In other words that I couldn't fit onto the title, do you think the changes made to Brotherhood warranted a new game only a year after the previous iteration?
I'm kind of ticked at the length of the game. There are only 9 sequences and a few of them are extremely short (The first, second and last) and the game tries to give the illusion of lengthening itself by adding a bunch of "go here kill this guy" or "tail this guy" or a simple checkpoint race. While the game was alright fun, I just didn't find it had the same impact on me that AC2 did and I kind of wished that they had taken the time to make a fuller game. I'm not sure if the addition of multiplayer is to blame because I'm not sure about the development process - who developed what. But I do know that the game has it's share of bugs, like pretty much every game released nowadays -_-
I didn't find the whole Assassin Recruit thing was pulled off well at all. None of my Assassin's died - ever - even when they were level 1 so the whole leveling up thing seemed pointless and I really only used them when I wanted to 100% sync something that required them or when a 100% sync requirement was so impossible (like the one right before killing le Baron de Valois).
I also would have liked more collectables. 10 freaking feathers and only 101 Borgia flags?? Ridiculous. Only 18 of them are secret and they're in pretty obvious spots in the secret areas. Mind you I'm comparing this to the previous AC games. I just really hope they don't try to dumb this franchise down.
Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood
Game » consists of 16 releases. Released Nov 16, 2010
The third installment in the Assassin's Creed franchise, this game's story picks up right after the events of Assassin's Creed II, showing Ezio Auditore traveling to Rome to recruit a new force of assassins. Brotherhood is the first game in the series to offer online multiplayer.
Are you satisfied with the length and the evolution of AC:B?
I think the level of success of ACII was not expected and that's why they decided to do Brotherhood. I'm thankful, and surprised, that the single player portion was as significant as it was since I think the majority of us were just expecting a multiplayer-only or -mostly experience. Had that been the case, I wouldn't have even bothered purchasing the game, and ACII was my GOTY in 2009.
As for the amount of content, I felt it was a nice supplement to the story, especially everything that was happening back on Desmond's end. It's been so long since I played ACII that I guess I can't give a direct comparison between amount of time spent with the game, but they felt pretty on par to me in regards to time. I did a lot of extra stuff in both games, but by no means did I do every extra thing.
I don't feel like it was a dumbing down of the franchise, if anything this is just a half step in the evolution of the series. We saw the vast improvement that happened between AC and ACII, this was just ACII-2, a small iteration before the next numbered installment. I'm not giving it a "pass" because it didn't have a number after it's name, I thought it was a good game, just as good as ACII in fact, but not a evolutionary jump. I wouldn't base the growth of the series on this title, I think the developers saw an opportunity to continue the exploration of a world that was too good to leave suddenly, and, of course, the publishers saw the chance to make some extra money and keep the franchise on everyone's radar. Thankfully this is one of those rare situations where it wasn't just the latter that succeeded. I have high hopes for ACIII and look forward to hearing more about it, hopefully this year.
" I think the level of success of ACII was not expected and that's why they decided to do Brotherhood.
Are you high because if you are you need to share it with everyone here. Not only did Ubisoft expected ACII to be a massive successes and Brotherhood well into deep development when ACII came out. It won't surprise me if Brotherhood was already a year into development when the second game came out.
I was very happy with AC:B - I sunk about 25 hours into its single player and have had a blast with the multiplayer.
I agree that there weren't any substantive innovations in the single player, but I think the multiplayer made up for that.
Having said that I think the next game they put out needs to really push things forward as I'm a little worried that they're going to Tomb Raider this franchise.
Super happy with it.
I don't tend to think about how close it was to it's predecessor or how much it evolved, I just think about how much entertainment I got out of it.
...and I got A LOT out of AC:B.
I'm very happy on how the Assassins Creed series has progressed. The first game was a solid, but flawed game that got repetitive if all you did was scale the rooftops, and rescue citizens. AC 2 really turned itself around, and became much more fun to play, with varied sidequests, a great story, good combat, and a very likable hero.
Assassins Creed Brotherhood is so far the best game in the series in my opinion. Desmond's role was greatly expanded this time, and his story ended with a shocking twist, which I experienced last night (Friday, January 7, 2011). Ezio is still the killer he has become since the last game, but if you manage to unlock some repressed memories, you get to see a touching side story, between himself, and a woman he can't spend his life with. That shows he is not just a typical evil anti-hero. Plus, you get to recruit assassins in the game, whom you can use to help assassinate your enemies, which I thought was a really cool touch.
I really can't wait to see how UBISOFT is going to continue on with the series, or if it's going to end with a bang when Assassins Creed 3 comes out.
I think they were trying to make a DLC game, but they had a bit too muh content. I don't know the real story, but that is how the game looked. I actually was surprised by the quality and content, but I like the AC games anyway. I guess it all comes down to personal tastes.
I am completely satisfied with AC:Brotherhood. 100% sync! =P
Considering the majority of information and rumour about this game before its release was that it would practically be a quick money maker, and mostly just a sorry single player to add on to a multiplayer ,and not the other way round, I can easily say I got more than what I expected. *takes breath*
I adored ACII, in fact it was my first 100% game! And I can easily say I love Brotherhood just as much. In fact if anything has let me down it's the wait time to access MP games. I plan to 100% Brotherhood also. But with being impatient and having to wait for lengthy periods of time to get into games reaching lvl 50 will be a chore.
The amount of collectibles being less than a previous game is no way of measuring whether a game is dumbed down. I found the collectibles in AC1 overwhelmingly much, and even in AC2 it was borderline stupid, I'm actually finding the moderation a good thing here. So far, I've spent maybe 4-5 hours playing the game, and I've been thoroughly enjoying it, I find it a better experience than AC2. On the other hand, however, it is a better experience because I played through the entirety of AC2.
It was well worth it. Even without the fantastic multiplayer it would have added enough to keep me satisfied.
I was happy with everything about the game until the single player decided to totally break on me and prevent me from playing. Then it was kinda disappointing.
I need to replay the game sticking to story missions only, to really judge the story arc and the pacing. It felt a bit derivative from AC2 and there was certainly a lot less character development. It feels to me like they wanted advance the Desmond story to set-up for AC3, and decided to give Ezio a bit of an actual power struggle now that he's a certified bad-ass and knows what's up with the Assassins and Templars. It's a bit flat, but it's just an excuse to give us AC2 in a condensed form: one huge city bursting with shit to do. I loved it for that, it felt so complete. Like the epilogue of AC2 stuffed with new features and side activities.
Yeah, I think so. I was expecting much less considering it's a continuation of Ezio's story and it only came out a year after the last game. Lots of cool stuff was added in Brotherhood and it made it pretty fun to play again. But yeah, for the next game I'd like to see a new setting/character and some major improvements. I'd really like to see some weather thrown in, with rain falling every so often and a couple snowy sequences. More multiplayer modes would be cool too.
I like that they took the opportunity to wring out every idea they possibly could out of Ezio's story and added kick-ass multiplayer to boot. The Aassassin's Creed franchise is a great model of reserving innovations and ideas until later games to make sure each sequal is always better than the last. They take their time implementing good ideas and waiting to develop others until later games. It's why both AC2 and Brotherhood are so good. Clearly the development for Brotherhood started before AC2 was out, so you know they intelligently managed all the ideas they had and metered them out appropriately over two games to make sure they were both hits.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment