I don't know about you guys, but Assassin's Creed 1 was torture to play through. Repetitive, bland, and downright disappointing.

After reading up on part 2 though, things might be looking up! There's more than 3 different things to do (they say up to 16!), more weapons and the dude has double hidden blades.

What are your thoughts about AC1/2?

I actually purchased Assassin's Creed for the X360 for around $20. It was a disappointment, I couldn't actually believe how repetitive the missions were. I was fixing to shoot myself in the face before I would be willing to do another, "Save a Citizen" mission. I have many gripes with Assassin's Creed, and with the sequel being released, I hope that they fix this problem, among many others.

Actually, I really liked the first Assassin's Creed. The environments were immaculately detailed, the free running mechanics were flawless and revolutionary, the AI pathfinding for the guards kept almost *too* good a pace at following you over rooftops, and in general it was a lot of fun to just jump around a city shanking guards. The actual AI detection of the player was pretty bad because you could get away with stealth kills a little too easily. And I'll be the first to admit the same three quests got repetitive, but the assassination missions were all wildly different and wholly enjoyable. Except for the Acre dockyard. Ten thousand animations for Altair and he can't even bloody swim. Depressing!

Either way, the teaser hinted at Da Vinci influences, which I like since I love Da Vinci's art. The man was a genius way ahead of his time and I hope that you get to use some of his inventions realized in this new realm. I spotted an ornithopter in the teaser- think we'll get to glide with one?

EDIT: More content released on the game, check Wikipedia.

That kind of a mechanic could fundamentally change the existing gameplay- certainly exciting possibilities for assassination missions. If they can mix the past genetic memory missions with more future based content, (I personally would like to have the existing gameplay also applied more to the future, sneaking in a dystopian Blade Runner style future, setting up sniper rifle shots of the corporate heads of the Templar organization? Count me in!) I will definitely hold the game in even higher regard.

Well, I really liked the first game, despite some of the missions being a bit repetitive and the guard AI being slightly questionable (during a single playthrough at least three Templars killed themselves by falling off a rooftop after giving up chase, never mind the normal guards...).

I'm really interested in the sequel too - Renaissance Italy is one of my favourite historical settings, and it'll be interesting to see what they do with the whole Da Vinci thing.

the free running mechanics were flawless and revolutionary

Flawless? Are you joking?


but the assassination missions were all wildly different and wholly enjoyable.

No they weren't. The only reason they felt different was because of the damned monologues after killing them.

The missions weren't that different, and I only played it on a friends console for a couple hours. What does everyone expect from a generic action game?

15th Century Italy sounds like a pretty wank setting for a game.

I bet it'll be as piss poor as the last one. Honestly, I got my PS3 at Christmas, really exited to play Assassin's Creed and I stopped playing after just under an hour.

http://www.gametrailers.com/video/e3-09-assassins-creed/50141

AMAZING new trailer. There's a gameplay video on there too.

looks better than the first one

I just don't get all this hate for the first Assassin's Creed. It's not like it had a lot to live up to or a strong model to follow. To my knowledge, there has never been a game that had more than a passing resemblance to it. Now that they've tried it once, the precedent is set, the devs know what people like/dislike, and they can focus on refining the concept.

Personally, I'm fully expecting AC2 to be one of the year's biggest highlights.

Assassin's Creed had horrible and repetitive missions, this fact cannot be overlooked. There's no way you can tell me that the missions weren't repetitive and tedious.

There is absolutely no correlation between that comment and my previous one. Learn comprehension skills please.

I was posting a reason for me hating Assassin's Creed, but I agree, it wasn't very direct.

I didn't see much of a problem with the first game. By no means was it flawless: there was practically no difference between the missions apart from the culmination of each i.e. the way you had to go about getting to the target was always tediously similar to the last, and of course you always had but a few choices for killing people. However, the game was innovative the general layout, presentation and main storyline was all well delivered.

The sequel is promising I reckon, like Prak said with the first behind them now, they could really make something out of another game which by the sounds of it they are doing. I like the change of scene, keeping with the previous one could have led to sooooo much boredom. Only thing I'd like to see drastically changed is the difficulty level. I found myself penned in by what musta been every soldier in the sodding city and all I'd have to do is counter every move and they'd be dead within a minute and I'd be on my way!

I find it interesting that a former Megatron like Prak and a current Starscream like yourself would agree on anything.

I lol'd.

Megatron is old news for me. I've adopted Flynn the bard as my new mascot. Alas, it's fucking hard to find a decent avatar picture.

Assassin's Creed had horrible and repetitive missions, this fact cannot be overlooked. There's no way you can tell me that the missions weren't repetitive and tedious.
And AC2 is completely different. Now there are a total of 16 different side-missions, and they aren't even NECESSARY to advance and do assassinations anymore.

And AC2 is completely different. Now there are a total of 16 different side-missions, and they aren't even NECESSARY to advance and do assassinations anymore.

That's good to read.

AC1 was a great game when it game out and i when i beat it i had a huge head ache for playing non-stop after I had gotten back into it (I was playing Oblivion at the time too). The ending was a great cliffhanger and i am looking forward to Assassins Creed II. I heard in this one you could steal the enemies weapons which seems pretty sweet. Also, that demo they had w/ the double hand blade kill was just amazing, when that happened you could hear everyone at E3 gasp lol. Man the holidays can't get here fast enough...

The ending was a great cliffhanger

There is officially no hope for you now short of beating the fanboy out of you with a cinder block made of Stupid-B-Gone. There was no excuse at all for giving the game such a pointless, hollow ending that does nothing to reward the hours you've devoted to the game.

lol, I couldn't care what you think prak Assassin's Creed is a great game and I loved it. Sure some things had gotten pretty repetitive, and boring but I liked it. Don't bash me over stuff I like or is that your life goal putting people down for the stuff they like by calling them a retard or a fanboy? If that's the best you can come up with that's pretty pathetic.

Oh dear. Should have let it be Altair.

I don't care man he's just a person sitting behind a computer typing crap to put people down. Yeah I could've probably handled it better then I did but it pisses me off when people get put down over a game is this not what this forum is about why we like or don't like a game?

You'd think it would be. But spend like two months here and you'll probably discover that it's not particularly about gaming., but a whole lotta random shit.

Yeah I've been here for awhile but had really never posted anything until not to long ago. But, oh well it sounds fun and i like games and i like a whole lotta random shit lol.

Your skin better thicken up in a hurry, kiddo. I don't have anything against you personally, but I (and others) will savage anything you say that is blatantly wrong, ignorant, or outright stupid. Then we'll forget about it because most of us are too awesome to hold grudges.

You'd think it would be. But spend like two months here and you'll probably discover that it's not particularly about gaming., but a whole lotta random shit.

Home sweet home.

sorry Prak, had a bad day on Friday all in all its just a game and not worth getting all heated up over it.

I just don't get all this hate for the first Assassin's Creed. It's not like it had a lot to live up to or a strong model to follow. To my knowledge, there has never been a game that had more than a passing resemblance to it. Now that they've tried it once, the precedent is set, the devs know what people like/dislike, and they can focus on refining the concept.

Personally, I'm fully expecting AC2 to be one of the year's biggest highlights.

I completely agree with this. There's no game similar like this.

Sure things might have been repetative, but Ubisoft tried a new model for a game. After extensive feedback, they now know what to change.

Personally I really enjoyed Assassin's Creed, though the story was a little predictable coming closer to the conclusion of the game. As far as I know, this is going to be a trilogy. I am really hoping that Desmond will actually play the main roll in the third game, rather than one of his ancestors. Because as we all saw at the end of the first one, he gained the Eagle Vision. But this is purely dreaming.

I am more then looking forward to this game. The first part was pretty good, it can only get better.

I started playing Assassin's Creed not long after getting my PS3, and when I put it in the machine I was really looking forward to it. But after the first major battle sequence I was left feeling pretty "meh".

The whole "guy carrying out hits from his relative's past" idea just didn't work for me. I was also told that it was a free-roaming game, which from what I played, turned out to be wrong. Maybe I just didn't play enough? I was on it for less than an hour.

Anyway, I might end up giving this go if my brother buys it and gets bored. If not, I won't be taking another trip down ridiculous memory lane.

If you played it for less than an hour, nothing you have to say about it has any credibility whatsoever, and is therefore a complete waste of a post. Well done.

If you played it for less than an hour, nothing you have to say about it has any credibility whatsoever, and is therefore a complete waste of a post. Well done.

Excuse me, but I seem to remember you once saying that you didn't like Final Fantasy XII. And that was based upon your first impressions. "If a game takes so long to start making me enjoy it, then it's not a good game" < Something along those lines.

So correct me if i'm wrong Prak, but isn't that hypocrisy on your part?

I think it is.

I gave FFXII nearly 20 hours, making it a completely different situation.

Well, I didn't know it was that much. But still, when you look at XII, 20 hours is not a huge amount considering how much time the game takes to beat. But I agree it's not exactly the same.

I stopped playing Assassin's Creed just after you kick some logs off a building onto a bunch of soldiers and then you're sent on the first proper mission. Maybe that's more than under an hour? All I know is, I was exited to get into the game after seeing all those adverts back when it was released, but thoroughly disappointed when I eventually gave it a go. Prince Of Persia seemed better, and I got bored of that pretty quickly.

One thing I can say that I remember, is the combat being terrible. I actually think that might have been the thing that put the bad taste in mouth in the first place.

Then you really didn't get to the free-roaming meat of the game. You quit playing at the point where the restraints were starting to come off.

And yes, combat was questionable (not really terrible though), but you mostly have the option of running like hell and evading pursuit, which is much more fun.

One thing I can say that I remember, is the combat being terrible. I actually think that might have been the thing that put the bad taste in mouth in the first place.
I wouldn't have called it terrible by any measure of the word. Somewhat repetitive and at points annoying but terrible no. How the combat could have put the bad taste in your mouth I don't know. When I first started the game that's what gripped me. I certainly had never played a game where you could do those kinda things, and do them so sleekly.

I didn't have any problems with the combat, it was easy to use and I found it pretty satisfying to see all the different ways Altair could finish someone off, running like hell is WAAAAAAAAY more fun though and I especially love climbing up high and letting the soldiers climb up after me, only for me to throw them one by one off the top. I think the combat system is one of the better things about the game tbh.

Prak and Neo, from what I gather, are saying to not give too much criticism to AC1 due to it being an original title.

But shouldn't they at least have gotten some sort of feedback from testers? Anything that suggests, "this could get old... fast"?

They're not going to overhaul the fundamental concepts of a game they've already developed to a playable stage, thus delaying it by a matter of months or years. I'm sure the testers did point out issues, but their job is mainly to find bugs and issues that can be fixed at a late stage.

And that still doesn't change that the first AC was a very good game, enjoyable with awesome graphics. The freeroaming absolutely made up for the somewhat boring parts, the fact that the guards actually could keep up with you during chases added realism and still a sense of urgency and the need to stay concealed.

Having said that, the difficulty concerning battles could have been steeper. I know for a fact that it is possible to beat the game without dying once. I hope AC2 will feature atleast a difficulty option.

Assassin's Creed had amazing graphics and the plot turned out to be pretty good toward the end, but the gameplay was really lacking. It needed a lot more variety. I still enjoyed it once I actually took the time to learn how to play it (to pick pocket, stealth assassinate, etc.)

The end was interesting. On one hand I was very disappointed and confused as the ending felt really lacking and left a cliff hanger. But I found the symbolism at the end and spying on the emails of Lucy/the Dr. and the head honcho a nice touch, and the ending made a whole lot more sense once I read an article online explaining what it all meant. It's quite a good background and story behind it, if only they had revealed it in the actual game a bit more clearly. I'm actually looking forward to AC2 now...

For the most part i enjoyed Assassins Creed 1. The game had pretty good graphics, game play, and a good Story to it. After a while AC does get boring cause the missions play basically the same throughout the game. not much variety in choices or missions.
also the beggars got really annoying after the first few time. cant stand them lol.
Assassins Creed 2 looks to be pretty good. do like how there's more environment interaction and an extended variety of choices for basic gameplay.

They're not going to overhaul the fundamental concepts of a game they've already developed to a playable stage, thus delaying it by a matter of months or years. I'm sure the testers did point out issues, but their job is mainly to find bugs and issues that can be fixed at a late stage.

Play testers exist to make a game more enjoyable by giving feedback. I didn't mean the bug testers, my bad.

Granted, I'm sure not every game uses play testers as it's obvious AC didn't.

I see no relation between what you just said and the point I made. The fact stands that no sort of testing can occur before a game reaches a late stage of development. And at that point, it is generally too late to completely overhaul a game's design.

Honestly assassins creed is as repetitive as any other game like fantasy or even an arcade fighter. Run around and level up for hours upon end to fight a boss to do it again or fight someone with a semi different move set at a higher difficulty sounds all the same. At least in AC2 they have added more stuff like swimming, disarming weapons, haystacks aren't safe, and 15 different mission types rather than the 5 original. My opinion is the first assassins creed never conveyed the story that well.

Run around and level up for hours upon end to fight a boss to do it again or fight someone with a semi different move set at a higher difficulty sounds all the same.

Try either playing the game or at least verifying your information before posting nonsense like this and looking like a moron.

Assassins creed was repetitive but It's a unique game and the second looks fucking awesome

Assassin's Creed had amazing graphics and the plot turned out to be pretty good toward the end, but the gameplay was really lacking. It needed a lot more variety. I still enjoyed it once I actually took the time to learn how to play it (to pick pocket, stealth assassinate, etc.)

The end was interesting. On one hand I was very disappointed and confused as the ending felt really lacking and left a cliff hanger. But I found the symbolism at the end and spying on the emails of Lucy/the Dr. and the head honcho a nice touch, and the ending made a whole lot more sense once I read an article online explaining what it all meant. It's quite a good background and story behind it, if only they had revealed it in the actual game a bit more clearly. I'm actually looking forward to AC2 now...
They're going to explain what it means completely. And apparently it's not what we expect it to mean (I read the same article).