PDA

View Full Version : Release improved version of AC1!



crash3
04-10-2011, 12:37 PM
Despite the many flaws AC1 had, i somehow feel as if we as gamers havent fully experienced Altairs life in the Crusades

I think that AC1 should be re-released with improved graphics/gameplay and should combine AC1 and AC bloodlines storylines to make a more thorough, indepth storyline to Altair

the storylines should be tweaked however and not be repetitive-a whole new varied storyline should be made, just with the same assassination targets

id certainly buy it if AC1 was re-released

(AC2 would be good to redevelop as well in terms of graphics and combat)

who agrees?

PirateRob
04-10-2011, 12:49 PM
Why?

Blind2Society
04-10-2011, 01:18 PM
I like the idea with AC1 improved and combined with bloodlines... I would buy it. However, I think ACII is just fine. It would be cool to play it with all the new control options and fight system but it would be a waste of time IMO

phil.llllll
04-10-2011, 01:29 PM
Bloodlines was absolute trash. I'm completely against this idea as AC1's story was fantastic as is.

Not that it makes much sense anyway - the current games push consoles to the limits so I don't see how they're going to improve the graphics any - besides the tweaks they made to brotherhood but then again, they're not going to rerelease a game just for that.

Oatkeeper
04-10-2011, 02:43 PM
honestly it sounds kind of like a downgrade since AC1 is still my favorite overall experience as the games go. AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story and gameplay. (well gameplay is arguable, since My main complaint is more in the direction of design)

Blind2Society
04-10-2011, 02:51 PM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:
Bloodlines was absolute trash. I'm completely against this idea as AC1's story was fantastic as is.

Not that it makes much sense anyway - the current games push consoles to the limits so I don't see how they're going to improve the graphics any - besides the tweaks they made to brotherhood but then again, they're not going to rerelease a game just for that.

I loved AC1 but everytime I try to replay it I quit. I can't stand the slow clmbing and lame fighting. These are the only things I would change along with the addition of bloodlines. I've never played bloodlines as it looks kinda dumb but I assumed that was just because it's a psp game. And remakes aren't always bad. I've been dying for a FF7 and FF8 remake for years.

SAVMATIC
04-10-2011, 02:58 PM
I would love to buy a revamped version of AC1, and considering they could make money off that with little investment, it actually makes sense for them to do.
I would like this because AC1 isnt very enjoyable to people who started with AC2. I couldnt play it for very long and still havent finished it, because the gameplay is pretty terrible compared to the new style. Lots of repetitive and boring missions...i put up with it once or twice but after that it was totally ruining the gameplay experience. Graphics are fine, and storywise I cant really say, but I would definitely buy this if thats the main question.

dxsxhxcx
04-10-2011, 03:41 PM
I would like to see this being released someday too, in my opinion if it wasn't for the repetitive gameplay, AC1 would be the best AC game, the "atmosphere" of that game is awesome, it only lacks a better gameplay (and subtitles!!! I needed to watch the videos with subtitles on youtube to understand the story... lol)...

crash3
04-10-2011, 04:18 PM
Originally posted by dxsxhxcx:
I would like to see this being released someday too, in my opinion if it wasn't for the repetitive gameplay, AC1 would be the best AC game, the "atmosphere" of that game is awesome, it only lacks a better gameplay (and subtitles!!! I needed to watch the videos with subtitles on youtube to understand the story... lol)...

part of the re-developing of AC1 would be that they make a new improved storyline with lots of variety (perhaps i wasnt clear at first) that was the main incentive behind my idea coz as so many people have said they loved the game except for the repetitive gameplay

also the graphics can easily be improved-look at other third person open world games and compare them to the AC games for example Red Dead Redemption-its got much better graphics so the improvements CAN be made

UrDeviant1
04-10-2011, 07:05 PM
Re-releasing an updated version of AC1 as a stand alone game and charging full price for it....really? maybe if they were dumb

Ureh
04-10-2011, 07:07 PM
I guess this idea is possible if they really wanted to do it. I especially support improved gameplay which is what it really needs.

I was thinking maybe instead of remaking AC1, they make an expansion about Altair's later years (which might include flashbacks to his early years). It'd be pretty interesting to be the one responsible for stopping Genghis Khan's conquest and it'd also help clarify on some plot points.

It would also be interesting to know what was/is Adha's purpose. Why was she called the Chalice?

UrDeviant1
04-10-2011, 07:24 PM
A chalice is sometimes refered to as a vessel so maybe she is a vessel for something, im not at all sure but it would be interesting to know more about for sure.

dxsxhxcx
04-10-2011, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by Ureh:
I guess this idea is possible if they really wanted to do it. I especially support improved gameplay which is what it really needs.

I was thinking maybe instead of remaking AC1, they make an expansion about Altair's later years (which might include flashbacks to his early years). It'd be pretty interesting to be the one responsible for stopping Genghis Khan's conquest and it'd also help clarify on some plot points.


I was thinking about this too.. but the "problem" is, according to the AC wiki it wasn't Altair who killed Genghis Khan, it was an assassin called Qulan Gal (one of the other assassins who has a statue in the sanctuary) and we don't know the relation he had with Altair, so we couldn't play with him (at least not being Desmond) or even with Altair if by that time one of the sons he had were the one who would be Desmond's ancestor, so we would only be able to see his son's memories during that timeline if that was the case...

Ureh
04-10-2011, 08:08 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 Ureh:
I guess this idea is possible if they really wanted to do it. I especially support improved gameplay which is what it really needs.

I was thinking maybe instead of remaking AC1, they make an expansion about Altair's later years (which might include flashbacks to his early years). It'd be pretty interesting to be the one responsible for stopping Genghis Khan's conquest and it'd also help clarify on some plot points.


I was thinking about this too.. but the "problem" is, according to the AC wiki it wasn't Altair who killed Genghis Khan, it was an assassin called Qulan Gal (one of the other assassins who has a statue in the sanctuary) and we don't know the relation he had with Altair, so we couldn't play with him (at least not being Desmond) or even with Altair if by that time one of the sons he had were the one who would be Desmond's ancestor, so we would only be able to see his son's memories during that timeline if that was the case... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't played ac2 in months but if my memory serves me correctly, qulan gal's pedastal explains that he killed the khan's horse not the khan himself. I could be wrong though. But you're right in that if Altair didn't have anymore kids after that we wouldn't be able to see the memory from Altair's pov. Which might not be as intetesting...

dxsxhxcx
04-10-2011, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by Ureh:
<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 Ureh:
I guess this idea is possible if they really wanted to do it. I especially support improved gameplay which is what it really needs.

I was thinking maybe instead of remaking AC1, they make an expansion about Altair's later years (which might include flashbacks to his early years). It'd be pretty interesting to be the one responsible for stopping Genghis Khan's conquest and it'd also help clarify on some plot points.


I was thinking about this too.. but the "problem" is, according to the AC wiki it wasn't Altair who killed Genghis Khan, it was an assassin called Qulan Gal (one of the other assassins who has a statue in the sanctuary) and we don't know the relation he had with Altair, so we couldn't play with him (at least not being Desmond) or even with Altair if by that time one of the sons he had were the one who would be Desmond's ancestor, so we would only be able to see his son's memories during that timeline if that was the case... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I haven't played ac2 in months but if my memory serves me correctly, qulan gal's pedastal explains that he killed the khan's horse not the khan himself. I could be wrong though. But you're right in that if Altair didn't have anymore kids after that we wouldn't be able to see the memory from Altair's pov. Which might not be as intetesting... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Qulan_Gal

you're right... he shot his horse and not him...

now I imagined a cutscene where we would see Altair injured on the ground in the middle of a battle, his son (Desmond's ancestor) near to him trying to protect him from the enemies, Genghis Khan coming their way by horse to kill them and then Qualn Gal appear and shot the horse saving both of them, then Altair' son "finish the job"... it would be cool.. lol

phil.llllll
04-10-2011, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
honestly it sounds kind of like a downgrade since AC1 is still my favorite overall experience as the games go. AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story and gameplay. (well gameplay is arguable, since My main complaint is more in the direction of design)

I would agree. Especially about the story and gameplay. Speaking about gameplay not that it was dumbed down but the direction it took seemed like they're were playing it safe by going for a working GTA type design instead of further improving on AC1's design (which was great if slightly flawed and which they all but completely ditched for AC2).


Originally posted by Blind2Society:
I loved AC1 but everytime I try to replay it I quit. I can't stand the slow clmbing and lame fighting. These are the only things I would change along with the addition of bloodlines. I've never played bloodlines as it looks kinda dumb but I assumed that was just because it's a psp game. And remakes aren't always bad. I've been dying for a FF7 and FF8 remake for years.

The climbing was slow because unlike AC2 it didn't need to be fast. The buildings are all relatively short and can be climbed fairly quickly without need for fast climb.


Originally posted by crash3:
part of the re-developing of AC1 would be that they make a new improved storyline with lots of variety (perhaps i wasnt clear at first) that was the main incentive behind my idea coz as so many people have said they loved the game except for the repetitive gameplay

also the graphics can easily be improved-look at other third person open world games and compare them to the AC games for example Red Dead Redemption-its got much better graphics so the improvements CAN be made

But that's what a lot of people are saying. The story in the first is great, there's no need to change it. Also RDR doesn't have complex cities with over a 100 AI on screen at any one point which is why they're able to make those barren landscapes more detailed.

Blind2Society
04-10-2011, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:
The climbing was slow because unlike AC2 it didn't need to be fast. The buildings are all relatively short and can be climbed fairly quickly without need for fast climb.
For the most part you're right. However, the towers were quite tall and climbing them sucked. It wasn't bad the first time I played when it was released but that was because I didn't know any different. I remember loving the AC1 story and all but when I return to play it, I soon quit do to the outdated controls and mechanics. I have played and beat AC1 multiple times since its release however. Just not recently.

ACII, on the other hand, is great fun to replay even without combo kills. The one thing I don't like is all the traveling for one lone treasure/flag/feather. That got real old real quick. Also the towers in Forli sucked.

Oatkeeper
04-10-2011, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by phil.llllll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
honestly it sounds kind of like a downgrade since AC1 is still my favorite overall experience as the games go. AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story and gameplay. (well gameplay is arguable, since My main complaint is more in the direction of design)

I would agree. Especially about the story and gameplay. Speaking about gameplay not that it was dumbed down but the direction it took seemed like they're were playing it safe by going for a working GTA type design instead of further improving on AC1's design (which was great if slightly flawed and which they all but completely ditched for AC2).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats Kind of what I was saying. I say Gameplay was dumbed down because of a few reasons. The biggest one is that AC2 and ACB require nowhere near the amount of reacting to the situation. The assasinations are mostly linear and scripted, Targets rarely run, and there is often a specific way the game wants you to do it otherwise you HAVE to restart. Escaping guards is as easy as climbing a building. and pickpocketing is useless and replaces the intense moments of "OH shi- walk slow and hope I dont get seen"

and while AC1 combat was lacking in AI, the guards at least where able to get you close to death, break your block, and keep looking for you even after you hide (seriuosly, al lot of time the guards that are SUPPOSED to check hiding spots just stand still with the basic guards wherever they where when you jumped in the heystack, at least in AC1 the guards would continue looking and raise their awareness)

overall i think AC1s only real flaw was mission variety, and that never bothered me becuase I knew those investigations where leading up to and preparing me for the Assassination whish was and should be the focus of the game.

Not to mention that nothing in AC2 or ACB Singleplayer has been anywhere near as intense as getting caught at the wrong time by my own fault (not because of some cut-scene bull), having to instantly change strategy and chase down the target putting my parkour to the real test. AND then I have to make it to a single safehouse while an entire city of guards are on high alert looking for me. Its just something the other games are lacking, the stuff that makes the player have to react to situations and use the stealth mechanics the game invented.

AC2 refined the stealth and added more tools. bu never gave the player incentive to use either aside from when it wanted to force you to use them. AC1 only gave you bare bones but it required you to use them all (except perhaps fists) too some degree and master them all to be truly affective.

phil.llllll
04-11-2011, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
Thats Kind of what I was saying. I say Gameplay was dumbed down because of a few reasons. The biggest one is that AC2 and ACB require nowhere near the amount of reacting to the situation. The assasinations are mostly linear and scripted, Targets rarely run, and there is often a specific way the game wants you to do it otherwise you HAVE to restart. Escaping guards is as easy as climbing a building. and pickpocketing is useless and replaces the intense moments of "OH shi- walk slow and hope I dont get seen"

and while AC1 combat was lacking in AI, the guards at least where able to get you close to death, break your block, and keep looking for you even after you hide (seriuosly, al lot of time the guards that are SUPPOSED to check hiding spots just stand still with the basic guards wherever they where when you jumped in the heystack, at least in AC1 the guards would continue looking and raise their awareness)

Agreed. Overall, I actually like combat in AC1 better than 2/B for a lot of the reasons you mentioned (like actually being able to die in the first one if not careful) and overall it was just better balanced than 2 and B (in ACB Ezio is basically a superhero).


Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
overall i think AC1s only real flaw was mission variety, and that never bothered me becuase I knew those investigations where leading up to and preparing me for the Assassination whish was and should be the focus of the game.

Exactly. Plus even if they were mostly the same in all cities the assassination required only - what 2 at most, and 3 in some of the later ones. It never bothered me at all to be honest becuase while the missions stayed the same the information taken from each is different every time and if used properly can make for some pretty cool moments during the actual assassination missions. Some of the assassinations then had that sort of puzzle aspect where one had to decide how to tackle each place, not just from the infomation collected during the investigations but there was a lot of improvising to be had as well.

Also if you're playing the pc version, if only certain missions are picked in each city it's possible to get different ones each time with minimal repeating.


Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
Not to mention that nothing in AC2 or ACB Singleplayer has been anywhere near as intense as getting caught at the wrong time by my own fault (not because of some cut-scene bull), having to instantly change strategy and chase down the target putting my parkour to the real test. AND then I have to make it to a single safehouse while an entire city of guards are on high alert looking for me. Its just something the other games are lacking, the stuff that makes the player have to react to situations and use the stealth mechanics the game invented.

AC2 refined the stealth and added more tools. bu never gave the player incentive to use either aside from when it wanted to force you to use them. AC1 only gave you bare bones but it required you to use them all (except perhaps fists) too some degree and master them all to be truly affective.

That and other reasons (story, atmosphere, more realistic as opposed to a more cartoon art style as seen in the sequels, etc) is why AC1 will always rank above the others for me.

crash3
04-11-2011, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by UrDeviant1:
A chalice is sometimes refered to as a vessel so maybe she is a vessel for something, im not at all sure but it would be interesting to know more about for sure.

chalice/vessel means child barer in religious terms i think (see da vinci code) bu that wouldnt make sense as we saw altair conceive a child with maria hmm?

El_Sjietah
04-11-2011, 01:37 PM
Let's finish the trilogy first before we start changing it...

crash3
04-11-2011, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Let's finish the trilogy first before we start changing it...

it better not be a trilogy even if it goes past 2012 iwant the series to go on! theres so much to explore and so much storyline yet to unfold!

El_Sjietah
04-11-2011, 01:50 PM
The Desmond saga is confirmed to be a trilogy. There's bound to be a ton of spin offs after that though.

Oatkeeper
04-11-2011, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by crash3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
Let's finish the trilogy first before we start changing it...

it better not be a trilogy even if it goes past 2012 iwant the series to go on! theres so much to explore and so much storyline yet to unfold! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me tell you the story of a company named Activision. It all started with a game called Tony Hawk, Then came the Guitar Hero Series. It seems that Call of Duty is to be next in line.

Its fine to have a great ongoing game series, but there is a fine line between keeping a good franchise going and Running it into the ground.

Blind2Society
04-11-2011, 10:07 PM
Assassins's Creed is in a different galaxy than those games and has a far better chance of surviving.

UrDeviant1
04-12-2011, 06:56 AM
Maybe its in the Andromeda galaxy and moveing ever closer to certian destruction http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

crash3
04-12-2011, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
The Desmond saga is confirmed to be a trilogy. There's bound to be a ton of spin offs after that though.

hopefully-i dont mind finishing desmonds story then moving on to a new modern day assassin exploring his/her memories in the on-going struggle against the templars

desmonds story is to stop the satellite launch and activate the temples that doesnt mean the templars will be wiped out-they will always be seeking control so we play as new assassins in the ON-GOING struggle

i reackon that the series would still go strong even up to about 10 games-coz there is sooooo much potential yet in the series COD on the other hand as good as it is doesnt have that much left to improve-especially coz it has pratically no storyline in each one

Blind2Society
04-12-2011, 05:45 PM
COD is all about who's quicker on the trigger and it is great in it's on right (I hated black ops MP, loved story mode best COD story to date)
But it will survive along with AC I think, because it's still fun.

crash3
04-13-2011, 08:08 AM
Originally posted by Blind2Society:
COD is all about who's quicker on the trigger and it is great in it's on right (I hated black ops MP, loved story mode best COD story to date)
But it will survive along with AC I think, because it's still fun.

agree-COD i think has reached its peak of popularity/gameplay whereas i think AC could continue to improve for so many more games

Inorganic9_2
04-13-2011, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by phil.llllll:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
honestly it sounds kind of like a downgrade since AC1 is still my favorite overall experience as the games go. AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story and gameplay. (well gameplay is arguable, since My main complaint is more in the direction of design)

I would agree. Especially about the story and gameplay. Speaking about gameplay not that it was dumbed down but the direction it took seemed like they're were playing it safe by going for a working GTA type design instead of further improving on AC1's design (which was great if slightly flawed and which they all but completely ditched for AC2).

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats Kind of what I was saying. I say Gameplay was dumbed down because of a few reasons. The biggest one is that AC2 and ACB require nowhere near the amount of reacting to the situation. The assasinations are mostly linear and scripted, Targets rarely run, and there is often a specific way the game wants you to do it otherwise you HAVE to restart. Escaping guards is as easy as climbing a building. and pickpocketing is useless and replaces the intense moments of "OH shi- walk slow and hope I dont get seen"

and while AC1 combat was lacking in AI, the guards at least where able to get you close to death, break your block, and keep looking for you even after you hide (seriuosly, al lot of time the guards that are SUPPOSED to check hiding spots just stand still with the basic guards wherever they where when you jumped in the heystack, at least in AC1 the guards would continue looking and raise their awareness)

overall i think AC1s only real flaw was mission variety, and that never bothered me becuase I knew those investigations where leading up to and preparing me for the Assassination whish was and should be the focus of the game.

Not to mention that nothing in AC2 or ACB Singleplayer has been anywhere near as intense as getting caught at the wrong time by my own fault (not because of some cut-scene bull), having to instantly change strategy and chase down the target putting my parkour to the real test. AND then I have to make it to a single safehouse while an entire city of guards are on high alert looking for me. Its just something the other games are lacking, the stuff that makes the player have to react to situations and use the stealth mechanics the game invented.

AC2 refined the stealth and added more tools. bu never gave the player incentive to use either aside from when it wanted to force you to use them. AC1 only gave you bare bones but it required you to use them all (except perhaps fists) too some degree and master them all to be truly affective. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thiiiiiiiiiiis. One major point I always make is assassination variety. They shouldn't be linear and scripted! And the escapes too...they need to come back (and be awesome).

crash3
04-13-2011, 05:34 PM
ac1 had a certain element of danger AC2 and ACB didnt at all

Cr8zGamer
04-14-2011, 09:31 PM
I'm currently playing AC1 and in memory block 4, so far im enjoying it and REALLY wish Ubisoft take the time to make a trophy patch, I would really love that and i think im not the only one here that wants that in fact for some reason i dont see a thread on Assassin's Creed Trophies since Xbox has achievements which is so unfair

RzaRecta357
04-14-2011, 09:45 PM
I read up to the post about the boring fighting and quit.

The fighting was better in the first. I remember the first fight I had on AC2 I thought..sheesh. The swords don't have the same "Connecty" feel. The health bars suck.

Then we get bloodlines and it's like hey, now you can take on the entire game and just never stop.

ace3001
04-15-2011, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story Sorry about sorta derailing the thread (not by much, I hope), but could you please explain this? True, ACB's story wasn't the best when you consider Ezio's side of things, but I personally thought that AC2's story was pretty much amazing. IMO, in AC1, it was like this:
Altair screws up the mission to assassinate Robert and retrieve the apple.
Al Mualim tells Altair to kill 9 targets to redeem himself.
Altair kills them.
Robert, in his final moments, reveals that Al Mualim is a templar.
Altair goes and kills Al Mualim.
Could you summarize AC2's storyline like that? At least, without dropping significant portions?

crash3
04-15-2011, 04:43 AM
Originally posted by kolitha.kuruppu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story Sorry about sorta derailing the thread (not by much, I hope), but could you please explain this? True, ACB's story wasn't the best when you consider Ezio's side of things, but I personally thought that AC2's story was pretty much amazing. IMO, in AC1, it was like this:
Altair screws up the mission to assassinate Robert and retrieve the apple.
Al Mualim tells Altair to kill 9 targets to redeem himself.
Altair kills them.
Robert, in his final moments, reveals that Al Mualim is a templar.
Altair goes and kills Al Mualim.
Could you summarize AC2's storyline like that? At least, without dropping significant portions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

very nice summing up of the story but my initial idea was that the story was completely redone-yes you kill the same people but the storyline has the same sort of variety as AC2

lilbacchant
04-15-2011, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by kolitha.kuruppu:
IMO, in AC1, it was like this:
Altair screws up the mission to assassinate Robert and retrieve the apple.
Al Mualim tells Altair to kill 9 targets to redeem himself.
Altair kills them.
Robert, in his final moments, reveals that Al Mualim is a templar.
Altair goes and kills Al Mualim.
Could you summarize AC2's storyline like that? At least, without dropping significant portions?

You mean without dropping portions any more signifcant than the ones you left out for AC1?

Sure ....

- Bad people kill Ezio's father and two brothers and make Ezio very mad.
- Ezio meets up with Uncle Mario who has a cool Villa with a few secrets.
- Ezio meets a series of strangers who point and say, "Go kill!".
- Ezio does as he's told. [Side note: during said missions, Ezio is only allowed to play in the *Kid's Area*, and any attempts to go outside that area result in a stern, "No, only adults are allowed to go there!" from the game designers.]
- In the meantime, he develops a neato friendship with a wicked-smart dude named Leonardo.
- Ezio finds out those strangers were all assassins who say, "Want to join our club?" Ezio says, "Hey, cool beans. I'd love too."
- Ezio goes to kill the mastermind behind his father's and brothers' deaths. [Side note: even though he's a full-fledged assassin now, Ezio still can't play outside the *Kids Area*.]
- Instead of killing the big, bad spaniard, Ezio asks, "Killing, what is it good for?" and just has fisticuffs with him; but he does find a wicked-cool hologram that speaks.

phil.llllll
04-15-2011, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by kolitha.kuruppu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story Sorry about sorta derailing the thread (not by much, I hope), but could you please explain this? True, ACB's story wasn't the best when you consider Ezio's side of things, but I personally thought that AC2's story was pretty much amazing. IMO, in AC1, it was like this:
Altair screws up the mission to assassinate Robert and retrieve the apple.
Al Mualim tells Altair to kill 9 targets to redeem himself.
Altair kills them.
Robert, in his final moments, reveals that Al Mualim is a templar.
Altair goes and kills Al Mualim.
Could you summarize AC2's storyline like that? At least, without dropping significant portions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can't be serious. Really?

lilbacchant made a good point already but really I could probably take any piece of writing and dumb it down to bullet points while throwing out essential plot elements and themes.

crash3
04-16-2011, 10:07 AM
the quick buyllet pointing of the AC1 storyline proves that it could do with re-developing with more variety

dxsxhxcx
04-16-2011, 10:54 AM
Originally posted by crash3:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by El_Sjietah:
The Desmond saga is confirmed to be a trilogy. There's bound to be a ton of spin offs after that though.

hopefully-i dont mind finishing desmonds story then moving on to a new modern day assassin exploring his/her memories in the on-going struggle against the templars

desmonds story is to stop the satellite launch and activate the temples that doesnt mean the templars will be wiped out-they will always be seeking control so we play as new assassins in the ON-GOING struggle

i reackon that the series would still go strong even up to about 10 games-coz there is sooooo much potential yet in the series COD on the other hand as good as it is doesnt have that much left to improve-especially coz it has pratically no storyline in each one </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the only "modern day assassin" I would like to play after Desmond' story ends would be Subject 16... it would be interesting seeing which ancestors he visited before write those symbols in his/Desmond's room and kill himself, at least showing us Subject 16's life it would make more sense than just creating a new random assassin and a new apocalypse just to continue making money of the game and end up screwing up the story...

phil.llllll
04-16-2011, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by crash3:
the quick buyllet pointing of the AC1 storyline proves that it could do with re-developing with more variety

No it doesn't. As pointed out, anything can be broken down to bullet points.

Inorganic9_2
04-16-2011, 12:05 PM
I think the dumbed-down story point is correct, actually (at leas tin some places).

The things which Altaïr found out about his targets led him to question the morality of killing them constantly and whether what he was doing was right. Lucy was right with “it’s all so relative”. AC2 tried to remind us of that concept with the whole “good guys? We’re Assassins. That means we assassinate people” thing, but otherwise, it was all almost clear-cut “Templars = BAD Assassins = GOOD”.

Morality of the situation was always being blurred and questions in the first game.

phil.llllll
04-16-2011, 01:35 PM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
I think the dumbed-down story point is correct, actually (at leas tin some places).

The things which Altaïr found out about his targets led him to question the morality of killing them constantly and whether what he was doing was right. Lucy was right with “it’s all so relative”. AC2 tried to remind us of that concept with the whole “good guys? We’re Assassins. That means we assassinate people” thing, but otherwise, it was all almost clear-cut “Templars = BAD Assassins = GOOD”.

Morality of the situation was always being blurred and questions in the first game.

Exactly.

The first game's story was literally a reflection of the Assassin's Creed - it was very aptly named and really the only one deserving of it. It took certain world views and broke them down by showing an opposite though equally solid foundation. It constantly questioned what was right, what the truth was, and in the end showed the subjective nature of it all. Throughout this all their was Altaïr, always reasoning, putting forth his assumptions and growing throughout. Never have I come across a game that made me think as much, and was as well put together and presented, as the original Assassin's Creed.

Then came AC2, with the whole tagline "the truth is written in blood". I wouldn't have minded it really if what they put forth was interesting or coherent but all it boiled down to in the end was (as Inorganic mentioned) - assassin good, templar bad. Who knew the truth could be so generic and cliche? Nevermind that the main plot was pretty much a straight up revenge story with almost zero thought provoking material.

Don't me wrong, I still liked it (I'm mostly interested in what happens in the modern day parts at this point) and it was enjoyable in a way that certain movies are (the leave your brain at the door ones) but it can't even touch the first one, in my opinion.

RzaRecta357
04-16-2011, 01:48 PM
I also don't like what they did to the Nothing is true line.

In the first game it was meant as a guideline and you could really feel it.

In AC2 the assassin's sound like they think of it as....No Law can stop us and believe your own thing.


I don't know, I think I'm saying it wrong. I hope you guys get what I mean, haha.

crash3
04-16-2011, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by RzaRecta357:
I also don't like what they did to the Nothing is true line.

In the first game it was meant as a guideline and you could really feel it.

In AC2 the assassin's sound like they think of it as....No Law can stop us and believe your own thing.


I don't know, I think I'm saying it wrong. I hope you guys get what I mean, haha.

i get what you mean, AC1 was more theortical, talking about the idea of free will. whereas in AC2 the idea of free will was unconditional, almost enforced upon as in you have to be free which sort of contradicts itself

thats another reason why i want a better version of AC1 coz i miss the true sense of mystery and this philosophical/da vinci code kinda feel to the game

AC2 although it actuallly has da vinci in it, has a very linear plot-ACB even more so

Inorganic9_2
04-16-2011, 03:27 PM
I like the comment on the first game being exploring the Creed itself. II and Brotherhood seemed to feel the need to shove the moniker down your throat as a way of saying "we still care about the Creed you know!"

Whereas, when you find William of Montferrat or Garnier's reasonings for doing what they did:

"Stole their food? No. I merely took possession, so when the lean times came, it might be rationed properly." and the corresponding comment he makes about his conscription.

"Would you appease a crying child simply because he wails? But I want to play with fire, father" - One of the best reasons he gave for keeping the people against their will. Though he was brutal in his methodology (probably too much so), I do think his aims were noble.

Of course, these leave you wondering...'is it right that they died?' Then it is up to you to decide. You don't need to do that in II and Brotherhood.

lilbacchant
04-16-2011, 04:46 PM
If you paid attention to and cared about the story in AC1, you had to think like an open-minded adult.

In AC2 like a teenager.

AC:Brotherhood ... well, I'll let you be the judge as to what the story required.

Blind2Society
04-16-2011, 11:24 PM
Originally posted by lilbacchant:
in AC1, you had to think like an open-minded adult.

In AC2 like a teenager.

AC:Brotherhood ... well, I'll let you be the judge as to what the story required.
Now that I think about it you are quite right. As for Brotherhood I'm not totaly sure I had to really think at all. I guess it makes sense in a way, as the next logical step after going from adult to teen, is not thinking at all. Hopefully the next game comes full circle. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Oatkeeper
04-17-2011, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by kolitha.kuruppu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Oatkeeper:
AC2 and ACB had kind of dumbed down story Sorry about sorta derailing the thread (not by much, I hope), but could you please explain this? True, ACB's story wasn't the best when you consider Ezio's side of things, but I personally thought that AC2's story was pretty much amazing. IMO, in AC1, it was like this:
Altair screws up the mission to assassinate Robert and retrieve the apple.
Al Mualim tells Altair to kill 9 targets to redeem himself.
Altair kills them.
Robert, in his final moments, reveals that Al Mualim is a templar.
Altair goes and kills Al Mualim.
Could you summarize AC2's storyline like that? At least, without dropping significant portions? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
-Ezios Family gets killed
-Ezio kills all the men responsible as an act of revenge and uses a secret war as an excuse
-Aliens/Gods/TOWCB/OMGWTFBBQ

The story in AC1 required the player to be much more open minded and consider his targets intentions and methods. The templars where never bad guys, they simply had questionable methods that would still end in world peace, The assassins kill these high profile figures so people can POSSIBLY turn to peace on their own. The Templar dont believe people can/will unless forced.

In AC2 the templars where portrays as a bunch of power hungry men who didnt care about any end goal asideown personal gain. The only person who seemed to have a real reason for his actions was Rodrigo Borgia. The assassins where portrayed as the hero's and saviors of the people, not the people who "work in the dark to serve the light"

In brotherhood the major antagonist isn't even a Templar but a whiney boy who is upset that his father was not greedy enough.

Ezio was an established hero, While Altiar was a force to be reckoned with that fought a battle of morality.

Oatkeeper
04-17-2011, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by Blind2Society:
Assassins's Creed is in a different galaxy than those games and has a far better chance of surviving. AC has a better chance of surviving only becuase its a much more narrative based experience. And while the series has yet to have a bad console game, its easy to see the series is getting a bit unfocused.

So far its still a compelling experience, but if ubisoft wants to they can always keep trying to churn out the games for money it can easily go wrong. With Patrice gone I have even more reason to worry. Its certianly possible that AC will continue to give us good games, but it doesnt take much to go from "Sands of Time" to "Prince of Persia: 2008" (or whatever date that one came out)

crash3
04-19-2011, 08:55 AM
ac1 was a lot more thought provoking which made it an excellent game its just a shame about the repetitive missions, that why it should be made again with more variety

EnXess
04-19-2011, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by Inorganic9_2:
I think the dumbed-down story point is correct, actually (at leas tin some places).

The things which Altaïr found out about his targets led him to question the morality of killing them constantly and whether what he was doing was right. Lucy was right with “it’s all so relative”. AC2 tried to remind us of that concept with the whole “good guys? We’re Assassins. That means we assassinate people” thing, but otherwise, it was all almost clear-cut “Templars = BAD Assassins = GOOD”.

Morality of the situation was always being blurred and questions in the first game.

I would say you're right if it wasn't for one glaring issue. In the first game Lucy is pretending to be a templar and as such needs to open Desmond's mind to 'Assassins = Good' so that he will work for her whilst not alerting Vidic to what was going on. However in the second one Rebecca, Shaun and Lucy need Desmond and as such they'd cast little doubt in his mind, they were the ones who created the massive divide. The divide is a story point and is intentional, the Assassins would never let Desmond even think the Templars were the slightest bit good and that's why we see a divide.

crash3
04-20-2011, 03:51 AM
the bridge in the divide between good assassins and bad templars in ACB was the copernicus conspiracy where (spoiler) copernicus says he was a templar but again it isnt exactly thought provoking

gyigyogyigyo
04-21-2011, 07:45 AM
new graphics,? lol man just install ac1 and you gonna see AC1 grapics much better than broterhood!
only the physics is not...
just look desmond face in ac1 look nice near photorealistic, but ac2 and broterhood look terrible... less polygon.. and lucy too...
and the shadows, AC1 have sky interactive shadows but ac2 dont have in brotherhood have a litle..
and water in ac1 is realistic, reflect the shadow and places etc, but ac2 have a BLOOM effected water.... brotherhood have near ac1 water...

i think ac1 is the best ac, the story, and the places, and music too,graphics, but gameplay of course its little boring..
i really liked ac1 altair.. but in bloodlines ughh...

maybe if ubisoft make altair LATER life when he is 50 year old... and he use apple often... and maria gonna die.. and you need train your sons...
i think thats gonna be a good game... and ending gonna show you how exactly altair die... or what happened with him... when he last look inside the apple...

Inorganic9_2
04-21-2011, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by lilbacchant:
If you paid attention to and cared about the story in AC1, you had to think like an open-minded adult.

In AC2 like a teenager.

AC:Brotherhood ... well, I'll let you be the judge as to what the story required.

That's actually extremely accurate.

crash3
04-21-2011, 06:36 PM
we havent fully expolored altairs life yet we need to revisit him as a side game or something