Roming – Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood Vid

Ezio is kind of a world class jerk.

Caw, Assassin’s Creed 2 made me angrier than a game’s done for ages. Loved the first game. Loved how hard and how tense it got towards the end. Then what does the second game do? It crumples up that difficulty like a paper bag, and makes the whole game a cakewalk.

Assassin’s Creed: Brotherhood should be much more my kind of thing. The multiplayer looks great, and the new trailer located below makes the single player seem pretty appealing too, even if it just comes down to how fun your murder-squads are to control.

You know, for all the flak they get, I love the modern interludes in the plot of Assassin’s Creed games. They’re brave, and they surprise me. If every videogame I play could be brave and surprise me, I reckon I’d be a happier man.


  1. mwoody says:

    So, any word yet on UbiDRM? Really, at this point, talking about anything else is pointless; no sane, informed consumer will purchase it in that state.

    • SquareWheel says:

      I absolutely refuse to buy a game with always-on DRM.

    • jaheira says:

      @ mwoody

      I’m sane and informed and guess what? I’m prolly gonna buy this. I like Assassin’s Creed and don’t give a toss about the DRM.

    • Masked Dave says:

      I’m a sane, informed consumer. Purchased a boxed copy of Assassins Creed 2 for PC because it was relatively cheap and the DRM never bothered me once, and I don’t have the greatest connection.

      I despise the system they’ve come up with, but the actual impact on most consumers is a lot less than people make out.

    • Vinraith says:

      Sane, informed, and responsible, that last one is important. Frankly, if you’re funding this crap, you’re no better than Ubi for implementing it in the first place.

    • jaheira says:

      I don’t remember claiming I was “better” than anybody ….

    • mr distended rectum says:

      yup.. who are you to comment on others?

      “no better than ubi”?

      Well how about someone who wants to enjoy the game on a superior platform? With a normal internet connection? Eh?

      As the above, I don’t like the DRM, but it didn’t stop me playing the game to DEATH.

    • Vinraith says:

      Well how about someone who wants to enjoy the game on a superior platform? With a normal internet connection? Eh?

      That person funds this DRM, perpetuating it both on Ubi’s part and encouraging others to adopt it, consequently harming the entire gaming community. These actions have impact beyond the individual that takes them, you vote with your wallet and some of you are voting for evil sons of bitches.

    • Vinraith says:

      I don’t remember claiming I was “better” than anybody ….

      Indeed, if you don’t see anything wrong with what Ubi’s doing then being called “no better than Ubi” shouldn’t bother you at all.

    • MrEvilGuy says:

      let’s pirate the game together vinraith!

    • Peter Radiator Full Pig says:

      MrEvilGuy has got a point.
      If you hate it, buy game, and download the pirate version, or maybe just the crack, if that will work.
      Play the single player DRM free, and probably reinstall for online or something.

    • sassy says:

      Pirating helps no one. Even buying the game with the intention of bypassing the DRM helps no one.

      This sort of DRM helps no one but certainly hurts a lot of people. Supporting developers who willfully support a system that harms consumers is as bad as hurt consumers yourself.

    • Vinraith says:

      Buying the game, then cracking/pirating it, still funds this DRM scheme. Pirating the game without buying it just encourages this kind of DRM. Neither is an acceptable option IMO.

    • zimbabwe says:

      The best Slashdot comment I ever read:

      “Pirating isn’t voting with your wallet, bitch”

    • Dragatus says:

      And I refuse to buy any game with DRM harsher than “you’ve got to stick the disc in your PC before you play”. I’m especially upset with the online activation nonsense from games like Starcraft and Civilization 5. It’s more subtle than the Ubisoft DRM so people complain less about it, but that’s exactly what makes it more dangerous.

      I simply think that if I buy a bloody boxed copy of a bloody singleplayer game I should very well be able to bloody play it without a bloody internet connection. Is that really too much to ask for?

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      Pirating the game without buying it just encourages this kind of DRM.

      Not really. Piracy numbers are going to be large enough to justify any sort of DRM anyway. Or at least can be made up to be large enough.

