all.

Calvarok
10-05-2011, 10:42 AM
Originally posted by luckyto:
No need to call us "Elitists." The gamers I spoke to are not hard-core AC fans like me, they just like games. Most of them have fond memories of AC1, and most of them see Brotherhood as "DLC" - why they have those perceptions, I do not know.

I know why I rank AC1 over ACB. I do because the environment is bigger and more diverse. It is the least linear of the three, giving me the most freedom. The combat, to me, is random and more challenging which allows for greater replayability (15 hours is not enough to scratch the surface of today's games.) There are higher guard populations, and the notoriety system seems to work better. And lastly, the graphics are more appealing, the musical mood is more mysterious and I find the Crusades more interesting. Those are my reasons and my perceptions.

And I rank AC2 better because they introduced armor and weapon systems, even bigger maps, and it has an incredibly solid story and presentation. Even if it altered some core mechanics I preferred from the original.

ACB has smaller maps and even less of core mechanics I preferred. The combat is even more pigeon-holed, the missions are even more linear and it doesn't even have the story to rest on that AC2 had.


Is ACB liked by more people than AC1? Who knows. Your metacritic score seems as good a measure as any. Maybe there is more people, I wouldn't be surprised. There's people always willing to buy into a hype machine and believe that a few extra bells and whistles make for "AwEzomEness." Quantity is no indicator of quality, and more people may eat at McD's but it's not the best restaurant in town.

Personally, if people want recommendations, I even put them on AC2 --- because I know it is going to satisfy most appetites.

AC1 had presentation problems. It had seriously repetitive moments. It has glitch issues. It's NPC crowd isn't nearly as diverse as its successors. AC1's experience was not a blockbuster movie action popcorn spectacle, it was quiet, subdued and eerie. AC1 is missing some key mechanics like crowd blending and fast travel that hurt it severely. It is not perfect, and I don't think any AC1 fan would argue.

AC1's mood is just not going to work for everyone. Especially in today's ADD Micheal Bay world. But for people who just wanted to lose themselves in a far-off time and place, it is a fantastic experience. It is slow, and deliberate, and mysterious and cerebral. It's for people who like to play in a sandbox, not have their hands held along the way. And it is delightfully different than a lot of games. I still have no problem entertaining myself in that world, it's pros outweigh its cons.

It may not be everyone's tea. But it is worth having just the same, if nothing else, so that every damn game isn't running a 1000 mph and playing just like Uncharted.... scripted.

I wasn't saying that it was a bad game, really, I was just pointing out problems with it. Because lots of people pretend that there are no problems.

And Brotherhood had the biggest AC map ever, larger than the previous two biggest maps put together.

I think it's a stretch to call AC1 cerebral. It actually had a fairly simple plot.

And a lot of the time it just seemed like it wanted too much to be cerebral, and just seemed pretentious.

I found AC2's story a much better introduction to the world of AC: first things start off simple and with a lighter tone, and then it gets serious and mindblowing near the end. It's a feeling of progression.

AC1 had a sick story, but I don't think it was big enough to handle the amount of gameplay time it was translated into.

AC2 often had different reasons you assassinated a guy, and different kinds of missions leading up to it. I think AC2 was almost perfectly paced, story and gameplay wise.

But yeah, It's not you I'm angry at. You understand the flaws and just prefer the simple style of the original game.

I know that you probably would have liked for them to continue on exactly in that vein, gameplay wise, but the gaming industry is a tricky buisness. If you don't make major changes each game, the majority of people will hate you. And honestly, for 60$, they have a point.

I understand your fear of games becoming more linear, but I don't think that's what they're trying ot do with AC. They're trying to make linearity less linear, and blend it seamelessly with freeform gameplay at critical story points.

Brotherhood was not perfect in its handling of this, but it got a lot of things right. Like alternate cutscenes for if you killed the cardinal int he last romulous mission by throwing him over the scaffolding. Like the war machine missions.

I think that ultimately it was held back by not having enough people working on the game to make enough free-form sequences to go with the more linear ones. I'd consider this growing pains. They're trying to improve the presentation of the story, and a story is by nature linear. From what we've seen of Revelations, there are quite a bit more ways to do even the most linear things differently, like the greek fire sequence, the approach to blowing up the lighthouse, or the trek to Leandros's fortress while injured.

