View Full Version : Question about Assassin's Creed

30-09-2012, 08:30 AM
Hey alls, with the next AC coming soon and all, i was pondering what to do, since i (believe) i played all the previous games, but never finished any of them cause either i lost interest or some other, more to my taste, game came out at the same time.
Result is, i've followed a bit of the story but never really understood much about anything. Switching games didn't help either, since the stories don't really follow eachother all that much. So i was wondering if there's a point to even try the next one coming, or should i maybe go back and try and finish some of the previous games? Also if so, which game should i play? I don't really feel like starting from the first, it's probably too old now, graphically and technically speaking.

30-09-2012, 09:17 AM
The story in the AC games is very much crap, so you didn't miss out on anything I'd say. Furthermore if you played, say, AC2 then there's no point in playing Brotherhood or Revelations. Because they're the same fucking game, just slightly iterated upon and not always for the better.

But Brotherhood goes for the "best" in the series according to the fans (I only played 2, couldn't bring myself to play much of AC:B because SAME!) so if you have to play one of the existing AC games then maybe that's the one to play before AC3. Or just wait for AC3... But playing these games for the story just means setting yourself up for anger, frustration and disappointment.

30-09-2012, 09:45 AM
Be glad you never got the story, it really is the most dreadful nonsense.
If you're going to go back to one, I would go for AC2. Brotherhood is maybe "better", and its Rome is unquestionably an amazingly well-crafted location, but I found it tended to get pretty samey after a while, which is isn't helped when they kind of run out of ideas with the missions about two-thirds of the way through. Also you've got so many weapons and fancy combat maneuvers that the guards never even begin to pose a threat, which I found really detracted.
AC2 for me kept things going along better with more variation in story and location, had a better progression from new guy at the beginning to ultra-lethal professional at the end, and it's the start of the Ezio story so it'll make more sense. Also one of the most amazing end-boss fights ever.

30-09-2012, 09:54 AM
The games are great if you're interested in history. Or rather historical anecdotes...

30-09-2012, 09:58 AM
Tangent: I just looked up AC3 on steam to see it's release date and found it has a listing on steam with a trailer and screen shots and everything, but it's not available for preorder. Isn't that kind of weird? Especially when you consider many AAA games are available almost a year in advance to preorder? BL2 was kind of the same thing, except that didn't even have a listing on steam at all until about 30 days before it came out. I wonder if this is some kind of ploy by retailers.

30-09-2012, 10:13 AM
So the story sux? I always thought it will be interesting, a bit like Da Vinci Code (not that it was spectacular but still)...

The gameplay was quite fun, being able to run all over the place, climb and shit, but it gets boring after a while. I guess i won't be going back to these games after all.

30-09-2012, 11:25 AM
The first game is still gorgeous and smartly thought out. (mod the max people configuration for densely packed streets, Google it, I can't remember the details).

But, play the game in 1 hour a day. Play other games and live your life.

Or skip it. The only completely essential thing Assassin's Creed has is Brotherhood multiplayer (not Revalations which is bloated) sure you need to level up which is obnoxious and pointless, but once you have a good bag of tricks its a beautiful, graceful and guileful social stealth game.

It's completely essential reading for anyone who thinks that twitch skill is everything in non turn based multiplayer.
The patience, strategy an eye for detail and a sense of humour are more important than reflexes.

30-09-2012, 03:10 PM
For story and gameplay I'd say AC1 and 2 are the best ones and you can skip Brotherhood and Revelations. But if you don't care about the story then jump right into AC3.

30-09-2012, 05:35 PM
Short Answer: You don't need to have played any of the earlier AssCreed games to understand the next game.

Long answer:
Asassin's creed stories have a simple setup:
Beginning: There is an artifact somewhere. The templars need it to achieve global domination. THe assassins just want to use it to prevent the apocalypse that wiped out creators of said artifacts.
Middle bit: Desmond dives into the memory of an older assassin who found one of those artifacts. This assassin has his own story which is completely unrelated to the beginning and ending of the game (except for the artifact bit) and bears no relation to the middle bits of earlier and later games (except only a bit in the "Ezio Trilogy")
Last bit; The artifact is found!

Basically, the first and last bits are all that carry over to the next game. Those bits are both rather uninteresting and entail only 1% of the actual game. If you REALLY care, you can look them up on youtube.
The Middle bit is where it is at, and you don't need the earlier games' middle bits to fully appreaciate the third game's middle bit (except possibly some references and lampshading).