Are Assassin Creeds good games actually?

Only thing the series has going for it are the exploration of cities of various eras and their architecture.
Gameplay and story are absolute dogshit

 

Wow, lots of edgelords in this thread. Guys, if everyone else is being edgy, you're no longer being edgy...

 

If everyone else is being edgy but you, maybe you're actually the edgy one?

 

The other day I installed vanilla ass creed 1, and I felt that graphics and animation much more believable than the sequels. It was kind of "realistic". From AC 3 and beyond, the characters are like Spiderman, doing super jumps that defies gravity. Also, the drab look does feel atmospheric. The game felt less silly compared to the other installments. But it really is boring and repetitive. Every kind of mission is the same thing in every city: pickpocketing, eavesdropping, beat up, etc... were missions available to get info on the "boss" targets, and for each boss, they would all play the same way. No variations. Also, beyond the cities, there was a big open wild area that was very cool, but there was nothing to do on it, other than find collectibles.

It's when they applied the GTA philosophy: all missions are "story" related, and there's some repetitive filler mini game type missions, but they all have a better integration to the main story. So it's like a GTA without cars. If one likes GTA for it's storylines and not because of silly dumb killings, you'll probably enjoy it. Also, aerial assassinations were present in the first game. What is new is the fact that you have new moves, like killing two guys at the same time and double aerial kills. And ezio can learn hot to climb higher.

it's as good as AC2. It made things easier with the aid of brotherhood allies, and chain kills. Ezio is unstoppable. This is the game that they added side optional bonus objectives in every mission, like kill everybody undetected, o kill in a specific way, or complete the mission without fallin in the water, which was really challenging sometimes. every mission had 2 side objectives. This is kept for the whole series from this game on. also, this game introduces a cellphone minigame where you send your assassin's on missions around europe so you get money and improve their abilities. they could die in these missions, but there was a percentage of success before sending then on missions.

It's the best looking game of the old engine, but it's a short game and feels more like an expansion. Ezio has now a hook that can be used in parkour and combat, there's a tower defense minigame. Every new addition to gameplay in the series is kept for the follow up sequels until now. Storywise, it ends the ezio/altair storyline in a way that was completely unnecessary to have a sequel, except there was that shitty present timeline.

Also, about this old engine, the cities felt more lively in a GTA sense, better that when they changed to the AC3 engine.

the redeeming factor of this game is the introduction of naval battles which, though very arcade-ish, they were really fun. Also, they sold the game with picture a a protagonist that you only get to play with only in the second half of the game, making the whole beggining feeling like a huge prologue. Then, when you get to play the indian guy, you realize that the prologue guy is much more fun to play with. The game also brings back the "wilderness area" like the one in AC 1. But old USA setting is boring.

It's simpler, but yet introduces the disguise/persona feature gameplay. but its also very simple and actually cumbersome.

It's as silly as every AC game, but it is really fun, and I guess it was made because many people considered AC3 a huge disappointment, but everybody praised the ship missions in that game, that they run to make an entire game based on that feature. It still has on foot sequences, but the fact that they made it shorter made the game fresh.

The optional side objectives are present since brotherhood.

very short

More of AC IV, and you play with a guy who sides with the templar guys.

Horrible, more repetitive than AC 1. The worst AC game. Everyday is revolution day: they made crowds revolting in front of Notre dame, and from Arno's youth till the end of the game, which is years later, there was always that riot in front of notre dame. Also, in many other places/squares. The city is very beautifully remade though. The fact that there's no eiffel tower at the game time line made the devs create a bleeding effect in which present guy experience glitches in the animus that would merge othe memories/timelines, making you appear in the belle epoque or world war 2, so you can widen the scope of virtual Paris tourism. But the game is a shore.

Oh, multiplayer was integrated in the main game, so you could play mission's in co-op, but the novelty wears of after playing a couple of times.

Silly, but an improvement on unity, but it reached a point when the series is mostly bad by now. It's mostly a forgettable game, but some fun can be achieved from it. It feels like the devs noticed the series was stagnant and unity was shit, that you can see the effort they made to change it into a better game. It's also the 1st time an AC game doesn't take itself too seriously. It's now closer to GTA since you have chariots on streets that you can rob. Combat is more akin to batman games, and better than the whole series combat.

Mine:

Brotherhood > IV(freedom cry is part of it) > II > Rogue > III > Revelations > Syndicate > I > liberation > Unity

In any case, I like AC games overall, because I like my open world GTA style games. I know they're popamole, I know they're silly. But I can get some enjoyment from it.

 

So he basically did what he was asked to do?

Also kek at the edginess comment. Am I supposed to like the series just to be a contrarian? OP asked if they are actually good, and most people answered. There's many instances where RPGCodex gets it wrong on games (most Jap action games etc) but AssCreed may be series where it's really hard to defend any design choice beyond just admitting that it's mindless entertainment.