Brotherhood was definately worse because of it's overreliance on linearity, but it was still an interesting experience to see what could be accomplished with the narrative and presentation with more opportunity to give the player a cool scenario.

With multiplayer, I'd say it's definately worth 60$.

Some people may disagree, but there are quite a few games that have way less, more linear, unengaging content. and still charge 60$.

And for all Brotherhood's flaws, I could see the effort of the team that worked on it in it, from my first experience with its more professional cutscenes, to the more alive and huge city with the excellent borgia towers.

Calvarok
10-05-2011, 10:43 AM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Calvarok:
So what, the opinions of people who didn't have the time to play as much as you did don't matter?

I've played almost 300 hours of AC2.

I've played more than 100 hours of ACB.

And if you've played 100 times more than that, it doesn't really make a difference.

Someone who has played for 15 hours has enough data to decide wether they like it or not, and if it is objectively good.

You may have disliked any of the AC games, but objectiely, they have been getting better and better: more fun to play, control improvements, added mechanics, bigger environments. Of course, difficulty needs to be raised, but it's not difficulty that makes a game great.

You don't have to like it, but you really should be able to admit if something is objectively good.
No. It means that, despite people being absolutely entitled to their own opinions and being absolutely responsible for them, we should not feed the disregard and disconsideration of those who merely come here to tease others and make fun of them. That is all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No-one comes here to tease people who like AC1 most.

AC1 is not perfect, but there are people who insist in insisting that it is. That's all I'm getting at, and I'm not trying to single you or anyone else out.

LightRey
10-05-2011, 10:45 AM
Guys, neither side can legitimately claim to represent any part of the fanbase other than themselves, to trying to do so is futile and, when pointed out only undermines the legitimacy of your other claims, so I would advise you all not to do so.

I would also like to point out to you, luckyto and POP_WW_2008, that, though it may not have been your intention, in many ways your arguments can be interpreted as insulting, which is never a good thing. Please keep in mind that, regardless of whether or not you represent any majority, there is no such thing as a general opinion, so I would ask for the sake of keeping this discussion civil that you take your words more into consideration before posting them.

joelsantos24
10-05-2011, 11:11 AM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
No-one comes here to tease people who like AC1 most.

AC1 is not perfect, but there are people who insist in insisting that it is. That's all I'm getting at, and I'm not trying to single you or anyone else out.
Well, "Grandmaster_Z" implied that my opinion was essentially negligible and irrelevant since he did not hold me as a harcore fan of the series. I simply replied to "Dxsxhxcx" (whom had taken the opportunity to tell him that, contrary to what he had implied, it is basically everyone's prerogative or privilege to have an opinion and to make it known/count) as to not endulge on these sort of people since they merely want to pick fights. That was all.

So, how on earth have you gotten yourself into this and why have you approached me because of it, is completely beyong me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Calvarok
10-05-2011, 12:28 PM
I think it's gotten confusing because I have a habit of quoting someone, and responding to something they said, and then,in the same post, going off on a tangent about something, when I'm not really meaning to be talking directly to that person any more. It's just my musings. Sorry about that.

luckyto
10-05-2011, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
And Brotherhood had the biggest AC map ever, larger than the previous two biggest maps put together.

We've beat this to death, but the composite is smaller. *Vader Voice* You know this to be true.


Originally posted by Calvarok:
I think it's a stretch to call AC1 cerebral. It actually had a fairly simple plot.

Probably not my best word choice. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif "Quiet" comes to mind. For example, if you take out on foot across the Kingdom and that mood music sets in, it feels like a long journey. The atmosphere is without the hustle and bustle of modern times. It is remote, sometimes alone, almost like what traveling a 1000 years ago might have been like. Perhaps, I just said cerebral because I feel like the world slows down enough to absorb where you are and what you are doing.


Originally posted by Calvarok:

I know that you probably would have liked for them to continue on exactly in that vein, gameplay wise, but the gaming industry is a tricky buisness. If you don't make major changes each game, the majority of people will hate you. And honestly, for 60$, they have a point.

Critics may bash you, but franchises only die when people change their original formula too much. Look at Modern Warfare, almost zero changes and they rake it in every year. Every year people gripe about "the same" but they turn right around and buy it. Once you stray too far from the formula and abandon your base, that's when you destroy a franchise.

Personally, I liked AC2. I would like to see a mix of 1 and 2 - or an Assassin's Creed that blends the best of the three and FOCUSES on a few key mechanics rather than have so many mechanics. Make pickpocketing an experience again. Tweak blending. Tweak notoriety so guards react more often. Get rid of bombs, assassins, crossbows, and axes and focus on less.


Originally posted by Calvarok:
I think that ultimately it was held back by not having enough people working on the game to make enough free-form sequences to go with the more linear ones. I'd consider this growing pains. They're trying to improve the presentation of the story, and a story is by nature linear.

Story is linear, but gameplay does not have to be. You don't have to be walled into invisible tightened Animus hallways doing missions a specific way.

I'm OK with growing pains, it's par for the course. But developers need people to be critical of them, to remind them of their roots. It's good for a franchise. It is up to fans to make sure Ubi knows that, "Hey, some things in AC1 worked great."

The LAST thing a franchise needs is a group of diehards who praise everything a company does and vehemently jump on every point of debate. In the long run, it never helps the company and in the short run, it gives their employees the confidence to shoot themselves.

Plus, critics are "Latest Greatest" type people. Their attention span is 15 hours. And there is way way way too much focus on story these days (check out reviews of Rage.) Gameplay matters. Fans need a check and balance on the pressure that critics place on studios. If IGN had their way, every game would be Modern Uncharted Warfare, and then they would write an article complaining how all games are the same these days?


Originally posted by Calvarok:
Brotherhood was definately worse because of it's overreliance on linearity, but it was still an interesting experience to see what could be accomplished with the narrative and presentation with more opportunity to give the player a cool scenario.

With multiplayer, I'd say it's definately worth 60$.

I don't play multiplayer. :P But yeah, I have heard that multiplayer justifies the price from people who do play online.

I'll give you that Brotherhood did a lot of experimentation. Companies need to do that, and some of it was great. For Revelations, it sounds like they have worked hard to hone those lessons into good gameplay.

But I get this sense that many at Ubisoft look on the first game with some disdain, and fans need to speak up and say: "Hey, this was a good game, we'd like to see this aspect return or bring that back." Or in my case, "Hey, Ubi, Rome is much smaller. Add six months to your release schedule and give me a bigger world," or "Bring back pickpocketing."

In fact, I think debates which focus on "what the core Assassin's Creed experience is" (AC1 vs AC2 vs ACB) are much more productive than debates whether Desmond's face is different because of Animus bleed. And the more specific the complaint, the better.

Animuses
10-05-2011, 01:28 PM
@luckyto
Aspects from the first AC definitely needs to come back. You can't ignore the game that started it all.

luckyto
10-05-2011, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by Animuses:
@luckyto
Aspects from the first AC definitely needs to come back. You can't ignore the game that started it all.

And as long as a group of fans keep discussing those things - being specific and avoiding generic "Brotherhood sucks" (yeah, i know i'm guilty sometimes) - we can influence people who can make a difference like commentators, employees at Ubi and critics who may check out forums.

and thank you

joelsantos24
10-05-2011, 02:36 PM
Originally posted by Calvarok:
I think it's gotten confusing because I have a habit of quoting someone, and responding to something they said, and then,in the same post, going off on a tangent about something, when I'm not really meaning to be talking directly to that person any more. It's just my musings. Sorry about that.
No problem whatsoever, it 's all cool. I apologize if I seemed/sounded awkward or improper myself. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


Originally posted by Animuses:
@luckyto
Aspects from the first AC definitely needs to come back. You can't ignore the game that started it all.
Totally agreed. One of the aspects on which many people focus their criticism, is the somewhat repetitiveness of some thematics (and the specifics within them), but I am very fond of the "save citizen" situations. Obviously Ubisoft would have to include much more variability, on the people in need of rescue, their speech, their behaviour, etc. Another aspect which I absolutely love, are the glitches during specific parts of the action, on which we can change the angle of the camera, so to speak, and partake of a better view on what is going on. I miss particularly those long dialogues between Alta´r and his soon-to-pass target (a situation on which the clitches also occur, giving us a direct look on the target talking), providing us a better understanding of the conspiracy and/or the reasons for doing what he did. Do not know if anyone else agrees...

