The more time passes, the more disappointed I get in AC2 | Forums

[Farlander1991]

Huh, I didn't realise you were so disappointed by AC II

I want to focus on the part where I say 'as the time passes'. I.e. I'm disappointed with it in retrospective.

From a storyline perspective as a player, you play the game wondering where it's all leading - to end it on that note was a cliffhanger and a mindf***. That's not bad storytelling - that's great storytelling.

If we were to talk at the time of ACII's release, I would agree with you. I was so incredibly excited and thought, 'WOW, this is getting intense, how they're going to deal with two problems now?' But that's because there wasn't a big picture to look at, and now there is, and I can't call it great storytelling.

Seeing how Desmond's story that looks good on paper in general as a whole becomes this jumbled mess, kinda can't resist but look back and try to figure out how it went all wrong, and, honestly, ACII just looks at fault to me.

AC1 has introduced a very intriguing Satellite plotline (which plays on the main Assassin/Templar moral narrative), and has ended with the Templars having a map to all Pieces of Eden. What does AC2 do with that whole plotline that was set-up? Nothing. ACB doesn't know if it should focus on the Satellite narrative or Solar Flare narrative (since AC2 didn't do anything with the first one, it kinda tries to focus on both, the Apple being the answer to both prevent the Satellite launch and help with the Solar Flare thing), and AC3 shafts the Satellite plotline to an e-mail (because it has to resolve the apocalypse) and is resolved by sheer accident just because one of the characters happened to be kidnapped and had what we needed for the other main plotline. The main plotline introduced in the first game based on the philosophical differences between Assassins and Templars (with some sci-fi elements) gets shafted to an e-mail. "Vidic's dead so the satellite's cancelled". That's not great storytelling. And I hold AC2 responsible for that Having just one main plotline would bring a lot more cohesion to the modern day narrative (which can't have as much focus as the historical narrative).

The Satellite plotline was what had me intrigued with the Modern Day storyline (that, and it's launch date of 21st of December), back when I played the very first game. It's one of the things that made me say, 'you know what, I'm not confused as to why they didn't just make this a historical game, since this all can turn out to be really interesting'. So you can understand me when I'm quite disappointed with what we've got

Yeah, I sort of agree that AC 2's excuse of training Desmond was a bit weak, but I think that's easily remedied - It's heavily implied that the Assassins knew that an Apple of Eden came to Ezio.

Yes, but it is also implied so heavily to the point that it's almost stating it (Which is the only reason why they could kinda get away with a future retcon, that it wasn't explicitly stated) that AC2's apple of Eden was previously Altair's which we know from AC1 got destroyed, and with ACB they introduced a big plothole which they had to fix with another game - that being Revelations. I don't have anything against training Desmond in principle, I'm just saying that training Desmond is something that happens passively regardless of what we're looking for, so might as well look for things more relevant to the set-up plotline. And look at ze_topazio's post about the diary and everything, at least half of it was created after the fact of AC2 to add relevance to what's going on in there, but it still has nothing to do with the main plotline set up in AC1.

EDIT: Also, I have enough AC2 criticisms from gameplay perspective, but I have enough criticisms in that regard for almost every AC game, so what else is new?

[ze_topazio]

This is an ongoing story so details are revealed with each new chapter, different characters had different objectives, Abstergo was focused on the satellite plan, the Assassins were focused on surviving, Lucy was focused on gathering information for the Templars and Desmond was focused on stopping the solar flare from annihilating them all.

[TheHumanTowel]

If only Ubisoft would just say yes ;_;7 RIP in peace.