      Pirating isn’t voting with your wallet, bitch

      I guess, if you then let whatever cash you had set aside for a game just lay around forever. Chances are, you’re going to spend it elsewhere, though.

    • Brumisator says:

      Oh look! this discussion again! Like stating your own opinion expecting anyone else to change theirs because “you told them to” has ever or will ever work.

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      @Dragatus: You can play those games offline as well, just grab a crack. The key thing, however, is that folks can no longer pirate the game before release. Also, it’s better than a disc check in that you don’t have to shuffle discs around to play – you don’t even need an optical drive, for that matter. With netbooks/laptops on the rise, that could be quite significant. (Of course, DRM-free would also have this advantage, but that’s not something I see publishers going for any time soon)

    • Dragatus says:


      If I were to get a crack it would probably be from the internet so that kind of defeats the purpose of using the crack in order to avoid having to use an internet connection. Besides, those games don’t need a constant connection. You only have to connect once to acitvate/register/whatever. Afterwards you can play offline as much as you want. That’s why they were more subtle than the Ubisoft shite.

      The thing is that I prefer boxed versions of games over digital downloads. The reasons aren’t really that important at this point, but it’s got to do with independance. But with the new Steam integration and other online activations there effectively are no more proper boxed versions. The boxed versions we’re getting now have all the same issues as digital download versions, except you don’t have to download them yourself.

      I understand people want to prevent piracy. But piracy is the biggest issue during that first week after release. In a week someone somewhere is going to crack whatever protection you used. So the priates can then play DRM free, but the paying customer is stuck with the bloody DRM forever. A different solution would be that when a game is released they’d at first only sell digital versions (with whatever DRM is inherent in them) and then in 2 weeks they’d release DRM free boxed versions because at that point anyone who wanted to pirate the game would’ve already done so. Make it 4 weeks if you really want to be sure, just give me my DRM free game.

      Unfortunately though, I seem to be in a minority and the vote of my wallet isn’t coming through. So I guess I’ll only be buying DRM free indie games from now on.

    • Ravenger says:

      I’m another person who will absolutely not buy any of Ubisoft’s games with this DRM system. Heck I even refuse to buy my daughter a copy of Let’s Dance on the Wii because I won’t buy any Ubisoft games until they remove this ludicrously restrictive DRM system.

      It’s a shame, because I liked AC1 despite its flaws, and I would have bought AC2 day one if it had a sensible DRM system. Now I’ve got so many games to play – mainly from GOG and Steam – that I probably wouldn’t buy AC2 anyway.

    • Andy says:

      I’m completely behind DRM and I don’t have single problem with Ubi’s in particular. As a software developer I fully understand the need to protect my product and all new technology has bumps in the real world road before it’s perfect. Loyal customers understand that and will support you as you try to get it right. Publishers and developers have been driven to this point and until the problem goes away (which it never will) then bitch all you like, this is how it’s going to be.

      If you look at the numbers it didn’t do a single thing to affect sales of the game so all it did is make already angry people shout louder (then half of them went off and bought it anyway). Is it sticking two fingers up at your consumers? Not really. Most folk understand the need for this and the nature of the DRM. If they don’t have a perma-connection then sure it’s a problem but the odd lost sale is a small price to pay. Mobile technology will probably eventually catch up to the point where you can play this type of DRM protected game on laptops anyway.

      Also, how is it that Blizzard didn’t seem to cop this amount of grief over the required connection for Starcraft 2? I know it’s not quite as draconian in it’s need for a 100% always on connection but that seems like splitting hairs to me. Is it because most people bought SC2 for the multiplayer in the first place and therefore had the permanent connection anyway?

      Having said all that, here’s my favourite forum comment:
      ‘Winning a forum argument is like getting gold in the 100m at the paraolympics. Ok so you won but you still look like a retard’.

    • Ravenger says:

      I’m a developer too. Everything I’ve worked on has been pirated, and one game was pirated so much before release (zero day piracy) its sales were affected, so I didn’t get a sales bonus I was hoping for. Yet I’m still against this sort of always-on DRM.

