Export thread

So I've been told that it's not really worthy my time to play AC 1 and to instead just watch the story stuff on youtube and then play AC 2 and Brotherhood which are, according to my friends MUCH better games.

So what you say gamers of halforums, should I bother with AC 1?

I personally got alot of fun out of AC1, I'd recommend it. It can be a bit repetitious but very satsifying.

I found both 1 and 2 fantastic games while very repetitive. The second less so but it does still drag a bit eventually, I found. I've been playing a tonne of the multiplayer from Brotherhood recently though I've yet to touch the single player so I can't exactly comment on that portion.

I couldn't get into Assassin's Creed 1. As Far said, I found it pretty repetative. One of these days, I might give it a second chance, but...I doubt it.

I'm more on the side thinking that you should play AC1. It is not a great game by any stretch but I think it did the time outside the Animus the best. It definitely solidified Desmond as my favorite character of the series.

But if you don't like it you could be put off the entire series. So I'd compromise and say if you can borrow it from a friend or rent it play or at least try the the first otherwise just go to the second.

If you play the first one, be careful riding the horses. Anything but the lightest of slow gallops cause the guards on the roads to freak the fuck out and start trying to murder you.

AKA: I think the first game is terrible.

Both are fine thought 2 is a finer product that I really enjoyed.

I'll play Brotherhood once it hits the PC.

Depends on what platform. If you're on PC, don't bother with AC1, it's a very sloppy port of a game I found to have mediocre gameplay. The graphics and world are pretty amazing, but the controls sucked.

I've never played the second as I object to it's DRM.

Really? I played mine on PC with little issue, I used an Xbox wireless controller for it.

PS3.

Thanks for the input guys... I might try and pick it up on the cheap in case it sucks. I already bought 2.

I actually had a lot of fun screwing with the guards on the horse. Angle it just right, and go knocking them down like bowling pins.

Jiarn said:

Really? I played mine on PC with little issue, I used an Xbox wireless controller for it.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised it recognized your controller. It wouldn't recognize mine, and I had to play through the game without the trigger buttons because it wouldn't let me assign them to anything useful. Not only was it too stupid to recognize that my Madcatz controller is a 360 controller, it also refused to allow me to assign the trigger buttons as buttons and lacked rumble support. That's a damn sloppy port, because a lot of other titles have gotten that just fine (Overlord and Trine most notably).

So it was a sloppy port because you were using a Madcatz controller?

Yeah I'm not so sure I can agree with that.

Jiarn said:

So it was a sloppy port because you were using a Madcatz controller?

Click to expand...

It's a 360 controller. Windows recognizes it as a 360 controller. Overlord and Trine recognize it as a 360 controller. Even if AC can't see that it's a 360 controller, it should still allow for any gamepad to assign shoulder trigger to button actions. It should support all the Logitech and other PC gamepads out there. (Also, the port of AC2 originally didn't support the wireless version of the 360 pad. I don't know if that got patched, but it just shows they didn't learn their lesson from the first game.)

So then yes, your complaint about the game is that it doesn't recognize your controller. Not exactly a basis for calling it "controls that suck".

Jiarn said:

So then yes, your complaint about the game is that it doesn't recognize your controller. Not exactly a basis for calling it "controls that suck".

Click to expand...

Oh, that was just my biggest complaint about the controls, and what was specific to PC. I also found battle to be bland and sluggish, especially compared to Batman Arkham Asylum. Using throwing daggers was severely flawed, with targetting being hit or miss and it was way to easy to throw a dagger when you didn't want to, and hard to switch targets. I thought that the free running AI was monumentally stupid, I'd often jump over hiding places that I was running straight towards, which caused me to get spotted again. Not sure why, but I had a very hard time jumping in the direction I wanted to go, I'd often end up at a different angle than I had been headed for before hitting the edge. (Never had that in any other game I've played on this PC. Not Psychonauts, not Batman:AA) Camera angles when climbing were anything but helpful, so climbing ended up being a boring trial and error excercise, when it should have been an exciting mental challenge. Furthermore, I hated how the game stole control of my camera after I rescued every citizen. I'm busy trying to get away, and my camera is locked onto something other than the main character. Bad game design! Taking control away from the player while the player is in danger is a dick move.

