I wanted to try AC3 again (with a gamepad) but it felt crap because I know nothing of the story, so I'm going to try and finish this again. Again. Then the others after it.
There was a series of videos on YT where it covered each game over the span of ~2.5hrs but it was only the cinematics slapped together.
I've been finishing a lot of games I've hated lately (in the hope of liking them, I now 'don't mind' Crysis 3 for example) but the 4 games in front of me (before I even start AC3) are going to take the longest
Is there anything I can add apart from SweetFX to sweeten the experience?
Brave man, men
boundle (thoughts on cracking AITD) wrote:
i guess thouth if without a legit key the installation was rolling back we are all fucking then
Shit will get repetitive, I can tell you that from experience. You'll care less and less about sidequests and other stuff to do and just want to hurry along the main storyline as you progress, and eventually just quit playing because you'll feel like you're missing out on 70% of the games that way but CBA to do everything anymore.
Last edited by Divvy on Tue, 18th Jun 2013 15:20; edited 1 time in total
Also I would advise you to skip Brotherhood (in b4 Brotherhood defense force) since it brings next to nothing to the overall story arc. Just watch the ending on YT or something.
If you skip most of the fetch and gather quests, you should be done fast. You won't miss much either. I personally would just watch some vids or read some summary and start with AC2.
I thought AC1 was the best of the series so far. Very immersive. It is repetitive, but manages well to put you in the shoes of Altaïr and making you feel like an assassin imo.
the first 2-3 hours are the best gaming hours of the last few years but , and its a big but, after that its like those 2 hours x again, again, again, again until I only finished it for the story.
Ac2 the best. Ezio. Awesome soundtrack. Better gameplay.
>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ♪ Viva La Vida ♪ <<<<<< <<<<< <<<<<< <<<
Also I would advise you to skip Brotherhood (in b4 Brotherhood defense force) since it brings next to nothing to the overall story arc. Just watch the ending on YT or something.
Defense force representing! But seriously, Brotherhood has arguably the best gameplay in the AC series.
Also I would advise you to skip Brotherhood (in b4 Brotherhood defense force) since it brings next to nothing to the overall story arc. Just watch the ending on YT or something.
Defense force representing! But seriously, Brotherhood has arguably the best gameplay in the AC series.
I'm not a fan of the series, but I agree, Brotherhood was actually more than decent gameplay-wise, too bad the plot and characters were silly and not exactly 'epic'.
AC2 is probably the one that had the best combination between story and gameplay for me, although it didn't reach AC1's sense of immersion/atmosphere/writing (completely ruined by repetitiveness and lack of variety).
I too am desperately trying to finish AC3, but there's so much hand-holding that every time I complete a sequence I partially rage inside and abandon the game only to resume the playthrough some days later. The thing that shocked me the most is, the first 5 sequences are basically the tutorial ..then it gets better but still, you always feel like a semi-invincible puppet :<. A damn shame.
That's the 'glorious' and universally praised Assassin's Creed experience for ya
The only reason why I finished the first one was because of the story which was actually pretty decent, as well as the graphics, quite impressive for the time.
The gameplay on the other hand felt butchered, limited (despite the sandbox structure), and tainted by extreme repetitiveness and lack of challenge...combat included. *bad news* It doesn't even get better later on, it's basically Rinse and Repeat: The Game.
AC 1 is the worst in the series. I could never endure through it. I think i got halfway through, and the series story line still makes sense to me. So don't be afraid to skip it, you won't be clueless.
2 was very good and the best story wise, brotherhood had the best gameplay variety and overall quality.(lairs and davinci missions were among the finest AC series stuffs). revelations is pretty much more of the same for the third time again, but without horses and not much variety.
Still have to play the third one.
And yes i wear the color of Brotherhood defense force as well
I think ac 2 vs. brotherhood is very similar to the bio 1 vs. bio 2 situation.
if the first impression and story count more then gameplay and variety, then you will prefer the former, if not, then the latter.
The first game is the only one that I played through like 5 times, making it one of my most replayed games ever I guess. The other ones I played through one time each and it was enough. I said it before, but even though I put about 100 hours into AC3 and absolutely loved it, I still think the first one is the best AC game. And I'm also of the opinion that Brotherhood was the worst (that doesn't mean I didn't like it), with Revelations being easily the best from the Ezio trilogy.
I don't know how to word this nicely, but what in the fuck do you find so great about AC1? It is the most repetitive game I have ever played in my ~30 years on earth. There is 0 challenge. I'd like to know which part it is exactly that you derive fun from, is it just the climbing? The location? The combat quite literally may as well be a play button on a DVD remote. Wait for enemy to move > press button > dead. What would the difference be? Perhaps there would be a difference if they used being a 12 man group vs 1 person as an advantage.
When people say 'I like COD' or sports games, I don't like them, but I certainly understand how people could. AC? Nup. No idea. I have no idea what people get from a game like this. You're not challenging your brain or your reflexes and I don't know what's so fun about this automated sort of gameplay.
I've done another memory since last posting and it just blows my mind that this was so successful. And you're saying the few games in between aren't 'as good' as this?
I think you're doing it wrong TBH, when I played AC1 and started an assassination mission I just ran straight towards the target and killed him immediately, and then ran away.
Also BTW, if you find the combat in AC1 "1 button win" don't ever play Brotherhood or any game after that, they introduced the "killstreak" mechanic Essentially if you counter one guy in Brotherhood/Revelations/AC3 you can just spam the attack and it will 1 hit kill each enemy you attack
I'm going to post my classic post about AC again to explain to you why I love the series:
Quote:
the story was definitely the best of the series. The combat too, though I love the combat in Brotherhood.
AC1 was fucking merciless in its approach to the combat and detection. In AC1 if you managed to get the guards attention they would not stop hunting you. EVER. There was no circle of interest that you had to evade. Unless you found a haystack or tent those fuckers would find you and they would crowd you until you were forced to fight to the death.
And the combat was pretty tough. Yes it didn't have the polish and versatility of AC2 and Brotherhood, but it was super satisfying. When you successfully managed to parry and attack one after another it felt immensely satisfying, maybe because the animations didn't feel "sped up" like in AC2 and Brotherhood. Those last levels where you had to fight upwards of twenty soldiers AND Robert de Sable at once where amazing in the reward you felt.
AC2 and Brotherhood ruins all this by giving you too many energy bars and so many medicine potions that you never need fear dying in a combat situation. What more with powers like the smoke bomb any difficulty is ruined because you can just drop a bomb and shank everyone around you or run away.
Similarly in AC2 and Brotherhood, the guards will just stand, allowing you to walk right up to them and stab two people at one in the necks with no resistance. Then you can walk over to the guys next to them and do the same once more. I think I once managed to stab 6 people in the neck before they drew their swords. In AC1 if you tried this tricks on a guard that was aware of you they'd simply push you away and then you were in for a real fight. This seems like a small detail but it completely ruins any subtlety or trepidation you might have in facing more than a few opponents.
And then there is the story. I love the conspiracy stuff and it is what keeps me coming back to the series. If anything AC2 and Brotherhood did this much better than AC1. But that is Desmonds story.
Gone is the deep philosophical discussion underlying the story of AC1. The question of how to use power. Who has the right? Can you trust the public to take care of it self or is it better to let a strong man rule? Is doing an evil deed for the sake of good truly evil? Every man that Altair found and killed in AC1 had his own reasons for doing the bad things he did.
One was starving the cities population because he was building up the cities granary for a coming siege.
Another was experimenting and drugging sick and poor people because he wanted to cure mental illness.
Another one again lead a brutal regime in his city but in his wake he left a city with little corruption or crime.
Every time Altair killed one of these men he was forced to ask himself if killing these men was the right thing. Over all the Templars were portrayed as a shadowy group of master manipulators who sought to rule and control not for their own good but for the sake of mankind (how ever cruel that may be).
In AC2 and Brotherhood all this is gone. The people Ezio face are just assholes. Men who kill and steal and terrorise because they can. People who are only consumed by greed and maliciousness. None of them besides Borgia in AC2 seem to have any involvement with the ideas of the templars and that plan. This means that AC2 and Bro just become shallow stories of one families fight against another one. The petty infighting of the middleages nobility.
Nope, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that I consider the first one the best AC game. Many disagree with that and I can understand why, because the series constantly gets better, but it also constantly loses the charm the first game had. I don't mind that that much, since I still love what they're doing with the new ones, but none of them is the AC that started the series for me. The location in the first game did help a lot, that's for sure. As for the repetitive nature... it just didn't bother me like it does in other games like Skyrim for example. The combat was fine by me, especially since open combat is not the focus of game. AC3 is not really there, but it has a much more refined combat system, to the point that I really loved it.
I don't know what to say... I absolutely loved it. That doesn't mean everyone else has to as well.
AC1 has the best atmosphere and story, but it has the worst gameplay of the series IMO. That's why I'd just skip it and watch some summary vids, since the gameplay is far from exciting.
How do you start a mission and assassinate people without finding the clues? Aren't they needed?
Oh, no no, the clues are mandatory, I meant the assassination itself.
Quote:
Just went to the docks, literally one buttoned them all just now:
Believe me, you DON'T know the definition of "one buttoned kills" until you played Brotherhood.
Every kill that happens 2:06 to 2:16 (until he gets hit by a spear) is LITERALLY spamming the attack button. You don't even have to aim, the kills are "chained" one after another.
Quote:
There was another group beyond the gate, one of them was a Templar, he keeled over just as easily as the rest
The Templar guards are gone from all other games, replaced by "Brutes" which are about 99999% easier to kill.
Anyway interinactive, after AC2 don't skip Brotherhood. Even if the combat is awful (just like it is accross the whole AC series), pretty much everything else (gameplay wise) is superior to the rest of the franchise
I don't know how to word this nicely, but what in the fuck do you find so great about AC1?
Aside from what Neon posted another thing I like a lot about this game is how it does away with many game-type elements. Since the actual game is a representation of Desmond/you going through Altaïr's memories, health is replaced by synchronization, i.e. how well you are connected to Altaïr. If you do things that are out of synch with what Altaïr actually did, like getting hit in combat, falling from ledges or kill innocents, you lose synchronization. This is why it actually makes sense in-game that your "health" replenishes in seconds - it's not actual wounds healing, just your connection to Altaïr getting reestablished.
Similarly when you get killed, it actually makes sense that you "respawn" at a nearby time and place. You don't magically get resurrected (a game mechanic so widespread it's basically an axiom), but the memory simulation gets disconnected and is reset at the nearest possible earlier time. This also makes things like saving checkpoints (also something that few games touch upon storywise) have a purpose, and the fact that the amount of punishment you can take drastically increases over a short amount of time - the "health bar" getting longer doesn't represent Altaïr getting more "hit points", just your connection to him improving the more you follow his memories, which again makes perfect sense.
In AC2 this was for no good reason done away with by the traditional health potion system where you can instantly restore yourself. For one thing it's like they came up with a good, immersive and innovative concept in AC1, and then just dropped it in favour of "what everyone else does" in AC2. For another thing it makes less sense than in most games to use "medicine" to instantly heal yourself, since Ezio isn't actually there getting his body hurt in combat. The way Ezio's health bar increases throughout the game though, you'd think he gets upgraded with leather skin and an adamantium skeleton to withstand that much physical damage.
Taken together with many things Neon pointed out, this gave me a superior feeling of immersion in AC1. Many game mechanics elements like respawning, health bars, health potions, regeneration etc that are so widespread that they're never really questioned or reflected upon end up making sense.
I also don't like the repetitive elements much, but it does make a certain amount of sense that an assassin would do a certain amount of legwork and prepare in similar ways prior to most kills and stay in similar environments while doing so. Also, at least you are free to carry those preparations out as you see fit, in contrast to later games where you're prompted through every single step (almost literally) leading up to a kill.
Also AC1 is actually the only game where you actually assassinate people because you're a member of the order and it has to be done. In AC2 and forwards you kill people because
a) you feel like it
b) you feel they deserve it
c) some schmuck orders you to do it
I also don't like the repetitive elements much, but it does make a certain amount of sense that an assassin would do a certain amount of legwork and prepare in similar ways prior to most kills and stay in similar environments while doing so.
rooftop checkpoint race preparation for an assasination was my favorite
Signature/Avatar nuking: none (can be changed in your profile)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
But seriously, Brotherhood has arguably the best gameplay in the AC series.