Jexx21
10-05-2011, 03:29 PM
I personally liked ACB the best because of all the new stuff and stuff to play around with. The crossbow, the recruits, the stuff from AC2, and I'm gonna love the bombs.

I personally think that ACB is actually more sandbox like in a way. Sure, AC1 didn't tell you how to assassinate him, just to go do it. But, we all know there were only really one option for a really satisfying kill. The Hidden Blade. Anything else felt lame to me, especially if you were trying to be sneaky.

Actually, I never played AC1 not trying to be sneaky. I'll do that next time I play it, I'll just storm in, destroy every guard, and take out my target in an epic sword battle.

Maybe you are talking about the path to the target? I honestly don't feel that much of a difference on the freedoms of that from AC1 through ACB. In AC1 I always tried to stay moderately close to my target anyway.

If you mean the desynchronizations if you get caught, I guess I can understand that. But honestly, getting caught would be a bad thing in real life, and I honestly never minded the desyncs. Sometimes I wish AC1 had them, like when I screw up when I'm trying to be sneaky :P

But then again, AC2 and ACB offer plenty of opportunities for you to do whatever you want. You don't have to get 100% sync to complete the mission ya know. It's just there to provide a stricter guideline and a hint to people on what to do.

As for the crowd behaviors? I personally like the ones in AC2 and ACB than AC1, because when you killed someone in front of people in AC1, their AI sometimes just had them running in circles, around your area. But the ones in AC2 and ACB generally ran away. I'm not entirely sure what I would personally do if I just randomly came upon a dead body in a street, but I don't really think I would run away..

As for the long talks that you have with your targets? I personally didn't like those, seeing as they actually really bored me. It was all generally the same stuff too, except for that executioner guy who just killed people for giggles.

Expanding on what I said before about the weapons, while the standard Sword, Hidden Blade, Fists and Dagger+Knives was fun, it wasn't really enough. I want the poison, the smoke bombs, the hidden gun, the crossbow, the bombs. I want the Assassin recruits, I want all those things. If an Assassin's Creed game takes them out without replacing them with something just as or more fun, that's the day I'll pass on an AC game. All these items are there to provide more options to the player on how to play the game. You guys are the ones that want more freedom to play the way you want to? If you want to play like Altiar, with just knives, a hidden blade, fists, and a sword, feel free to. Nothings stopping you. But not including the other things is stopping others.

As for the issues of the cities, I didn't really like the ones in AC1 as much as Rome, Florence, Venice, Forli, San Gimigano, or Monterigionni. I thought they all looked too much alike, but tried a little too hard to make them look different by giving them a very colored atmosphere. Granted, AC2 has the colored atmospheres too, but the cities still looked different in architecture, how well they are taken care of, etc. Also ACB still had a little bit of the colored atmosphere, but at least it wasn't that noticeable, I certainly didn't notice it, beyond the change of a Borgia controlled district to a free one. Also, the size of the city doesn't really matter that much IMO, especially in AC1 where they felt mostly the same nowhere matter you went in it. ACB had a more diversive city in Rome. It had ruins, countryside, and a main city district. It actually felt different when you went to different places, unlike in AC1, and admittedly AC2 (besides Venice and it's Carnevale district, it didn't feel that different). Actually scratch the thing out about the cities in AC1 looking the same no matter which district. The Rich, Poor, and Middle districts DID look different, but they still pretty much looked the same in each city.

I could go into a bunch more things, like story, character development, the graphics, etc. but I feel like I talked about those already enough.

