I did not like Ezio "COD" journey

Rented played finish part II was like meh more of the same

Rented Brotherhood just an expensive expansion was boring never finished

Revelation from what I hear fell flat to busy playing other games

So for me Assassin's Creed III is the sequel to part I that is awesome and still the best to date

that is till well hopefully part III which is actually an all new game

Wasn't 'fallow' a monster in Skyrim?

So you didn't like three games out of four but are excited for the fifth?

.......

I don't understand what "COD" journey means.

@FluxWaveZ said:

I don't understand what "COD" journey means.

Everyone knows that Ezio Journey's nickname is "COD". He is quite the fisherman.

No relation to Ezio Auditore da Firenze.

ACII is superior to the original in every way. This seems like a strange attempt at trolling.

@BisonHero:

Ezio always seemed pretty fishy to me

@JasonR86 said:

Wasn't 'fallow' a monster in Skyrim?

No, he means fallow like, 'your fields lay fallow'. Untended land. What he's trying to say is, there's a farming mini-game in this one.

AssFarm.

@MariachiMacabre: That's your opinion dude! but not fact to which ACI is better then ACII 

@ShinjiEx said:

Rented played finish part II was like meh more of the same

If you truly believe AC 2 was the same as AC 1 then it is very difficult to take your opinion seriously.

@MariachiMacabre said:

ACII is superior to the original in every way. This seems like a strange attempt at trolling.

No, it's just how ShinjiEx rolls. He's so incomprehensible that it can't be intentional. Here's one of his threads: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/time-life-golden-age-of-country/560265/

For it to be a "true follow up" to the first game it has to have challenge in it. Starting right with Assassin's Creed II they got increasingly easier. The first one is still my favorite in the series, even if it doesn't have air assassinations in it.

You're weird.

Ac2 saved the franchise, I hated 1 and freaking loved 2

@Ghostiet said:

@MariachiMacabre said:

ACII is superior to the original in every way. This seems like a strange attempt at trolling.

No, it's just how ShinjiEx rolls. He's so incomprehensible that it can't be intentional. Here's one of his threads: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion/30/time-life-golden-age-of-country/560265/

That is amazing. Downright crescent fresh, even.

This guy needs to write a weekly newspaper column.

@JasonR86 said:

Wasn't 'fallow' a monster in Skyrim?

You heard it here first. The larger conspiracy, we discover in AC3, is that the Templar's are actually run by the fallow from Skyrim and Connor turns out to be a Dragonborn.

wat is happen in dis thred?

HAY GUYS FALLOW ME ON TWEETER

Ac2 saved the franchise, I hated 1 and freaking loved 2

I would say the Assassin's Creed series is anything but "fallow" considering how they make yearly installments.

This may sound mean and I apologize but you write the way Tommy Wiseau speaks.

ShinjiEx has the best mini bio.

My sources tell me work has begun on AC 4

I liked the austere tone of the first game, and the aesthetic. While the premise was still goofy as fuck, it was a bit more serious.

That said the game's structure sucked and the sequels have improved upon that and added actual gameplay in spades. I even liked the spin-off collectathons more than the first one.

AC2 was so much better than the first in every way I went back to try and replay 1 a while ago and you just can't. I enjoyed brotherhood just as much but revelations did fall a bit flat. I'd say AC3 is the true follow up toAC 2, yes and I'd even say brotherhood as it was just as good. In my opinion all 3 ezio games are good and have good stories but you can't say AC3 is the true follow up to the original as if anything it will be more like the ezio games than the original and you can't really skip 3 games in a series and go from the 1st to the fifth.

There is a vast difference between how Ubisoft handles the AC franchise and how Activision slaps around whatever studio they feel like forcing into making new CoD games. Ubisoft has multiple studios working together in a way that hasn't happened before that I'm aware of, this is why they have been able to deliver these massive games so quickly. While progression of the systems within AC don't jump as far as you'd see otherwise, the games themselves are more than worth the time investing in making them (they are better than the 1-2 year dev time allots).

@MariachiMacabre said:

ACII is superior to the original in every way. This seems like a strange attempt at trolling.

ACII is superior in terms of freedom and gameplay mechanics. But somehow the first game is still my favourite. Altair is just a way cooler character in every way than Ezio. Also the setting and atmosphere in the first one were tighter in my opinion, maybe just because it was more linear than its followers.

@MariachiMacabre said:

ACII is superior to the original in every way. This seems like a strange attempt at trolling.

ACII is superior in terms of freedom and gameplay mechanics. But somehow the first game is still my favourite. Altair is just a way cooler character in every way than Ezio. Also the setting and atmosphere in the first one were tighter in my opinion, maybe just because it was more linear than its followers.

@MilleRD:

Well, AC I was all about the killing, while in AC II you could upgrade Monteriggioni, buy new weapons and armor, and do a lot more side-missions. It had more game elements than the first one, that's what I meant :)

@Morrow: I also prefer the first AC for its setting and simplicity. This article does a great job explaining why. Somewhat long read, but basically delves into what Ubisoft got right about the first game in terms of it being an authentic assassin simulator.

@MilleRD said:

If anyone who has played Revelations reads this, is it worth playing? I played I, II and Brotherhood, but everything I saw of Revelations put me off it and I was feeling a bit burned out on the series (because I don't like Ezio). Should I play it before I get III or am I ok just going to a wiki and reading the plot of the story and skipping the game entirely?

I finished it a few months ago in preparation for ACIII and I think it was good but not great compared to Brotherhood which I felt is the best AC experience so far. It just did too little to change the formula while the new additions weren't that significant (bombs and den defence). Still, the introduction of the hookblade was awesome and made climbing buildings faster and more satisfying (something I kinda didn't like too much in the previous games). Even if you just want to know what happens in the game, I don't know if it warrants a purchase because story-wise it's pretty much a side story with no real revelations, contrary to the game's subtitle.

@DharmaBum: Wow, great read. He totally nailed it, although I wouldn't call Altair a "shallow Hashshashin".

To me he didn't seem like an empty shell to play pretend. As far as I remember, he had a great deal of personality and went from the arrogant, cold-hearted jerk that he was to a more understanding and wise person. That became especially apparent when he had a conversation with Malik before a mission, where he apologized for his behaviour that killed Maliks brother and cost him his arm.

But maybe that meant more to me because I'm a woman and don't think myself into a male protagonist, but watch him on his journey and try to connect with him.

I don't know what to say. Brotherhood, to me, is the best that the series has ever been; the original Assassin's Creed is the worst that the series has ever been. Here's to hoping that AC3 has more in common with Brotherhood than AC1.

The real question here is how do you deem AC3 as the true follow-up when you haven't actually played the full game?

Unless you actually meant 'fallow' in reference to the outdoor setting and are suggesting some sort of farming context or farmer assassinations, in which case my apologies and you can keep your AC3 and give me more real men's farming.

@ShinjiEx said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Ac2 saved the franchise, I hated 1 and freaking loved 2

All hope is gone.

Maaaaan. I recommend getting out while you can. People are going to troll you into nonexistence for that opinion.

I guess continuing the storyline isn't enough to be considered a true follow-up.

@project343 said:

@ShinjiEx said:

@Bourbon_Warrior said:

Ac2 saved the franchise, I hated 1 and freaking loved 2

All hope is gone.

Maaaaan. I recommend getting out while you can. People are going to troll you into nonexistence for that opinion.

trololololo :D

your spelling is so good but your grammar is so bad D:

brotherhood has been the zenith of the series so far give a fuck what you think

I can understand disliking Brotherhood and Revelations as more of the same but damn I cannot comprehend how you can apply that to the jump from AC1 to AC2. AC2 changed just about everything aside from movement controls. The minute to minute gameplay, mission structure, and story structure are all radically different in the second game. In the first game you did 3 of 6 missions 9 times, then the assassinations were different. The one advantage I would give AC1 is that the storyline assassinations are far superior in 1. They required planning and went shit went belly up you either rolled with it or you failed. In AC2 they were more the "there is one way to do it" variety and messing up isn't as big of a penalty.

Well i say sure if you never been fond of Ezio but AC2 and brotherhood were not bad in the least. I know many did not care for AC 1 but i enjoyed it a good deal to me the series break down like this.

AC1 - Game play did get repetitive but i really enjoyed the bigger focus on story and planning out a kill (assassinations)

AC2 - Improved on game play in almost every way and gave the player opinions. Story focus took a hit and planning out assassinations was gone which was my biggest problem with AC2, felt a little too GTA formula (Go here, kill this dude).

AC Brotherhood - Made small improvements to the already vast improvements of AC2 in the realm of game play. Training assassins and using them in combat was a great addition and was really fun. The story seemed like filler almost to the point of feeling like AC2.5. The missions gave bonuses for having creative kills or stealthy kills which returned the assassination like planning of the first game at least to a point.

AC Revelations - More or less the same game play as brotherhood. New location and new toys to play with. Story still felt very filler even if it did wrap up Ezio and Altiar story. For a game called revelations there were a big lack of revelations and nothing really big even happen to even keep you hooked into the fiction of the story. So all in all revelations was pretty disappointing and may have been the game that was stretched too thin in terms of being a stop gap to AC3.

@ShinjiEx said:

@JasonR86: Pretty sure there is the more I think about it... LOL

@Abendlaender: Hopefully it's not RE5 all over again *shivers*

@FluxWaveZ: Releasing the same game ever year with more bells & whistles

http://www.giantbomb.com/modern-warfare-2/61-24713/user-reviews/?review_id=11502

http://www.giantbomb.com/call-of-duty-black-ops/61-26423/user-reviews/?review_id=17517

@evanbower: Nice catch. Also yay necros

hey mate hows it going

@MilleRD said:

If anyone who has played Revelations reads this, is it worth playing? I played I, II and Brotherhood, but everything I saw of Revelations put me off it and I was feeling a bit burned out on the series (because I don't like Ezio). Should I play it before I get III or am I ok just going to a wiki and reading the plot of the story and skipping the game entirely?

I finished it a few months ago in preparation for ACIII and I think it was good but not great compared to Brotherhood which I felt is the best AC experience so far. It just did too little to change the formula while the new additions weren't that significant (bombs and den defence). Still, the introduction of the hookblade was awesome and made climbing buildings faster and more satisfying (something I kinda didn't like too much in the previous games). Even if you just want to know what happens in the game, I don't know if it warrants a purchase because story-wise it's pretty much a side story with no real revelations, contrary to the game's subtitle.

I'm trying to figure out of OP was written in the style of a Haiku.

Did not like three games

Ezio journey is dumb

Please for bring connor