[Assassin_M]

1. NOTHING happens in the modern day main Assassin vs. Templar and their satellite plotline. A whole game developed for two years, and we only have escape from Abstergo and a few dialogs with secondary characters (that for the most part have nothing to do with said plotline), plus bleeding effect getting worse (but that, alongside the 'training to become an Assassin' doesn't need anything specific for it to happen). The plotline itself does not receive ANY progression. Not only that, but at the end of the game we're suddenly introduced to the second main plotline via a plot twist. People may argue how ACB, ACR, ACIII and the parallel development have ****ed things up in modern day story department. I won't necessarily disagree. But, honestly, the 'no plotline progression but inclusion of a new plotline' AC2 to me is the cause.

People can yap all day about how Revelations had little Modern day or about how AC III wrapped up everything in a crappy way, but no one ever stops to think what started this whole mess. AC II BARELY had any progression for the Modern day. It only introduced ANOTHER plot-line that made the whole thing convoluted. The satellite plot-line felt like an afterthought, like something they introduced and didn't like, so put it aside in favor of something else and even then, if introducing this new plot was REALLY necessary, they could'v connected it with the Satellite somehow, but no, they had to start over completely.
We had our apocalypse. we had our date, why start all over?

2. Subject 16's puzzles that connect tons of historical events and people to the Assassin vs. Templar conflict. Even back when AC2 was released I thought that maybe they went a little bit overboard with making so many things directly connected to said conflict. But, you know, it's still acceptable. But it feels like this has set up a trend where soon enough you can't find anything that doesn't have direct connection to Assassins/Templars, even the backstory of a fictional character (Edward got the farm he lived in burned due to a Templar plot, long before he went to the Caribbean and actually met Templars, seriously?!)

This didn't really bother me so much (But Edward getting his farm burned is stupid and I don't consider it canon) I liked how everything was connected to the Assassins and Templars. sure, it might seem contrived, but AC IS a conspiracy theorist's heaven on earth.

3. Ezio's story has no connection to the modern day plotline until the very last twist. In AC1 we've had a very specific purpose of going through Altair's memories (even though we as the player were not sure of why the Templars wanted the Apple/Templar treasure until we saw the map, we knew that they wanted it for something). In AC2 we go through Ezio's memories... because? Just taking AC2 into account, without further games and retcons, the whole thing with the Apple and Codex and Minerva happens by pure accident, just because the Assassin team was thinking 'let's just go forward and watch this'. I think that this disconnect plays a really big role in point #1. Sure, later down the line both Assassins and Templars want to find Ezio's apple (which, btw, was heavily implied to be Altair's lost apple in AC2, but that was a more or less easy retcon to fix, if you count a whole game's worth of storyline an easy retcon...), but, you know what? That's a reason that would be much more suited for AC2 which got nothing in that regard.

You could say that they were looking for the vault...etc, but that whole point is introduced so late in the game that you might as well stop caring. I mean okay, we're given a goal in the beginning, train Desmond to be an Assassin. that just loses its allure quickly, not to mention that it will be lost in getting immersed with Ezio's personal story.
by the time you're out of the Animus for the first time, Ezio just arrived in Venice...that's like..10 hours of the game, you most likely forgot why you were in there in the first place. "Oh training to be an Assassin" only THEN do they introduce the connection Ezio has with Modern day and we're still not given a reason why the Assassins would even want with the Vault. Lucy is a Templar and okay, these guys want to search every THING that has to do with TWCB, but why would the Assassins like Shaun and Rebecca go with it?

4. And while not AC2's fault directly, the thing with AC2's 23 years of life, the prequel movie, the following Ezio spin-offs and the final animation short have all played a role in trend and expectation that annoys me a lot lately - that being the expectation to see every main character's full life story. And you know, nowadays that's a fair expectation because there was precedent. But I really wish that there wasn't one.

Yeah, I hate it when someone asks for closure on Connor's life in the shape of his death and people go "closure doesn't mean death" yes it does, actually and Ubisoft put that standard, don't blame the fans of a character who only want the same treatment that EVERY OTHER Assassin Protagonist had (barring Aveline)
Desmond, Altair, Ezio, Aquilis, Nikolai, Daniel Cross...they all got closure in the shape of death and it's all because of the standard ubisoft put forth. Fans are not asking for anything special, honestly...they're only asking for what Ubisoft shaped as closure..

There were a few other points I wanted to make, but I'll leave them for a later time, I feel like I'm going to get enough wrath on my head as it is

I'm actually currently replaying AC II and AC III simultaneously and doing an analysis of my own, I might post it here when i'm done, it analyzes both plot and gameplay.

[Farlander1991]

The satellite plot-line felt like an afterthought, like something they introduced and didn't like, so put it aside in favor of something else and even then, if introducing this new plot was REALLY necessary, they could'v connected it with the Satellite somehow, but no, they had to start over completely.

At the time of ACB, when we were searching for Ezio's Apple so it wouldn't get into Abstergo's hands but ALSO as it was apparently a piece of the puzzle to stop the Flare, due to this combination of goals in the Apple I remember thinking that maybe the Satellite would be the only thing that could actually stop the Solar Flare (but it would also lead to the Templar goal being reached). But the Apple became just a key.

This didn't really bother me so much (But Edward getting his farm burned is stupid and I don't consider it canon) I liked how everything was connected to the Assassins and Templars. sure, it might seem contrived, but AC IS a conspiracy theorist's heaven on earth.

Well, conspiracy theorist heaven is one thing, I don't mind that, it's just that a lot of those connections undermine, in my opinion, the Templar ideals. Yes, Templars don't use necessarily the most humane means to achieve their goals, but starting the freaking World War II is just overkill (heck, World War II is something that Templars would work to STOP, not instigate), but these are the kinds of things that happen when you just start connecting Templars and Assassins to a lot of important events and people.

[I-Like-Pie45]

Honestly, the WW2 thing should be retconned

How about make it that Hitler was a renegade templar who went insane after acquiring I don't know, a spear or fapple of eden, forcing his fellow Templars to join forces with the Assassins as the Allied Powers before turning on each other in the Cold War?

[jdowny]

If we were to talk at the time of ACII's release, I would agree with you. I was so incredibly excited and thought, 'WOW, this is getting intense, how they're going to deal with two problems now?' But that's because there wasn't a big picture to look at, and now there is, and I can't call it great storytelling.

I get what you mean, but really it's the fault of the writer/s at large across the series, not just in AC II. I often compare AC with Lost - both had great beginnings, but you got the impression the writers were just making them up as they went along, never knowing how long the series were going to last and so therefore deliberately keeping a lot of strands open. You could say that it was at AC II that the problems began, but I think it's unfair to apply blame to a single game, especially when others are just as much at fault.

AC1 has introduced a very intriguing Satellite plotline (which plays on the main Assassin/Templar moral narrative), and has ended with the Templars having a map to all Pieces of Eden. What does AC2 do with that whole plotline that was set-up? Nothing.

I actually thought it was kind of dull, so maybe the AC team did as well, preferring to run with the more threatening (thought in my opinion equally as cliched) solar flare.

The main plotline introduced in the first game based on the philosophical differences between Assassins and Templars (with some sci-fi elements) gets shafted to an e-mail. "Vidic's dead so the satellite's cancelled". That's not great storytelling. And I hold AC2 responsible for that Having just one main plotline would bring a lot more cohesion to the modern day narrative (which can't have as much focus as the historical narrative).

I agree, which ties in with my thoughts about the AC story as a whole and it being the fault of the writers instead of solely AC II. My point is that this could be better discussed in a separate topic about the wider story arc instead of limiting it to one game. If you ask my opinion, though this problem may have started in AC II, it was Revelations and III that really botched it.

The Satellite plotline was what had me intrigued with the Modern Day storyline (that, and it's launch date of 21st of December), back when I played the very first game. It's one of the things that made me say, 'you know what, I'm not confused as to why they didn't just make this a historical game, since this all can turn out to be really interesting'. So you can understand me when I'm quite disappointed with what we've got

Ha, me too. I guess they wanted to bring TOWCB to the forefront a bit more, which meant introducing a story that would tie all three parties together, which meant something greater than just another Templar plot. I would have liked it better if the satellite launch was something designed to stop the apocalypse, but perhaps did so at the cost of human freedom - thus introducing a tough moral decision for the Assassins - save the world but enslave it, or to damn it.

EDIT: ^ Didn't realise that we'd both come up with the same idea concerning the satellite launch, how weird.

[Dome500]

The Satellite plotline was what had me intrigued with the Modern Day storyline (that, and it's launch date of 21st of December), back when I played the very first game. It's one of the things that made me say, 'you know what, I'm not confused as to why they didn't just make this a historical game, since this all can turn out to be really interesting'. So you can understand me when I'm quite disappointed with what we've got

Agreed. This was a highly interesting plot-line considering what the launch of the satellite with the PoE's could have meant for the world, or at least for the US. Also, considering that Vidic was never the boss but rather only the top scientist of Abstergo the whole thing about "Vidic is dead, satellite cancelled" could only serve as temporary solution, not as something that would prevent the launch altogether.

But IMO it's not to late to pick up those things again by introducing US (our modern day character) to those things and having him trying to deal with it.
There is so much interesting stuff going on with that, why not build on that. Make crazy mindf*** modern day storylines with intrigue, mind control and other things. There were so many thing hinting at Templars/Abstergo being able to scan you through your TV or similar devices and things like that. Make it crazy and interesting. It all kind of lost momentum when the whole apocalypse thing was introduced.

As for the blame, I do not blame AC II. I blame the general view of the authors on the series. Think about it. They want it to last forever. And you can sense that change of plans immediately, in ACII, then AC3 and the strongest in AC4. They do not WANT to progress in modern day because they want it to go on and on and on.... And think that is a problem.

I think they lost their momentum and appeal with modern day. What I think they have to do is, they have to go with a completely different mindset on this whole thing. The mindset should be "I only plan 2 - 3 games ahead, not further. I want this story to be a real story, tell the story of a modern day person, no matter how long it does continue in the end. If his story ends (like Desmonds), then another ones begins.

This whole thing about "you" being the protagonist and the whole modern day stiff actually only being a fan service, and not the point of the series is bad IMO. They don't do anything with it anymore. They want it to become a non-systemic, little-telling piece of the story which is a real shame.

IMO they should take on every modern day story like they did with Desmonds story. They started his story, continued it and brought it to a conclusion. Then they began with another protagonist (which in this case is not good but if you have one with a personality it's actually interesting).

That way they would handle the modern day storyline like they handle the past-animus-storyline. Multiple Protagonists, all have their stories, all are a little part of the whole.

I would like that more. They could explore the modern day stories and twists they have in mind more free, they could introduce new plots and adjust everything so it fits, they could make everything they want with the modern day, like they can with history. And that, IMO, would be the best for the creativity of the modern day storyline in Assassins Creed, because they would be free to tell complete stories without loosing momentum or building in too many different threats, etc.

[Be1dou]

Like I keep telling people, REPLAY AC:2. It wasn't the 10/10 masterpiece of the franchise like people keep saying it is. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who can see it's true value and not parade it with praises for the heck of it.

AC:2 was a good game, but was it the best sequel of the Assassin's Creed franchise? Not at all. It felt more like another add-on to the milking of the Ezio Trilogy.

[Dome500]

Like I keep telling people, REPLAY AC:2. It wasn't the 10/10 masterpiece of the franchise like people keep saying it is. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who can see it's true value and not parade it with praises for the heck of it.

AC:2 was a good game, but was it the best sequel of the Assassin's Creed franchise? Not at all. It felt more like another add-on to the milking of the Ezio Trilogy.

Compared with Brotherhood, Revelations, AC3 and AC4? Yes.

Sure, it wasn't perfect, not by a long shot, but it was the best.