Also, note that I'm not actually trying to rag on AC1. I love AC1, I love AC2, and I love ACB. I just like ACB the best because of my personal opinions, just like you like AC1 the best because of your personal opinions. The only reason I said that your a minority group is because I felt insulted by you when you were trying to prove AC1 as being better than my favorite AC game of ACB, as if you were calling my opinions stupid.

Just an example that I remember that makes me feel insulted when someone attempts to talk bad about ACB is when Sarari called ACB uncalled for, that it added some things, but that it was just plain horrible. That's practically just a slap to my face for liking ACB.

luckyto
10-05-2011, 03:37 PM
I'd like to see "Save Citizens" come back. I was playing the Sunday night and thought I'd like to see them time out and maybe generate more randomly. Of course, I'd like the Borgia Towers to time out also. By time out, I mean that they reset after a certain period of time. So as you moved along in the game, citizen's you saved earlier would reappear in the same or different location and need help again. (Or Tower Captains return.) That way the environment is constantly changing, even after you've beaten the game.

The Random Events engine that the developers keep talking about for REVELATIONS sounds really sweet. "Save Citizens" would be a nice one to incorporate into that system. Let's hope. Constantinople maybe the best location yet.

Jexx21
10-05-2011, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
I'd like to see "Save Citizens" come back. I was playing the Sunday night and thought I'd like to see them time out and maybe generate more randomly. Of course, I'd like the Borgia Towers to time out also. By time out, I mean that they reset after a certain period of time. So as you moved along in the game, citizen's you saved earlier would reappear in the same or different location and need help again. (Or Tower Captains return.) That way the environment is constantly changing, even after you've beaten the game.

The Random Events engine that the developers keep talking about for REVELATIONS sounds really sweet. "Save Citizens" would be a nice one to incorporate into that system. Let's hope. Constantinople maybe the best location yet.

Sure, ignore my super huge post -.-

Anyway, I think they confirmed a while ago that the Random Events included Saving Citizens.

I mean, we get stalkers that will stab us, I'm pretty sure they're putting in distressed Citizens. But I think that they were in ACB, as the people you recruited as Assassin recruits. In fact, I think that's what they were basically, just with weapons. Citizens against the Borgia, and they would either die from fighting the guards if you didn't do anything. I hope that in ACR some of the citizens won't be people fighting against the guards and are just being harassed. But also they might die, which I hope the engine can do.

You see, ACB used some things from AC1 also. Like the people that would grab guards that were chasing after you. I mean, they even blended Altiar's robes and Ezio's AC2 robes with a Roman flair to make Ezio's ACB robes. I always felt like ACB was more of a combination of AC1 and AC2 in terms of some things.

But yea, I personally think ACR is going to be the best AC game also, continuing the trend of getting better with each game. (IMO)

luckyto
10-05-2011, 03:50 PM
sorry, saw it after posting...


Jexx:

Also, note that I'm not actually trying to rag on AC1. I love AC1, I love AC2, and I love ACB. I just like ACB the best because of my personal opinions, just like you like AC1 the best because of your personal opinions. The only reason I said that your a minority group is because I felt insulted by you when you were trying to prove AC1 as being better than my favorite AC game of ACB, as if you were calling my opinions stupid.

Opinions are just opinions. Just because one person calls something you like stupid doesn't make you stupid. People just have to accept that people have different tastes in the world. I don't fault you for liking ACB, anymore than I fault people who like some TV show that I don't. You have your reasons, I have mine. Share them. Someone may not like mine, but in the end, I don't care.

I'm old enough to know that for any one thing, the world is so big that there is someone else out there who believes totally opposite.

Though - you are stupid for only playing AC1 stealthy. JK.... totally kidding http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I do have a question, would you really not play AC games if they didn't have bombs, recruits and poison darts?

Jexx21
10-05-2011, 03:52 PM
Not so much poison darts. I honestly don't really use the darts that much. But the recruits have proved insanely useful and fun, and the bombs look like something that I'll love to use for a more strategical play-style.

luckyto
10-05-2011, 03:54 PM
Tell the truth, you would play. You would buy the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just like I'll buy Revelations even if it is more like Brotherhood than AC1.