 

Correct.

 

I only played up to Black Flag and thought the AC2 and AC: Brotherhood were the best. AC3, while having an interesting setting during the American Revolution, was riddled with bugs and borderline unplayable. Trying to 100 percent it, which I did, gave me cancer.

 

Yeah, the Batman games are garbage for many of the same reasons Ass Creed is.

 

I think the AC games can be good popamole fun with added sightseeing if you play them from time to time - but I hate the Assassins and their Creed so I like Rogue's story best.

 

Only ever played AC2 because I liked the setting and got it cheap during some sale.
Sightseeing aspect is superbly done, it's a really cool recreation of rennaisance tuscany.
Gameplay however is boring, shallow and simplistic and writing isn't much to write home about either.

So - play it if you ever wanted to visit rennaisance italy and like shoehorned apparitions of just about every famous person from that time. Avoid it if you actually need good gameplay.

 

There have been worse games.

 

assassin's creed 1 has a muslim main character

 

Well unsurprising considering the origins of the word "Assassin".

The problem with the series was then having to spill their shitty fanfic all over it so instead of being say Hitman during the Crusades it became ANCIENT ALIENS PRECURSOR AND SAVING OF MANKIND BECAUSE SOLAR FLARES! plus the so called "factions" are hilarious good/evil binary to the point were the usual squeakily clean Assassins turn into Stupid Evil in Rogue because the protagonist switches sides, its shallow and doesnt allow anything to exist beyond the binary faction, its dull and boring as well shallow.

Only its gameplay can help because its story certainly dont and because Ubisoft milked it so hard the series just shat itself with Unity because it was more of the same, I think the reason it didnt after 3 was because Black Flag expanded on the ship mechanics that were in 3 delaying the inevitable, there were no real gameplay innovations in Unity and Syndicate and the "Ubisoft Open World" effect kicked in at the time.

GTA kinda does about the same thing but ... the writing is far superior, plus they arent putting out a game every year like Unisoft was.

 

Yeah, if your standards and expectations in gameplay are entirely absent.

Fucking cuckdex general gaming. Sometimes it's like browsing a slightly less retarded version of ign or [insert mainstream game press publication site here].

 

Same here, Rogue and Syndicate are the only 2 AC games I actually managed to finish. Rogue executed the revenge plot very well IMO. With Syndicate, I mainly play it because of its setting and architecture, there's not a lot of games that take place in Victorian London setting.

 

As some people have said, I think Black Flag is pretty good if you're into pirates and ship warfare. I think some of the storyline is legitimately good and being a pirate is just fun. Hvaing said that, the recurring AC gameplay elements wear thin and I thiought the combat was a little too easy. I think if I'd played more games from the series, I may have gotten fed up and stopped playing it at some point, but since it was many only time with the series at any great length I managed to stick with it and enjoy the story and atmosphere

 

I recently tried Black Flag again but shut it off after getting to the retarded Aspergo (or whatever the company that makes the Animus is called) parts early on.
Great design there guys, rudely taking the player out of the action to show him your French office faggotry.

 

I'm guessing when that Animus nonsense was pitched before first game it looked cool as fuck to the suits. The storyline that connects all games in the series and provides an excuse to milk the series endlessly? Holy fuck, that's genius. Except players ended up rightfully hating it because in practice that present day shit does nothing but interrupt the actual game. But they are stuck with it now, trying their best to make those sequences shorter and less anoying. That's at least from what I've seen in Black Flag, don't know where they went with it after that game.
All they really needed was historical settings, uninterrupted by that sci fi bullshit. They could've kept making as many games as they wanted to anyway and they would've been at least somewhat less crappy for it.

 

Saw this in Black Flag as well, wondering if any games in the series allow you to torch the shithole instead of wandering about the Aspergo Aspie office, bringing people coffee and packages, and generally doing banal clerk / level I tech support.

 

I always thought that if they wanted to go with the global pan historical conspiracy angle, they could've executed it inside the historical settings, not by having it explained to you like a retard by the modern era characters.

 

They are good for sight seeing. Good production values wasted on shitty gameplay.
Also first 4 games and their "expansions" had some good fatalities (without blood...)

 

They could have kept the modern day/near future parts of their story by just having people discover what Altair et al. did back then. Hell, make it Telltale-esque and have the modern people react to how you played each mission. Add a bit of Eternal Darkness perhaps ("My ancestor did THAT?").
Instead we get endless tours around the make-belief office that Ubisoft wished they worked in.

 

More like you should stop being a faggot, and develop better taste in games. ASSassin (lel teh edgy) Creed is a pile of shit, and a waste of some talented artists to add insult to injury.

 

Was just about to write a reply until I read this. Superbly summed up, no need for me to add anything.

This post ought to be tattood on every AAA dev from the past few years, and stickied to the top of every gaming forum.