      I don’t mind release-date based activation because that prevents zero day piracy, which is probably the worst form, but anything else I really dislike, both from a consumer point of view, because it inconveniences me, from a development point of view because it channels resources away from game development, and from a customer service point of view because it causes problems with updates and only inconveniences your paying customers.

    • Supraliminal says:

      How ’bout Ubisoft gives the game for free and starts to sell the crack.

      The outcome could be revolutionary, or just the same.

    • jaheira says:

      @ Vinraith

      “Indeed, if you don’t see anything wrong with what Ubi’s doing then being called “no better than Ubi” shouldn’t bother you at all.”

      It doesn’t ‘cos I’m not.

  2. Dain says:

    Historical period they chose is fairly unusual too, I’ll give them that. Ok, the crusades is a biggy but there are very few action games based on it. Even fewer in renaissance Italy. Makes the rumours rumbling that the next one will be WW2 even more worrying when they could do something like the French revolution or something equally crazy.

    • Sassenach says:

      You mission is to kill Robespierre! Here is your collapsable guillotine and discreet carrying case for it.

    • Dain says:

      I will not be happy until a game involves a guillotine as a weapon now.


    • Leper says:

      The fighting is very easy in both games but I think that’s not too bad as it means the game doesn’t punish you too hard for fluffing an assassination however I would like them to make you weaker and add in a lot more proper stealth oppurtunities instead of just the usual stabbing someone in the street and running to sit on a bench for a minute until you get a mission success.

    • Leper says:

      I totally did not reply to this thread, meant for the one below.

    • Dajs says:

      Quote:” I will not be happy until a game involves a guillotine as a weapon now.”

      Featured as a special move in “Bayonetta”.

  3. Pantsman says:

    Ass Creed 1 better than 2? Damn you Quinns! You’re killing RPS with your statistically deviant opinions!

    • Quintin Smith says:

      I’d agree that 2 is the better game, but the element I loved most about AC1 wasn’t there. It STILL hurts.

    • Wolfox says:

      I have to agree with Quintin… 2 is the better game, but there’s something special about the first one, and it’s more than just the difficulty curve.

    • AndrewC says:

      Ooo! Ooo! I have an opinion! I liked the clarity of the first game’s structure, so even when it got tediously repetitive and full of empty busy-work missions, you knew where you were. Bad for traditional narrative, but good for game narrative.

      The second game’s structure is a big amorphous blob of ‘oh wait the *real* villain is, oh, no, wait, the *really* real villain is etc’. So while the minute to minute stuff is more fun, it rapidly descends into meaningless activity because the macro-structure is so flabby and confused.

      And that flabbiness is what reveals the true nature of 2 – it’s a hollywood blockbuster sequel like, let’s say, The Pirates Of The Carribbean sequels. Limitless money and resources leads to bloated amounts of unnecessary features that don’t really serve much purpose than a momentary ‘ooo’ moment. Why is there a lavish stage-coach chase that is used only once? Why the big build up to the flying machine that is used only once? And more examples besides.

      Lovely production values to be able to have this throwaway stuff, but it turns everything into a big mess.

      And the difficulty? Better to play number 2 not to win, but to try and look cool winning. Progressing is not the difficulty – looking awesome doing it is.

      So that’s what i think. But take away the DRM (and it’s not a principle thing, it’s a ‘my internet connection is wobbly’ thing) and I will sucker up for number 3 right away.

    • Nikolaj says:

      AC1 sucks.

      I think I’ve said my piece.

    • Urthman says:

      Better to play number 2 not to win, but to try and look cool winning. Progressing is not the difficulty – looking awesome doing it is.

      That right there is my absolute favorite kind of game — It’s not difficult to make progress, but the challenge is in creatively finding a fun and stylish way to make progress.

      Having to try something 5 times because the game insists you do this one stupidly hard thing is very seldom fun. Having to try something 10 times because I have this stupid crazy idea that would be awesome if I could just pull it off — that’s always fun.

