Assassin's Turd

[anus_pounder]

Well ? Brotherhood has been out for a few days. What does the codex make of it?

 

[Achilles]

It's not out on PC yet, so we haven't played it.

 

[Sceptic]

Friend of mine got it yesterday (console version of course). I may meet him for lunch, if so I'll ask him what he thinks and transfer to the 'dex through the appropriate filters.

 

[Lesifoere]

It's not out on PC yet, so we haven't played it.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

The second one was fun - still far too automated and so on, but it was a big enough improvement over the first that the series is definitely starting to show promise. Also, I loved the glyph stuff and all the hidden messages and puzzles, I'm a sucker for that sort of thing. Will definitely give this one a shot, multiplayer AC could be brilliant if done right (which it probably won't be).

 

[Crooked Bee]

It's not out on PC yet, so we haven't played it.

 

[SimpleComplexity]

I think what would make those Ass creed games better is a female protagonist actually showing some ass and a bit cleavage here and there.

 

[Silellak]

I am really enjoying the multiplayer, actually. It was implemented quite well, and - surprisingly - most matches don't devolve into a bunch of idiots running around stabbing each other, primarily because the scoring system actually encourages people to get fewer - but cleaner - kills, rather than relying solely on kill quantity. I wish there were more modes, but at least both the team vs. team modes and the FFA modes inspire their own unique strategies.

I'd report on the single player, but I honestly haven't found a reason to select that menu option yet.

 

[DalekFlay]

It's not out on PC yet, so we haven't played it.

This.

And even when it is on PC those among us who don't pirate games will probably be waiting another few months because who the fuck would hand $60 to Ubisoft of all companies?

I'm also super-weird sumbitch because honestly I preferred the original. It looked better, I thought, and was more immersive, which was really the only reason to play the game. I played it as a sort of 1200's city walk simulator, since the gameplay was mind-numbingly easy and pointless. As a 1400's city walk simulator AC2 was much less fun and much less good looking to my eye. It was too much of a fucking video game, the kind of video game people who grew up on Mario and Zelda enjoy.

 

[GarfunkeL]

I think what would make those Ass creed games better is a female protagonist actually showing some ass and a bit cleavage here and there.

Nearly every game would benefit from such treatment. As it is, AC1 was shitty action game with god-awful plot - and AFAIK, they have only made the combat even easier in the later instalments, so there's no need to be stealthy as you can just sweep the streets clean effortlessly.

Oh, related: games-journalist from The Guardian fellates AC:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/ga ... od-history

 

[Excommunicator]

After playing a few hours of the first with all of its extremely boring, painfully repetitive, badly structured and totally unrewarding offerings I have no interest in this series whatsoever.

I simply couldn't believe how lacking in entertainment value it turned out to be after having such widespread praise when it was new (I remember comparisons between Assassins Creed and Thief which I find simply insulting to Thief). This is the game that cemented my skepticism and distrust for console games more than any other. It was the one that made me realise how much I thoroughly despise the things they put into so many console games - which console gamers actually enjoy, no less - but which I find to be no more than a kind of masochistic torture session that costs money and turns you off gaming for large periods at at time.

 

[ortucis]

Second one is definitely a improvement but still nothing amazing. Story just keeps getting worse, I still hate the protagonist and the fact that I completed the whole game doing counter kills, AGAIN, didn't help.

Here's a golden advice for UBI, remove the fucking counter attack so that the players will have no choice but to learn and master the 20+ new combat moves you added in the sequel for no reason whatsoever (really, you upgrade your armor, weapons, everything possible but still can win every fight with counter kills).

I actually found it hilarious that after being in-game for like 20 mins and winning all fights with counter attacks, there was a actual combat tutorial all of a sudden where they, for the first time, tell you how to do the counter attack. Terrible design there, should've never unlocked all moves from start in the first place.

If you remove the counter attack then the game becomes slightly challenging. Enemies chase you everywhere. Forget being a trained assassin, even a low-class theif from randomfaction can chase you around everywhere. Makes you feel like a douche with a expensive armor with only thing special about you being those stupid concealed blades (which still provide satisfying kill, I admit.. this time there is blood on your clothes as well, nice touch).

Anyways, still was a good game, but I was expecting something more. AC2 felt like a expansion in the end.


EDIT: Oh and these assassins suck at their job. Agent 47 can take out these retards single handedly the way these people keep secrets and go around flashing their weaponry/faction armors out in the open.

 

[Satori (original)]

After playing a few hours of the first with all of its extremely boring, painfully repetitive, badly structured and totally unrewarding offerings I have no interest in this series whatsoever.