Jexx21
10-05-2011, 03:57 PM
Originally posted by luckyto:
Tell the truth, you would play. You would buy the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just like I'll buy Revelations even if it is more like Brotherhood than AC1.

It depends on what kind of game it was, and if it replaced the recruits and bombs with something else more interesting.

A main non-portable system game? maybe, if it replaces them with something else
A portable system game? depends, I normally play these to kill time, so since it's AC most likely

A spin-off? Sure, as long as it provides something to replace the recruits and bombs

Toxotes47
10-06-2011, 06:35 AM
I would really like the pickpocket missions to come back as they were in AC1. Always thought that acquiring money was already too easy in AC2 and ACB without picking pockets. Brotherhood had a couple of such missions in war machines and one in targets to assassinate I think. Obviously there frequency need to be reduced from AC1, but I believe pickpocket missions must solely be there to steal documents or plant false evidence etc.

Yeah the cities in AC1 were not that diverse, but what I liked that part where you had to blend in to enter a city and I'd like to see that again, but it shouldn't be limited to scholars only.

RunningDeerSCHS
10-06-2011, 12:45 PM
POP_WW your obviously a huge Assassin's 1 fan, but I have to lean with Calvarok a little more toward AC2 was better than 1 and Brotherhood is almost as good as AC2. I also want to say that AC:B is worth the 60 imo.

@Taxotes I like that idea about bringing back the pickpocket miches from AC1. It adds an element of thrill rather than you always get the money and all you risk a fight with a civilian. I'm thinking there should be a main foe, you know, one that Ezio is working to dismantle, and then maybe like an independent force to police social behavior who you can fight or kill, but pose tricky consequences if your wrong or rewards if you're right, like unlocking a herald either enact a law or repeal a law and watch the AC community be in harmony or fall to anarchy or any one of maybe 9 or 10 settings.

@Jexx I like your sig.

joelsantos24
10-06-2011, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Jexx21:
(...)

Also, note that I'm not actually trying to rag on AC1. I love AC1, I love AC2, and I love ACB. I just like ACB the best because of my personal opinions, just like you like AC1 the best because of your personal opinions. The only reason I said that your a minority group is because I felt insulted by you when you were trying to prove AC1 as being better than my favorite AC game of ACB, as if you were calling my opinions stupid.

Just an example that I remember that makes me feel insulted when someone attempts to talk bad about ACB is when Sarari called ACB uncalled for, that it added some things, but that it was just plain horrible. That's practically just a slap to my face for liking ACB.
Obviously, you are an intelligent person, so I believe in does not fit, in that logic, to consider that one is somehow regarding you (and/or your opinions) as stupid, merely because one has opposing views/opinions to your's. But obviously I apologize if I somehow sounded improper in the conveying of my opinions.

Keep in mind that all that I have, are opinions, nothing more, nothing less, much like you or anybody else, for that matter. I do not judge people. Their actions, views, opinions, principles and values, are their responsibility alone. But I honestly believe is not right, nor is it fair really, to cast that sort of responsibility onto others, as if it was their fault that you took offense with their opinions simply because those were opposing to your's.

Moving along... I agree, in what regards the pickpocket missions, they were always interesting and cool to play. Also, eavesdropping and informant missions should also feature in Revelations, in my humble opinion, since these have always been interesting ways to gain information and learn more about our opponents/targets. One thing I absolutely hated in Brotherhood though, was the way in which the assassination contracts were organized and/or assembled. I think if there must be assassination contracts, then let us be the one's to carry them out, and not the brotherhood.

Assassin_M
10-06-2011, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by POP_WW_2008:

Obviously, you are an intelligent person, so I believe in does not fit, in that logic, to consider that one is somehow regarding you (and/or your opinions) as stupid, merely because one has opposing views/opinions to your's. But obviously I apologize if I somehow sounded improper in the conveying of my opnions.

Keep in mind that all that I have, are opinions, nothing more, nothing less, much like you or anybody else, for that matter. I do not judge people. Their actions, views, opinions, principles and values, are their responsibility alone. But I honestly believe is not right, nor is it fair really, to cast that sort of responsibility onto others, as if it was their fault that you took offense with their opinions simply because those were opposing to your's.
^This http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif