View Full Version : Ac ii vs ac iii

01-02-2013, 10:43 AM
It's kinda weird to ask this question, but i really want to know what all the fans of Assassin's Creed series think about this topic. Just let me know which game you prefer and why?
AC3 is a game with big budget, development time and effort but is bigger always better? I can replay AC2 without ever getting tired of it, but can't say the same for ac3.

A list of what I think are stronger grounds for AC2:
1)Long and amazing story, Will take you about 16-18 hours to do a speedrun. AC3 speed run won't last for more than 7-8 hours.
2) Amazing soundtrack on AC2, AC3 soundtracks are great but AC2 is better.
3) Awesome NPC's or side-characters, in AC3 side characters are boring
4) F***** awesome main character, EZIO the best assassin who walked on earth fictionally! Connor is ill-tempered and nothing short of a *****!
5) Mission variety was awesome, 100 main story missions with 6 tomb missions, templar lair missions, no fu**** optional adjective on to get full synchronization and tonnes of extra content.
And a lot more....

AC3 is a great game, i so badly wanted to love this game more than AC2, but it's just not what I expected an assassin's creed game to be.
Maybe I am wrong, after all humans make mistakes. Please let me know why u think which game is better?

01-02-2013, 11:12 AM
I agree, mostly.

The games: ACIII is "okay" (imo), whereas ACII was great.

Important difference: The cities of ACII were awesome, especially Venice. In ACIII there is no equivalent to them. Boston and New York in their historic state are "interesting" - just nothing spectacular, "magic" about them like with cities of Renaissance Italy (Brotherhood's Rome wasn't bad either...).
Of course the Frontier in ACIII is spectacular in it's own way. But the game doesn't manage to link enough unique gameplay with it, or use it enough for the story (which generally is rather weak, I think, with Connor winning the American Revolution almost on his own :().

I too liked the gameplay of the tombs/lairs - nothing like that in ACIII. And I agree that in ACIII the criteria for "Full Synch" are arbitrary most of the time and often quite tedious to achieve (unfair?). There is no fun in striving to fulfill them - in Brotherhood it tended to be fun sometimes, even if in that there also were some "unfair" Full-Synch missions...

What I miss since 'Revelations' (which should have been omitted completely..): optional challenges like Subject 16's brainteasers.
Soundtrack: In my opinion ACIII's soundtrack is okay. Average, with the occasional really good piece. ACII's soundtrack was so good that it lifted up the whole game.

It seems Ubisoft lost their way with the AC series.

01-02-2013, 11:37 AM
Connor is GAY, he likes Native Amrican Males only! lol

01-02-2013, 02:40 PM
In AC II you have a story set in a certain historical background, with the Templars vs Assassins conflict being in the centre of events. In AC III you have a historical period and its protagonists to dominate the whole story, with Templars and Assassins being thrown in between to justify the title. AC III feels more like fragments of events thrown in and connected together, in a clumsy, sometimes, way.

01-03-2013, 02:00 PM
Good points Ferrith --

Overall I agree with the many sentiments in this thread. AC2 is so much better than AC3 it's not even close.

* Soundtrack is better in AC2 by a LOT.
* Exceedingly better character development in AC2 from Ezio to the supporting cast.
* While I like Connor's fighting style and system, I hate his character development. He comes off like a robot. Very little emotional development. By the end of the game he is 27 and hasn't had so much as a blip on the radar as far as a female counterpart -- sorry but no guy gets to age 27 without having at least some emotional interest in the opposite sex (or same sex if they are gay).
* The assassins vs. templar battle was at the heart of the game in AC2 -- for AC3 it was a side item at best.
* Assassination contracts in AC2 tied in to the main storyline -- the AC3 side missions are just a waste of time for the most part having very little impact on the game's storyline.
* I absolutely detested the way each memory sequence at the beginning would force you to watch an urgent cut scene where it seemed like Connor had to immediately run off to complete it because a village was being attacked to force his people off the land, etc. etc. -- AC2 would just have an exclamation point on the map so you could start primary mission storylines in a given sequence when you were ready -- the unnecessary urgency of some of the initial sequence cutscenes made it so the side story wouldn't flow very well for the player.
* The main story itself was incredibly disjointed and did not flow very well even on its own.
* Missions were more fun and you had an open world as far as the way you wanted to perform the missions whereas in AC3 everything is scripted. You have to do everything a certain way or you either desync and have to start over or you fail a bunch of idiotic optional objectives.

Apparently Ubisoft put a senior development crew on the AC3 project -- sorry, but I'm not impressed. Please bring back the crews that worked on AC2 & ACB because those two games were by FAR the best games in the series.

Edit: SP