Okay, so I played Assassins Creed, Assassins Creed 2 and Assassins Creed Brotherhood. First one was so-so and loved the other two. At about Revelations I dropped off because I was bored to DEATH of Ezio at that point. So here is what I need to know.

• Would I get anything redeeming out of acquiring and blasting through Revelations and III?
• If no which I'm going to assume most of you will say no where can I catch up? Yeah, I know YouTube is a thing but I'd rather read some concise bullet points of the interesting beats rather than slog through watching two games worth of cut-scenes on YouTube
• ACIV does it have multiplayer? I don't think I've seen or heard anyone talk about this. If so is it basically the same thing as the past multiplayer?
• Does that weird Vita game tie into the fiction in any meaningful way?

• How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

1. Revelations is pretty long, so I'm not sure you could blast through that. Don't even bother with III. That game is shit.

2. The Assassin's Creed wiki would probably be a great place to catch up. It'll give you more information than bullet points and presumably will have been written by people who give a shit about the game's convoluted modern-day story enough to make it comprehensible (no way I could).

3. Yep! And it's still pretty great. You have to spend currency you get after a match on all of your abilities and perks and stuff which I don't think was the case in Brotherhood. It's kind of a bummer, and leveling up just seems to take a bit longer in general. But it plays more or less the same with some few changes (chases aren't really a mechanic anymore, for example).

4. Apparently the character from that game is in free DLC... or pre order DLC... I have no idea which because I haven't seen that content anywhere. I haven't played the Vita game so I have no idea if it's meaningful or not.

5. Seven.

@demoskinos: Revelations? Not so much, if you're sick of Ezio. 3? I'm going to come down firmly on the side of playing it. It will get you comfy with some of the mechanics (naval combat, hunting) and it is pretty essential to understanding the story and what the hell is going on in 4. (You could read a spoiler...but playing it is more fun than that)

2. N/A because of first answer.

3. Yup...first responder covered it.

@demoskinos:

No

No, you don't need to catch up it's basically a reboot

Yes, it the same as ever

No it has nothing to do with game.

So you guys think this is worth getting above say... Killzone? I mean there isn't much to play right now on PS4 but I'd like at least two showpiece games. I've already got BF4 on lock through the $10 upgrade and keep teetering between this and Asassins Creed. Also, in other news I logged into my Uplay account and I have 160 uplay credits that are unspent. So basically what I'm trying to say is you're basically talking to a millionaire. The future of money is Bitcoins and Uplay Points and I'm ahead of the game.

@demoskinos

1: No.... Hell no.

2: Uh... Desmond is Jesus and he died saving the universe. Congrats I just caught you up.

3: Yes it has multiplayer, no I don't know how different it is cause I never play AC multiplayer.

4: No not really.

5: That depends on how much wood is available to chuck. Because that is exactly how much chucking there would be of the wood.

Killzone? Are you high? Yes AC4 is the best game out on PS4 right now so you should buy it. The story and characters are great and they did enough new things with the AC formula to make it interesting again.

And about AC3, people tend to be way more whinny than that game warrants. It's not the best assassin's creed but the new setting is interesting, it has a lot of important story beats and the majority of the gameplay mecanics that make AC4 great appeared first in AC3. Still think it's worth playing if you want to get all the story.

Revelations gets a bad rap but I still think it's probably the best Assassin's Creed game (I'm still working through IV).

Revelations biggest problem was that it was only a year after Brotherhood and the stuff it tried to add was bad but it's mostly avoidable. It also made some mostly minor improvements on all the stuff Brotherhood did so well.

If you played Brotherhood when it was new you're probably no longer over saturated with the series and will probably really enjoy Revelations.

@pyrodactyl: Ahhhh c'mon Killzone isn't that bad.

well, to be honest, Revelations and 3 had some really odd changes in direction instead of more of the same sequels.

Revelations was amusing, and I wouldn't mind to play more Ezio, because it was a different stage of his life. Felt more like Metal Gear Solid 4 old Snake. Revelations has a really smaller cast then all of AC series, and because of that you get some really charming and well rounded characters in the series. There is nothing really conclusive about AC Revelations but it does make Altair redeemed as a more interesting character when he grows older and goes back to his Assassin's base. Just that maybe Desmond should start some assassin's arm to fight the templars, but then that never happens just hinted at the end. His father is Q from star trek, he's a jerk but then there's nothing except father and son ranting. The whole history of Desmond minigame is like weird tetris/platformer/indie game.

AC3 is a pretty decent game, very slow pacing, but I had fun, I spent 13 hours on Haytham Kenway because I heard Connor was a wet towel. Connor actually says lines like "Freedom should be free" compared to Haytham's charm. AC3 never goes over the top like AC2 or Brotherhood ever did, in fact it ends really down to earth, two beaten up dudes at a bar nodding to each other they they are going to die but first let me grab a drink. Building furniture and shipping things is way too confusing but then never really help the game, instead I had better luck just doing other things like hunting wolves and selling their pelts, Ship sailing is amazing I actually was yelling pirate lines while playing. No one really mentioned I enjoyed the sewer bits in AC3, really nice atmosphere the whole undergrounds in order to unlock fast travel in the cities of Boston and New York. AC3 had many problems people have with too much crap to do in open world games you never touch 75% of them, the main character is about as bland as wood.

Desmond never does set up a big assassin's army which would have made sense, but instead you get some very good sneaking into Abstergo top security. But the way it ends, just keep feeling like AC4 is never going to answer the ending of AC3, Juno kills desmond and walks over his body and says like they destroyed the world.

I don't regret playing through revelations or 3, in fact I'd do it again. Rev and 3 look amazing, which they would remake 1,2 and brotherhood on that engine. I didn't buy 4, wait for a sale, I know I'd spend over 60 hours with it. I tend to just spend too much time reading codecs on the history of a building or reading animus update jokes. I tend to pop in 3 form time to time that game is too beautiful on PC all of that turned up.

and finally - A woodchuck should chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood, as long as a woodchuck would chuck wood

@demoskinos:

ACIV Multiplayer is a bit quirky but I've still managed to play it for like 100 hours so it can't be that bad; no escapes fucks up Wanted something fierce but the other modes still work fine/work better. Wolfpack is great.

III is not a bad game and has the best multiplayer. Revelations is meh; not bad but chances are you can find something better to do with your time.

for question 1, you do get costumes for having revelations and AC3 registered on uplay but that's about it. don't think you actually need to play them to have fun and understand the plot of AC4

@demoskinos:

1. Skip Revelation and AC3. AC3 was garbage. I never played Revelations, but from what I hear it's not that big of a deal. Did I say AC3 was garbage? It was.
2. I don't know where you can catch up or if it even matters. AC3 was garbage so it's probably best to not know (don't actually take my word for that, I'm sure there's a way to catch up on a wiki somewhere if you do a google search).
3. From what I hear AC IV does have multiplayer and it sounds like it's the same. It wasn't a big deal on anyone's review I read of the game but what I did catch about it was if you're into that it's more of the same.
4. I have heard mixed things about the Vita game. Some people really liked it. I don't think it holds any bearing on the main games plot, though. Since this is only hear say, feel free to not care what I say about it.
5. He would chuck, he would, as much as he could, and chuck as much as a woodchuck would, If a woodchuck could chuck wood.

1. The only thing I truly enjoyed about revelations is the ending cutscene, which I suggest watching on YouTube. Gives good closure to Ezio's character. III is garbage. Avoid it at all costs.
2. You don't need to catch up. If you are aware of Desmond's arc in the least, you'll get the references back. Edward's story has nothing to do with Ezio or Altair, and since he's Haytham's father/Connor's grandfather, the game obviously doesn't talk about them.
3. It does have multiplayer, but I havent played it. See other responses for that one
4. They mention the game explicitly, but it's a self-aware joke.
5. Roughly 10.683902024 lbs.

Revelations and III are good games. They are mechanically superior to their predecessors and have lots to offer story-wise as long as you can be okay with some dour faces and serious brooding. Yeah, they're paced slowly, but aren't all AC games paced slowly? They are to me because I tend to try and collect everything possible before moving on to the next story mission. I swear to god the only difference between III and IV is that IV has a lot more swagger/boats.

It's not that good either

I wouldn't say revelations has a lot of story. Particularly for the present day part. But yeah, I played them all (rented brotherhood and revelations) and I don't regret thing.