    • Baka says:

      Yeah, about that difficulty… did you deliberately ignore the riposte attack, Quinns?
      It’s been a long time since I played AC1, but the only challenge-rising I remember is the ascending amount of guys waiting for their turn to be parried and killed.

    • TheApologist says:

      I thought the ending of AC1 was one of the worst gaming experiences I have ever had. It just threw more and more bad guys at you, who circled you and hit you from behind. The result wasn’t tense because when you lost it just put you back to the start of the fight. It was just plodding, irritatingly random, and dully repetitive. The only reason I have got AC2 is the promise it is different. Still haven’t played it though.

      I really liked the modern bits though.

    • Azradesh says:

      Assassin’s Creed 1 was much easier though, all you needed to do was parry.

  4. FunkyBadger says:

    AssCreed2 had the worst paced opening of any game I’ve ever played, including Prototype which was in itself an atrocity.

    But, there was nothing really difficult about the ending of AssCreed1.

    But this:

    You know, for all the flak they get, I love the modern interludes in the plot of Assassin’s Creed games.

    Really does start to make me wonder… has Quinns discovered enough iron and gone Metal Mental?

    • FunkyBadger says:

      Addendum: I got banned from writing “and I woke up and it was all a dream” stories when I was, probably, 9 years old. My infant school had a stronger editorial policy than Ubisoft.

    • mlaskus says:

      You know, for all the flak they get, I love Quinns’ opinions, they are original and I find myself very often agreeing with him.

    • Dan(WR) says:

      Totally agreed on the pacing. It was ridiculous to treat the player like an idiot, cordon off areas and withhold the gadgets and tricks for so long. Unfortunately, amazingly bad design decisions seems to be a cornerstone of the Assassins Creed games. They’re good, but they also make you want to tear your hair out.

      And I love Quinns, but I think he’s gone mental here. There was nothing hard about the tail end of AC1. The fights in both games are satisfying, but too easy (there’s no point in running away – you can take on entire armies single-handed). When you add the easy fights to assasinations that only consist of running up to people and gutting them, it’s a big problem for the franchise. I never felt in danger.

      And while the modern interludes were… interesting, they also gave you fuck-all to do in terms of interaction.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      The story in AC/AC2 isn’t “I woke up and it was all a dream”.

      Also, I don’t remember the difficulty in the first game being any different than the second. They were both piss easy (although the second was more fun).

    • Dominic White says:

      I must admit to liking the overarching plot of the AC series, too. It’s like the Da Vinci Code, but more creative and less shit. It seldom gets in the way of the historical man-stab action, but it provides a rather clever framing device to string together a story over multiple generations and locations.

      I really don’t understand 95% of the rage that gets thrown around about it.

    • Whiskey Jak says:

      @Dan(WR) “It was ridiculous to treat the player like an idiot, cordon off areas and withhold the gadgets and tricks for so long. Unfortunately, amazingly bad design decisions seems to be a cornerstone of the Assassins Creed games. They’re good, but they also make you want to tear your hair out.”

      Well, the fact that the game was finished by 40% on X360 compared to the usual 15% games get, I’d say that having a sequential approach and a proper, detailed tutorial paid in spades. Even more impressive when you take into account that this is a 20 + hours game and not the often seen 8-10 hours ones.

      While these kind of thing (tutorial) may not be the most fun thing ever for experienced gamers, the average on&off gamer actually needs a little hand-holding (at start at least). They’re not stupid, just less skilled (because they play less) and less used to gaming conventions. They won’t fight through for hours (or even minutes sometimes) to find out how to do something, they’ll quit. And as they paid for the game as everyone else, they deserve to play it from beginning to end as everyone else.

      Trust me, these games are playtested the shit out of them (and for the record a playtest is nothing like a focus group) to know where average players (not “noobs”, not “casual”) have too much difficulty progressing/understanding . The means may not be the most elegant, but these sequences are there for a reason. People actually complaining too much accessibility in a very complex game confound me.

    • Quintin Smith says:

      Some of the optional missions at the end of the first game are /really/ hard!