The second is beter in this regard and I actually did the repetitive silly little 'find the pieces of the codex' sidequest because I was having a great time bouncing and hopping around Venice and the Vatican City with its pre-Michaelangelo painted ceiling. It's a great game (for one playthrough) if you're an atmospherophile like me.

AC1 was for me, an alpha build compared to the v1.0 of AC2

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

I still haven't played the second. Waiting to see it for 360 for $10.

 

[anus_pounder]

Fixing the combat is not just a matter of counter kills and the latest kill streak executions. They also need to give us less medicine (15 vials that heal half the fully upgraded health bar!) and make treatment more expensive. Also, why the fuck did they remove the guard-break from the first game? Higher level guards and templar knights actually posed a relative challenge, what with breaking through your guard....

Anyway, i'm several hours in brotherhood. This is more or less Assassin's Creed 2, but in Rome, and with somewhat more aggressive AI (which is a moot point since Counter kills and Streak Executions make it even easier than before). A new weapon here and there. More of the same.

As for the assassin recruitment thing, well, I can't really say. The game is so damn easy I don't see a point in using them.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

In 2, I ended up using a mod that caused Ezio to die in two hits and sticking with a weak dagger for fighting, just to give it a semblance of challenge. It didn't. The combat just isn't complex enough to offer anything of the sort, and it didn't look like something they'd changed.

Multiplayer seems to be really well-received though, give that a go and let us know how it is.

 

[Forest Dweller]

That's the one thing worse about AC2 compared to AC1 - all the added options they gave you in combat (potions, hiring thugs, new weapons, etc.) made the game even easier and they didn't do anything to offset this.

The other thing would be the decrease in immersion. The first Ass Creed was pushing it in terms of what Altair could do, but it was at least plausible considering he was wholly dedicated and had spent his whole life in training. Ezio, on the other hand, made mush less sense and his cavalier, womanizing personality didn't change which doesn't fit with a highly trained assassin. Also the story took a bit of a hit. Altair's was about the importance of obediance versus independent thinking which is much more engaging than a simple revenge tale. And then that bit they pulled in at the end regarding the planet and the Mayan prophecy - oh god no.

 

[SoupNazi]

I liked the breaking the fourth wall thing at the end. It was funny. Also I like the premise of the third installment in the series, since it seems like it might be set in the future (or present, from the in-game POV). I know some people raged about it, but for me, modern setting is just much more attractive.

 

[Admiral jimbob]

I love all the conspiracy nonsense, it's absolutely insane and it's great fun. I'm pretty sure it's tongue-in-cheek... or some of the writers are, at least.

I liked AC1's story more on principle, but the game killed it by delivering it in horrible, unskippable HL2-esque rambling about nothing in particular between kills. It made me dread completing a mission because I knew I'd have to listen to the incredibly obvious Evil Advisor lecture me afterwards while I flailed helplessly in an attempt to find a way out of the invisible barrier. AC2's story was worse on the face of it, but I thought the way it was delivered and tied into the gameplay was pretty good, if not brilliant. I agree with your gripe about Ezio not really changing enough, though it showed a bit better in the DLCs.

One thing that made me rage was the fucking ending. I know you can't kill the fucker because he died a few years later historically, but Jesus Christ, that was the absolute worst case of (and I hate to link to TVTropes) what measure is a mook I've ever seen. You've killed dozens or hundreds of innocent men who're just in the wrong place at the wrong time over about two decades to get to this fucker, then you refuse to kill him because it won't bring your family back? Fuck you you greasy stupidly-bearded wop

 

[Drakron]

I love all the conspiracy nonsense, it's absolutely insane and it's great fun. I'm pretty sure it's tongue-in-cheek... or some of the writers are, at least.

It just makes me rage.

In fact I cannot watch JewTube walkthrough of this because 2 minutes into the intro I am already pissed off.

 

[DalekFlay]

That's the one thing worse about AC2 compared to AC1 - all the added options they gave you in combat (potions, hiring thugs, new weapons, etc.) made the game even easier and they didn't do anything to offset this.

Challenge is something publishers think nobody wants.

 

[Forest Dweller]

I liked the breaking the fourth wall thing at the end. It was funny. Also I like the premise of the third installment in the series, since it seems like it might be set in the future (or present, from the in-game POV). I know some people raged about it, but for me, modern setting is just much more attractive.

No, the third game should be set in Victorian England.

 

[DalekFlay]

No, the third game should be set in Victorian England.

That's sort of a no-brainer but watch them fuck it up.

 

[Felix]

Set it in the Wild West

 

[RK47]

I prefer asia really.