| Original message (4011 Views )
|
Replies: |
| GekigangerV 1699th Post
  
Tailored Carpet V.I.P- Platinum Member
 
    
    
    
    
|  "Re(2):Does Assassin's Creed get better?" , posted Wed 15 Jun 12:35  
quote:
(if you want me to go into a rant on those other issues just ask and I would be happy to comply).
I think I have all but given up on AC1, but does the series itself get better?
Please rant, that will enable me to give you a more informed response.
The world design although impressive in scale is rather forgettable. We get 3 cities that are pretty much indistinguishable except for a couple of historic building here and there. Hell, the dialogue is the exact same for the pedestrians, just in different accents ("you don't understand sir, I'm poor and sick and hungry"). There is that "kingdom overworld" that connects all three assassination cities, but is useless once you are given the option to warp to where you want to go.
Maybe I was going into this wrong, but this game confuses me if it is a stealth game. As long as your meter is in yellow you can do almost whatever you want. Just walk in blend mode in the middle of a crowd and "stealth kill" a guard with a bunch of pedestrians around looking right at you as the guy goes down and they will all say "who did this" and not think about the guy who just punched him in the stomach. There is also the thing about "high profile" movement. It seems like that doesn't matter as long as your meter is in yellow. The game says that climbing ladders is an acceptable way to get to roofs, but scaling walls doesn't seem to be punished unless there is a archer on the roof in which case it is easy enough to take care of with a throwing knife.
Missions: Pick pocket, eavesdrop, interrogate, and informer. There is some variety in the informer missions such as collect the flag, but they are mostly "go stealth kill these guys for me." There are of course also the protect the citizens which aren't all that great unless your escape plan for an assassination involves running through some vigilantes.
|
| KTallguy 1330th Post
PSN: Hunter-KT
XBL: n/a
Wii: n/a
Red Carpet Executive Member
| "Re(3):Does Assassin's Creed get better?" , posted Wed 15 Jun 13:10:
Yes, a lot of the AC1 mechanics are outdated and not very good. They are all fleshed out and much better in the newer iterations.
I would recommend starting with AC2, or if you feel really adventurous, AC: Brotherhood. But both are good. AC1 is fine summed up in the AC2 introductory cutscene.
Edit: To your individual points:
>The world design although impressive in scale is rather forgettable.
World design gets much better starting in AC2, with 3 cities that feel unique. In AC: Brotherhood it's one huge city that manages to be more engaging than everything in AC2, and they have a ton of fast travel options (including riding horses in the city).
>As long as your meter is in yellow you can do almost whatever you want.
This is balanced much more in the newer games. Pedestrians that witness your actions will be shocked and run away, but the Guards have a Yellow/Red status that your actions will affect. And climbing and stuff is tolerated a lot more in the new game, aside from the archers, who are fun to kill in different ways (later they get rifles, watch out).
>Missions
The missions flat out SUCK in AC1. They are boring and repetitive and cookie cutter. The dev team basically ran out of time. Everything in the newer games is much better, each mission is unique and interesting (especially in AC: Brotherhood), and there are even secondary objectives in brotherhood that make the mission harder but fun if you want to go for them. Say your mission is to assassinate someone. You can do it any way you like, but the secondary objective will challenge you to use poison, or not alert any guards, or do it within a time limit... and the level design is set up for those objectives to be viable. So it's an extra wrinkle that adds challenge but isn't in the way of anything.
Play to win... or to have fun too! :)
[this message was edited by KTallguy on Wed 15 Jun 13:17] |
| Nekros 356th Post
Silver Customer
| "Re(4):Does Assassin's Creed get better?" , posted Wed 15 Jun 23:07
If you can resist, do only the story missions and finish quickly AC1. Then start with AC2, is a more polished game in all aspects. Is also very intriguing about some aspects of the storyline ("the truth" fragments, inspired by Sumerian mythology with biblical references).
I agree in general with the series going better but I found ACB less inspired and more poorly developed than AC2. Sure, there are a lot of things to do and the events are more refined and less frustrating (eg: the exploration of catacombs, ruins, etc), but is so redundant that is not much interesting, unless you LOVED the second game.
I think it's a game used only for commercial and hype purposes, just to tease gamers during the waiting for the third installment. Is due to the short single player experience (compared with the previous games) and the stupid and absolutely USELESS multiplayer mode.
|
| hikarutilmitt 554th Post
PSN: hikarutimitt
XBL: hikarutilmitt
Wii: n/a
New Red Carpet Member
| "Re(6):Does Assassin's Creed get better?" , posted Fri 17 Jun 23:20
quote:
Here’s a good reference, before buying a game I always go to gamestop.com and check the score. If the game is 7 or less, the game is a crap. If it 8 or more it won’t disappoint you a lot, it works for me.
This is one of the best ways to completely miss better games that aren't as well known, as well as buy a bunch of crap that people rave about just because it was advertised to hell and back and has subliminally made you like it.
Also, since when did a 7 (scoring equivalents of 70/100, 700/1000, 7000000000000000/10000000000000000, etc) become a bad score? I would think even stuff above a 5/50/500 would be better to gauge it by, because then you're still getting stuff that's better than average.
It's sad, because I don't really trust arbitrary scores and crap like that for if I'd like a game, I read the review itself and see WHY it was liked or hated. I would rather trust an aggregate like Metacritic than the very company trying to sell games to you.
PSN: hikarutimitt
XBL: hikarutilmitt
|
| Oh my
37th Post
Rare Customer
| "Re(7):Does Assassin's Creed get better?" , posted Sun 26 Jun 12:07
quote:
This is one of the best ways to completely miss better games that aren't as well known, as well as buy a bunch of crap that people rave about just because it was advertised to hell and back and has subliminally made you like it.
quote:
Gamestop is absolutely not reliable. They're with marketing strategies and all, they support microsoft inconditionally (because is American, I suppose) and gave fps and racing games the best scores and promotions. To invest your money correctly, is better for you to follow YOUR OWN TASTE, not some bullshit from a business company.
Whoa, a low hit. But I consider its kind of reliable. I am very picky, even if the game is good, if I don’t like certain things like the music, i get angry.
It’s true; I read many users complaining of how, games like gears of war and others Microsoft games are over rated, which I consider totally true. But I hate to get disappointed with games and I kind of think their critics kind of match with mines.
I liked Kingdom hearts so I wanted the one on GBA, to play it when I was in the girl’s residence. When I got it DIACK, not so bad, but is not what I like. It’s got a 7, which I consider fair.
I made my brother buy crimsons seas (a PS2 game) because I thought it got good score but I confuse it and well… wasted money for me but he like it.
If it wasn’t for the score thing I would never bought chocobo tales, it got an 8 and it’s good, I liked it.
Dante inferno crashed on the scores and in you tube I saw why, but my bro risk it, he likes everything.
what?
|
|
|