    • Dan(WR) says:

      Whiskey Jak – have you actually played Assassins Creed 2?

      I’m not against tutorials and easing players into a game, but AC2 is glacially slow. It takes ages before the game even gives you a sword. And I’m not talking about extra layers that will make things more difficult for a player to understand, just little things like access to smoke bombs or throwing knives, or letting the player off the leash to explore the cities and do more side-missions. It’s not that the tutorial elements are there, it’s that the game drip-feeds too slowly. I’m not complaining about accessibility.

    • FunkyBadger says:

      @Ironman: The collect all the flags ina certain amount of time ones? They’re the only optional missions I can think of (and their ilk, the kill 4 templars in a minute).

      They were diverting, but inconsequential. Truth is, there was nothing in the first game as cool as your first 5 minutes in each new local, drinking in the archetecture and deciding which way to crawl all over it.

      @DW: the “framing device” may be neat but it was unnessecary and incredible poorly executed. The start of the second game, where you have to walk briskly away from pursuit, then listen to Danny Wallace for half an hour. It takes about 2 hours before you’re starting to do your Grand Theft Medici thing. That’s almost unforgivable, Homer knew you start in the middle of the action 3,000 years ago, why are Ubi’s scripters so rubbish?

    • Vandelay says:

      Nothing wrong with “and I woke up and it was all dream” endings when done well. Look at David Lynch and a specific film of his I won’t name to avoid spoilers for people. Of course, most people do it really shitly.

      As for Ass Creed, I stopped playing the first one shortly after the counter attack move was unlocked, which is only a couple of hours in. It is just ridiculously easy to fight people and became totally pointless doing the running away. I can’t imagine it ever getting hard after that.

    • Jason Moyer says:

      The counter move and the enemy’s short memories were what really made both games way too easy. Supposedly Brotherhood is doing away with the counter move, although if they’re replacing it with a “kick everyone’s ass before they can hit you” move it doesn’t really make a difference. It’s a shame they aren’t a bit more stealthy in terms of being vulnerable and the guards being more determined to find/catch you (I’m ok with the magic hiding spots though).

    • Saiko Kila says:

      AC1 is no hard at all, but comparatively hardest of optional missions are destroying merchant stands, I think, because you often kill civilians then, and have to fend off guards with lowered health (and run away in time). Templars are easy in comparison. Of course every mission can be made very easy by eliminating all guards first.

  5. geldonyetich says:

    Good to know there was something to be angry about in Assassin’s Creed 2 besides the ridiculous DRM.

    • Gorgeras says:

      Is Ubisoft even aware of how many people would buy AC2 tomorrow if they removed it? How can they not recognise the extent of the negative value it adds, so much that my local GAME can barely give it away.

    • zergrush says:

      I bought the game and had to crack it to be able to play consistently ‘-.-

      Pretty sure a lot of people did the same.

  6. bikkebakke says:

    hmmm… I just found out a very easy way to kill all assassins.

    1. Find a high tower with a “jumping point”.
    2. Find the heystack landingpoint.
    3. Put many sharpened poles inside the haystack.
    4. Take a beer (or whine i guess since its in italy), some snacks and take a seat.
    5. Wait until an assassin comes by, if necessary chase him to the roof and make him jump, but he will most likely jump by himself for fun.
    6. Remove the body, set the trap again, glhf

  7. SpakAttack says:

    Looks great, but if it comes with the dreaded UbiDRM, then they can stick it where the sun don’t shine.

  8. bikkebakke says:

    “Ha ha, nice typo :) ”

    AH DAMMIT! I knew something was wrong -.-‘… well they are a bunch of whiners >_> dont tell them i said that

  9. BobbleHat says:

    All the positive things I’ve seen about Ass II and the frankly jaw-dropping CG trailer for Brotherhood still can’t persuade me to give Ubisoft any money until they release them without the you-know-what. I wonder how many people also feel the same way.

  10. Davian says:

    I love the fact Machiavelli’s machiavellian…ism is defined by him slipping someone a tenner.

  11. Schmung says:

    Can’t comment on the DRM as I played on 360 (feeble PC) but I much preferred 2 to 1 and despite the gibberish I actually quite liked the near future nonsense – even if plastic faced cyber Kristin Bell scared me. The thing is though, that 1 had much nicer environments. Combine the variety of gameplay in 2 with the locales of 1 and you’d be be right there IMO. Acre is just so much more interesting than Venice. And yeah, it was rather easy for the most part, but maybe that means more people got something out of it – didn’t Valve release some truly horrifying (to us) stats about game completion a while back?

  12. Ashen says:

    Assassins Creed 1? Hard and tense? I must have played something else. The finale of the game I played threw dozens of enemies at me who all patiently lined up for insta-kill counterstrikes. In fact the whole damn game consisted of nothing but this horrible counterstrike combat routine.

    The sequel at least tried to spice things up a bit by diversifying enemies. Not that it worked particularly well, but it at least was a step in the right direction.

    • Dominic White says:

      “In fact the whole damn game consisted of nothing but this horrible counterstrike combat routine.”

      This reminds me of the people who played through the entirety of Bioshock using only the wrench, and sometimes the electric plasmid. Even Big Daddies were beaten through sheer melee attrition. I’ve heard lengthy complaints from a lot of people who played the game this way, and then whined that there was no weapon variety.

      It’s almost as if they found the least fun way of playing, and took it upon themselves to do it constantly just to spite the game itself.

    • Schmung says:

      Pretty much what Dominic said. The game was as fun as you wished to make it. You could beat the combat using cheap tactics, or you could enjoy what it had to offer. The bloody pre-assassination missions were crap in 1 though..

    • James T says:

      If a single tactic can be exploited that easily, the developer is at fault, end of story.

  13. markcocjin says:

    Yes…. kickass assasins sparked the Renaissance. Not scientists, not artists, not royalty but some kickass ninja assasins.

    They’re like the first Mafia except their big boss is a kickass hooded assasin who… does not steal from the rich and give to the poor….. he kills…. in super cool ways… and that anti-social behavior of murder does good things to Rome… oh no… to the world. Save the world by headshotting and teabagging bad guys. And the world comes together.

    Outerlight is now dead because of Ubisoft. Those guys helped with Brotherhood of the Ass aside from Bloody Good Time. At least we can enjoy part of that work done.

    Cool effect letting a woman narrate to make it seem documentary like.

    • 1stGear says:

      @markcocjin You mean a video game isn’t perfectly historically accurate oh noooooo

    • Saiko Kila says:

      There’s nothing historic in that game. It’s alternative universe, with completely different laws of nature. Much shitter than ours.

  14. Serenegoose says:

    I am interested in this, but I’m not going to breach my boycott of their stuff – none of that restrictive DRM = no boycott.

    Kinda disappointed in the plotline though – maybe the details had been out for ages, but I’d have rathered it took place after the end of everything in AC2, rather than in between. Eh, anyway, if I’m getting this, I’m getting it for the multiplayer, so I guess any entertaining singleplayer is just a welcome bonus. :)

  15. Vinraith says:

    I don’t remember claiming I was “better” than anybody ….

    Indeed, if you don’t see anything wrong with what Ubi’s doing then being called “no better than Ubi” shouldn’t bother you at all.

  16. bloodpukesalvation says:

    where are the shadows?

  17. Urthman says:

    I guess Quinns never signed on to the RPS boycott of Ubisoft? Or did RPS quietly decide to back down on that? Or is it still official policy except sometimes RPS gets excited about something and backslides a little?

  18. Dude says:

    You know, I don’t get the people complaining about how the game was too easy. I remember reading an article somewhere where the writer praised the GTA series for having only one difficulty level–ie, the way the developers wanted you to play the game. It fits the Ass Creed (haha) games too.

    The point of the Ass Creed games is the free running, the occasional slaughter which you, if you’re playing the game right, would do in the most outlandish manner possible, not the most efficient/time-saving one, and most importantly, if you’re architecturally inclined at all, to soak the atmosphere in.

    Would you punt Arkham Asylum for making the gargoyle jump knockouts too easy? Would you punt it for making Batman too badass? No? Then shut your mouth. Altair/Ezio are supposed to be medieval Batmen.

  19. toni says:

    so ac1 was harder than ac2 ? what did I miss – it was 3×3 the same mission over and over again. in that regard ac2 was almost a good game.

  20. Vinraith says:

    I’m not going to be made a pirate just because Ubi treats me like one.

  21. Bobsy says:

    Hell, I’m still waiting for Assassin’s Creed II to be released on the PC.

  22. Flakfizer says:

    Ubisoft is French for ‘No sale’.

  23. Lewie Procter says:

    Is there a legitimate reason that this isn’t called Assassin’s Creed 3?

    • AndrewC says:

      PR expectation, I reckon. The name ‘Assassin’s Creed 3’ would carry expectation of a ‘step up’ or the ‘new standard’ that comes with a generational leap, making this game, which is (being deliberately over-cynical) a bunch of stuff they left out of number 2 and a multiplayer section, seem like a dissappointment, a cut-rate offering, a cheat.

      Even more cynically, the numbers 2 and 3 often carry cache in the marketplace – they feel like ‘success’, like ‘large scale’, like ‘important’ and so on – whereas 4 and onwards start feeling old, mortal, repetetitive, meaningless. This is all irrational associations, but that’s humans for you.

      So, for brand extension, it pays to lose the numbers as soon as possible, so people lose track of just how many games there have been in the franchise, and the market just gets used to the ‘Assassin’s Creed’ name on the front of loads of games, without that ticking time-bomb towards obsolescance that is the ‘rising number’.

      Jesus, I bet you didn’t ask for such a long response. Still, overly involved responses are sort of like a morning constitutional: it gets it out of your system.

      Excuse me: my coffee’s ready.

    • AlexW says:

      Well, I think a good part of the naming convention is that apparently Ezio has nothing more to add to Desmond’s mission, so it’s not as fundamental to understanding the progress of the overarching narrative as the next one will be (I expect that in future time it’ll only take place over the course of the van ride). It’s more of an awesome expandalone than a sequel, so they’re giving it an appropriate name.

  24. Torqual says:

    Ah an Ubisoft title. Play it yourself you Assassinal cretins. I refuse to support your kind of business model.

    Sincerly your old time customer of settler, dawn of discovery and many other titles.

  25. Olivaw says:

    Assassin’s Creed 2 was just as difficult as Assassin’s Creed 1.

    Which is to say, not at all. Because you can just counter every attack until the game is over.

  26. Nallen says:

    The worst thing about AC2 was that the money was totally pointless. You got money in order to get more money. I never 100% completed the game but I was sitting on hundreds of thousands of florins for a large portion of the game.

    Loved the gameplay though.

  27. skinlo says:

    I loved 1 and 2, but 2 a little bit more due to the less repetitive missions. I also loved Venice, especially during the carnival! I don’t usually care about difficulty in games, the fun of killing people and the story is enough for me. I don’t play games for the challenge, and play games for the fun.

  28. sirdorius says:

    “Loved how hard and how tense it got towards the end”

    Maybe we played a different game. I just remember the end being the same wait-for-the-counterattack grind the whole game is, just with more soldiers around you, thus more people standing around you looking stupid and waiting for God knows what. And yes, AC2 is just as easy, but at least it has more variety.

  29. ZhouYu says:

    Silly video; “Prostitution has run rampant!” “The pope’s treasurer visits prostitutes!”

    annddddd… “you can get courtesans to help you out!”

    Nonetheless, this has got all the right juices flowing, I just struggle with giving into the sodding drm.

  30. Tom Hanks says:

    The ending of AC2 blew my mind away. I was phased out for days.

  31. blahblah says:

    Did you mean “Caw” as in what a crow does or “Cor” as in “Cor blimey”? You know, the commonly accepted spelling of one of our English slang words that even the Beano gets right.
    Also “Roming”? What? Are you trying to type “Roaming”?

  32. Azradesh says:

    UbiDRM = no sale