I really don't meant this to sound like it most likely will, but it seems more to me like you were just bad at the game. I think I had a quarter of those problems playing the game, which was vastly outshown by how smoothly the game did run for what it was. An amazing stealth, kill and run to hide game. I can't remember more than a handful of times that the game didn't go where I wanted it to, or the camera angles were off. I'll even go so far as to load it up and play some tonight.

I had no control issues with Assassin's Creed in any shape or form. Nor did I use a controller to play the game.

Frankie Williamson said:

If you play the first one, be careful riding the horses. Anything but the lightest of slow gallops cause the guards on the roads to freak the fuck out and start trying to murder you.

AKA: I think the first game is terrible.

Click to expand...

I'm actually really enjoying it, I decided to go for it.

HOWEVER. The controls are great 98% of the time but sometimes it's just like... WTF. Suddenly I'm using my sword instead of the assassins blade I had selected so the guards are alerted not to mention all the times I'm trying to jump or climb and the controls just go all kinds of wonky. You are right however the horse thing is total bullshit. Do these guys just auto kill anything moving over 2 mph? What the hell...

Espy said:

You are right however the horse thing is total bullshit. Do these guys just auto kill anything moving over 2 mph? What the hell...

Click to expand...

Assassins are the only people who need to move above 2 mph.

Assassins are also the only people who need to walk by templars.

It's just comically ridiculous. I can't help but laugh at how fast they spring into action when you aren't moving at a snails pace.

Oh yeah, a lot doesn't make sense.

For instance, it's okay to climb up buildings. It's not okay to be on the roofs.

My favorite: This man just got pushed into some guards by a person with obvious mental afflictions. HE MUST BE AN ASSASSIN!

Lol, oh yes, my favorite thing is when I'm trying to sneakily assassinate a guy and I get shoved by a nutcase into someone and BAM! The guards are on you!

Here's a link to my full review of Assassin's Creed 1.

I gave it a B. It's a decent game. If you really want the full story experience you can go ahead and play it, but all the game elements of AC1 are present and/or improved upon in AC2. While you might be missing out on some backstory if you just jumped right to 2, I don't think it would be otherwise harmful to the gaming experience... IE, you don't need AC1 to play AC2 well.

GasBandit said:

Here's a link to my full review of Assassin's Creed 1.

I gave it a B. It's a decent game. If you really want the full story experience you can go ahead and play it, but all the game elements of AC1 are present and/or improved upon in AC2. While you might be missing out on some backstory if you just jumped right to 2, I don't think it would be otherwise harmful to the gaming experience... IE, you don't need AC1 to play AC2 well.

Click to expand...

no but you need constant internet connection to play AC2 well

Chibibar;458985][QUOTE=GasBandit said:

Here's a link to my full review of Assassin's Creed 1.

I gave it a B. It's a decent game. If you really want the full story experience you can go ahead and play it, but all the game elements of AC1 are present and/or improved upon in AC2. While you might be missing out on some backstory if you just jumped right to 2, I don't think it would be otherwise harmful to the gaming experience... IE, you don't need AC1 to play AC2 well.

Click to expand...

no but you need constant internet connection to play AC2 well [/QUOTE]

Nnnnnot exactly

But this is immaterial to the question. Playing 2 is a given in the original question. The only variable is whether or not he plays AC1 first.

Espy said:

Lol, oh yes, my favorite thing is when I'm trying to sneakily assassinate a guy and I get shoved by a nutcase into someone and BAM! The guards are on you!

Click to expand...

Oh, and don't forget that you are a master assassin who can defend himself against whole crowds of armed guards, but is somehow defenseless against the town drunk. Gah! I can counter a broadsword, but there's no defense against a stumbling idiot?

This man just got pushed into me. There is only one explanation: HE MUST BE A PICKPOCKET!

GUARDS! THIEF!

Honestly I just started looking for the alleys the crazy dudes hung in so I could stab them in peace.

Finished 2 the other day. Damn. Now THAT is how you make a sequel. Need to get Brotherhood now... Anyone playing it?

Brotherhood should arrive here from Amazon on Wednesday.

Waiting on PC version.

That's us getting it for PS3. Probably should've been clear on that.

Yeah I'm playing it on the PS3 as well. My brother in law got me Force Unleashed 2 for Christmas so I just finished that yesterday. Thank God he payed for it. Fun as hell game but 60 bucks for what, maybe 5 hours of gameplay max? Jeeze guys. DLC anyone?

On AC1 I liked that after you beat the story, you could assissinate anyone without getting hit with the loss (money, was it?)

I went around just killing all the damned beggars that would latch onto you like a lamprey and block you from moving. I played AC2 and sold it back after I beat it, not sure if I'll even get AC3. I very rarely do the multiplayer on any game and I've heard the single player bit is rather weak.

Yeah I'm not a huge multiplayer guy, so I'm gonna wait till its well below 60 bucks before I buy it.

I really can't bring myself to pay more than $20 for a game, even then I usually wait till a crazy online sale for 5-10$.

$60? I can't even fathom that.

I think of it like this:
I will easily pay 5-15 dollars to go spend 1.5-3 hours in the movie theater to see a movie I really want to see right?
So, for Dragon Age, I payed 30 bucks for it and played maybe... 40-60 hours? Thats a pretty damn good deal at around .50-.75 cents per hour.
For a game like Arkham Asylum I got probably 9-10 hours out of it and payed full price, 60 bucks so that equals about 6 bucks and hour? Thats the highest I'm generally willing to go and I rarely do it.

Yeah well, single income, two kids, and $250 a month left over after bills (not including food)? Yeah, I don't pay full price because I don't feel it deserves it....

No worries man, I really don't buy many video games, and when I do I usually don't pay more than 20-30 bucks for them. I probably buy... maybe 4-5 games a year and beyond that just ask for them for birthdays christmas so I don't have to pay for them. I barely have time to play them anyway between school and work. Sounds like you are a responsible guy taking care of his family, so I would say you have your priorities straight.

Yeah, WoW and L4D2 usually fill the boots of my gaming time. They're pretty "bang for the buck" but I do enjoy a good rpg now and then. Only got New Vegas because my brother gifted it to me for Christmas/New Years. Enjoying the hell out of it too.

Just so people note on the $60: Assassin's Creed Brotherhood is $35 on Amazon, which qualifies for free shipping. I wasn't gonna pay $60 for it either.

Holy crap! Ordered!!!

Why is it so cheap all the sudden???
Added at: 17:13
Best Buy still has it at 59.99...

Jay said:

Waiting on PC version.

Click to expand...

Ditto here. Or, I guess, waiting for consoles to support keyboard and mouse.

I cannot even imagine playing AC on a computer. It seems so built for consoles.

Espy said:

I cannot even imagine playing AC on a computer. It seems so built for consoles.

Click to expand...

The only games "built for consoles" are side view beat-em-ups. AC/AC2 are good on PC. And there's just so much on consoles that should never have been attempted without a mouse (like, for instance, first person shooters).

For the record, Batman: Arkham Asylum (which has a combat model almost identical to the AC games) also plays like a dream on PC with mouse and keyboard.

Oh I'm sure it does, I just can't imagine doing it. I've never been a PC gamer and except for a few games it always feels terribly unwieldy to me. I know lots of people love it and are super hardcore about it, but it's not my world and games like AC and Batman feel perfect to me on consoles.

When I played Batman:AA on my PC, I used an XBox 360 pad to do it. The onscreen instructions showed Xbox icons, and all the controls were correctly mapped without my having to do anything. I can't imagine it would have been any different playing on a console. I never had any issues. (Same goes for Overlord and Trine as well). A properly done PC port should work just fine with a gamepad.

Well sure, but then you may as well play it on the console.

Espy said:

Well sure, but then you may as well play it on the console.

Click to expand...

- I don't own a 360 or PS3.
- I got it cheaper on PC.
- When I get a better PC I can go back and replay it with a higher resolution.

Thats cools man, I was only pointing out that it seems like one of the major, if not only, reason lots of people prefer PC gaming is due to being able to use their peripherals of choice like the keyboard and mouse.

Yeah, I can understand wanting to play some games on a pad. Thing is, PC supports kb/mouse AND pad... ecksbawks is pad only. The whole thing seems like it's been deliberately stagnated to me, when I know for a fact some PS2 games supported keyboard via USB.

Espy said:

Oh I'm sure it does, I just can't imagine doing it. I've never been a PC gamer and except for a few games it always feels terribly unwieldy to me.

Click to expand...

Heh, over here i hate not having everything work straight from a key because the game was ported over from a console... and it was 2x as annoying because Mass Effect 1 had that, while ME2 requires me to pres Esc and then use the mouse to get to the squad screen... (and it's even worse because ME1 was ported by another company, but Bioware made NWN, so it's not like they don't have experience with mapping everything to keys).

If it's a 3rd person game, a platformer or similar, it's pad for me all the way (still on PC). If it's first person anything? Keyboard and mouse please.

Having read this thread and watched Yahtzee's review, I don't get all the griping over the first Assassin's Creed. What courier missions? What constant riding, when they let you fast travel after you've first been to a city? And you can just punch beggars and crazies and they'll go away--do this before going off to do something important.

I admit, I was a little "meh" about the game during the first time in Damascus, but once I got the rhythm down, it became a lot of fun. I don't see a need to go hunting all the little flags or every little side mission. I think the game got a bad rap for its extra content which is completely optional.

I finished the first AC last night, and with that in mind, and looking at comments on here as well as those on the internet at large, I feel like I played an entirely different game than many people.

But allegedly since I ended up loving AC1, I should be in heaven with AC2.

I'm with you there escushion, I loved the hell out of AC1. I'm a huge fan of the Crusades time-line though so that helped, but the game itself was just a ton of fun for me. Dodging in and out of the crowd, setting up the perfect ambush and assassinate points, then dashing like mad to cover.

I'll agree with the complaint that the side quests were annoyingly required to do, but none the less a small setback in a great game.

my recomendation, play all 3. the first one dosn't have as much side adventure as the later 2, but it does setup a very decent story.
You could watch it on youtube and get an idea, but IMO, there is too much of the little things that make up the story that you can only find by playing

I played on the PS3, and i don't play very many concole games, but the controls were quick to learn, and the only time i have trouble is on some of the action puzzles.

Do folks like the 3rd one? I tend to play the AC games long after because they seem to go on sale relatively quickly, but I'm sorely tempted by the 3rd one.

Haven't played Brotherhood yet, waiting on PC version.

AC1 was great and AC2 is even better though it was a bit too easy. 100% completion rating.

Started AC2 tonight. Interesting change in gameplay direction, with the single location being slowly expanded as you do stuff in it. It's a little jarring, the change in how you play, but it's very good.

SpecialKO said:

Do folks like the 3rd one? I tend to play the AC games long after because they seem to go on sale relatively quickly, but I'm sorely tempted by the 3rd one.

Click to expand...

The single player stuff is just kinda more of the same from AC2--not that that is a completely bad thing, but I felt the additions they included such as recruiting other assassins weren't that exciting. The single player is also extremely short, though there are a lot of side missions and whatnot. The multiplayer, however, is fantastic. Normally I'm not one for multiplayer games, but it's a lot of fun in Brotherhood because it's basically a cat and mouse game; you have to outwit your opponents which is extremely tense and extremely satisfying. So overall it's good, but mostly for the multiplayer rather than the single player campaign.

I'm liking Brotherhood's multiplayer way more than an FPS's standard Deathmatch. It requires intelligence and cunning, and it's managed to ease the pain of missing some of my PC favorites, like L4D versus.

Finished AC2 tonight... I think I let myself get over-hyped, because while the gameplay was a solid advancement, I was a little disappointed by some changes, and in the story.

It's got great moments, and the initial sequences are good build-up, but after a while, it becomes the Assassins vs Templars stuff of the previous game... and nothing more. Ezio gets a good deal of attention to his personal story early on and he's a fun character, but after the Pazzi's are done, most of the narrative's attention is on "The Mission". I'm sure that's what a lot of people wanted, but I was really hoping to see it continue with Ezio's personal life, how he was dealing with his loss, actually gaining something else rather than stuck solely in "vengeance" mode.

I liked all the stuff of the old ones, the Altair stuff, the Assassins vs Templar story, but I was expecting to get more out of Ezio.

Not story-related: I call complete bullshit on having to buy the DLC so I won't have "missing memories." Fuck you, Ubisoft.

Here, I'll sum up the AC2 DLC for you.

Assassin's Creed 2 Brotherhood kicked my ass during the weekend.

It's sooooo good.

Made me completely forget average Dragon Effect.

It is that good, I agree. 3 is fantastic as well.

3 hasn't come out yet.... I think Brotherhood is a 2.5

And it is great. The "full sync" challenges is great even some of absolute bullshit. aka don't get hit, 30 minute mission, then bam you get cheap shotted after a long cutscene.

I just started the one-player for Brotherhood and I'm loving it. Unless the story completely pisses away its goodwill, I might actually like this more than AC2.

The music of Good Mead = Rome soundtrack for Campagna.

Love the music as well.

I think I fucked around out of order, because I did a load of rebuilding Rome before the game informed me that I was able to do that. Oddly, I'm enjoying the extra gunk thrown into this one, as opposed to in AC1 with the flags and AC2, where I did enjoy the side quests at first, but eventually ditched them and just went through the story. I don't like that landmarks sit there with their giant price tags, making you think they're worth something, when really they're just to have. That's 29,000 florens I'll never see again.

As for the story, I just got to the point of recruiting assassins last night. Deploying them is beautiful. A Borgia knight moved past a haystack on horseback while two foot soldiers marched behind him, and then two of my recruits pounced out of the hay, killing one soldier outright and yanking the other into the hay with a knife to his throat. The knight kept moving, completely unaware.

I kind of wish Ezio had some part in training them though. You see them on the street, you help them fight soldiers (which felt like saving citizens from AC1, which I missed), and then you send them off. Instantly, they're available as trained assassins. I would've liked to have done stuff with the first batch, showing them the ropes.

In case anyone didn't know (I stumbled upon it by accident yesterday), the PS3 version has some free DLC: two multiplayer maps, and an extra layer of side-quest stuff for the single-player involving rescuing Copernicus and his scholars from the Borgia.

Finished the single-player for Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood tonight. Pretty much what I expected after playing the last two games, so I'm eager for Revelations in November.

The story has me on the fence, because on one hand I feel these inspiring, romanticized historical fictions are being interrupted by the futuristic weirdness, but on the other hand I'm intrigued and want answers from the futuristic side of things. Supposedly Revelations will wrap up a lot of loose ends (according to the GameInformer I got today, anyway)... we'll see, now that that one guy has left Ubisoft.

I'm really tired of the meaningless busywork though. Lots of side missions that get you nothing, lots of micromanaging money situations that amount to nothing. Even your trained Assassins are able to play little role in the penultimate chapter. I fully upgraded the villa in AC2 and it amounted to jack squat. They did better with Brotherhood, considering investing in shops matters since you have easier access to them from anywhere, and the side missions at least had their own little storylines this time, but it feels like a glut of content made only to distract from the main story, and unlike Bethesda games, the main story is engrossing enough that I choose to ignore the distractions.

I hope they continue improving the integration with Revelations, but even if not, I'm looking forward to it just to see the story go forward and to play with that nasty-looking Hook Blade Ezio is going to get. As always, I love the gameplay. The actual movement and fighting and killing only gets better with each game. It'll be neat to go back to playing as Altair in Revelations with the advances made to the gameplay since the original.

I loved the ending of brotherhood, it was like OMFG NOOOO! NOOOOOOOOO

Then you watch the credits and you hear the things happening and you're like NOOOOOOOOOOO

Series is getting progressively better and Brotherhood was a fun playthrough. Have they revealed the setting for the next one?

Jay said:

I loved the ending of brotherhood, it was like OMFG NOOOO! NOOOOOOOOO

Then you watch the credits and you hear the things happening and you're like NOOOOOOOOOOO

Series is getting progressively better and Brotherhood was a fun playthrough. Have they revealed the setting for the next one?

Click to expand...

Constantinople I believe.

Time period?

Couple years after Brotherhood. You continue playing Ezio and apparently play Altair as well.

Meh....

You play as Desmond playing as Ezio, and sometimes Ezio will play as Altair. It'll be set in Constantinople around when the Ottomans are taking over, so it's a big turf war between Templars and Assassins.

Brotherhood spoilers:

They're also trying to merge the sidequests into being more incidental encounter situations rather than the GTA-model they're currently aping.

They're also intending to wrap up some of the loose plotlines and clear some storyline ground for AC3. Revelations will be Ezio's final game in the main series.

Damn, this is sounding better and better.

I'd literally suck a dick for coop.

Supposedly the multi-player will have story involved too, but I'll believe that when I see it. Each new element Ubisoft adds to the games has been gimmicky and tacked on at first, and then becomes refined in the next game, so I don't expect much out of that. Either way you're still playing as Abstergo agents.