I thought it was a given that they were going to do a trilogy with each of the main games. I dont really know though because i dont really follow the franchise

@redbliss said:

I thought it was a given that they were going to do a trilogy with each of the main games. I dont really know though because i dont really follow the franchise

Definitely not. The first game was a standalone. The second game seemed to be sent out as an either/or... it could've ended with the ending and I think ACIII would still make sense, but Brotherhood did have meaningful exposition. However, Revelations was a waste of time story-wise.

I think I could swallow TWO games from the third "iteration," but if they stretch it into a three-parter, count me out of the third. At least this time I'll know how worthless the third game will be.

@project343: I always felt that Revelations and Brotherhood should've been one game using the addtions from Brotherhood and half of the story from Revelations to tell the later years of Ezio how he became leader of the Brotherhood of Assassin's and his journey to find Altair's findings but they decided to annualize the franchise so at some point you'll get a game that doesn't really change the formula significantly.

@DoctorWelch: If you are strictly using counters, you are not making the most of the systems at play. If you are not using the social stealth that has been core to the series, you are not making the most of the systems at play. It's all fine and good to trash a game for being too simple, but if you are only scratching at the surface-level stuff, you should probably be withholding that opinion.

It sounds like what you're looking for is more difficult encounters to force you to actually utilize these systems.

@AngelN7: I actually like the Brotherhood story more than any other. Unlike AC2, it's not nearly as long-winded and doesn't lose its focus. Unlike Revelations, it doesn't use prior games as crutches. There was just something elegant about a Ezio going toe-to-toe with an incredibly dramatized caricatures of the Borgia family within the single setting of Rome--fighting their corruption every step of the way.

AC2 felt like one of those messy carriage ride mini-games that the series has thrown in everywhere: too many random obstacles, a bit repetitive, and it goes on a tad long. I love seeing the 'coming of age' story, and the initiation, but boy does that stuff go on for far too long (especially with the missing chapters DLC).

I think Revelations could have been compressed into a DLC pack for the Altair disk-hunting stuff, and I think the Desmond shattered-memory thing could have been an XBLA/flash game. That would have made the whole thing a lot less unforgiving.

@pyromagnestir said:

Assassin's Creed is like a comic book now. It won't end. The "end" will come when people stop buying them and so they stop making them.

It saddens me when I remember that this line of reasoning applies to any popular series with a story that I actually like.

Like, imagine if Konami had confidence in their ability to generate profit, and actually let Kojima finish the Metal Gear series with MGS4, and *gasp* actually go on to work on a new project. Instead, no, let's have the Metal Gear series limp onward for another decade or two.

@project343: I don't know I didn't felt the struggle to free Rome from the Borgia as powerfull as it was to witness Ezio's journey, from being a young brash Firenze kid to a really skilled assassin and I'd say Rodrigo Borgia was a stronger villain (he became the god damn pope!) sure it kinda dragged and the pace wasn't as exciting but it was a really great arc also this...

Now that I think about it I kinda like Assassin's Creed 2 more than I care to admit, you can maybe shave some unnecesary bits of the story but I think you kinda have to take all of it to appreciate that journey, Brotherhood had a more focused story I can see why some people may have been put off by AC2 length and overall pace.

@project343: What do you mean "strictly using combos"? There aren't any big enemy to enemy combos in the game, that's just how the combat is designed. The combat is not deep and complex like it is in Batman because the designers didn't make it that way. It has nothing to do with how you or I play the game.

Also, I don't think the term "social stealth" means anything...because it's not actually a term. So, I'm not going to directly comment on that. If what you were trying to say is that the stealth is core to the series and I'm playing it wrong, well you're a little closer with that sentiment than with the combat, but still not correct. The first Assassin's Creed was designed with the acrobatics, environments, and stealth in mind. The real shortcoming of that game was that it's stealth was horribly implemented, and completely optional. The game was fun, but when it came to killing targets the game rewarded you for running in, alerting everyone, stabbing the dude in the throat, and then running away. It's not my fault they designed the game that way.

Then, Assassin's Creed II came along. Instead of implementing the stealth differently, they kept it the way it is, and simply designed the game around the systems already in place. The missions in ACII are much more suited to how the game plays, and stealth is, like I said before, more akin to something like the GTA police rating rather than the Metal Gear/Splinter Cell/Dishonored/Mark of the Ninja/Insert other stealth game here. This ended up working out for the game because it's now focused on exploration and blending in with the world around you while killing the dudes along the way. Unlike other games, ACII doesn't require you to plan every move out and then reload the save if you screwed up. This is because the stealth is shallower, and much less punishing. This really works out because the whole flow of the game feels much more natural than reloading saves and planning every little step does.

In conclusion, the combat and stealth systems in Assassin's Creed are deliberately lenient and shallow because it fits in with the way they are structuring the world to fit with the theme of exploration and establishing a believable world to blend into while being a bad ass assassin.

Thought they already said they plan to do 4, 5, and 6 or sumsuch?

Not a massive fan of the series but would love to play one set in Feudal Japan or Victoria England.

Dude will obviously head down south and fight some Spaniards or some shit you can bet on it. Connor will be the old man at the head of the Assassin's Order during the Texas revolution. How he managed to live to be 80+ years in the 1800s? Well that has to do with the Pieces of Eden. Look out for more of my awesome AC fan fiction.

But seriously; I also want to see some resolution to Desmond's story, it's only right. However I would obviously play any AC game that comes after ACIII anyway so...still wrap it up Ubisoft, I have to know why that chick was stabbed.

@DoctorWelch: That was a word substitution. I meant counters. And there's a lot more to the combat than counters, particularly with all the tools that they add to your arsenal as the series as moved forward. Personally, I much prefer the Assassin's Creed combat over Batman. Batman just feels like a glorified singleplayer fighting game, and a bit too gamey. At the very least Assassin's Creed's combat gives you some proper tools to use however you like.

Social stealth does mean something. It's a core marketing term that they used to sell the original game, and have continued to use it throughout the series. You seem to attribute having optional stealth with it being a poorly implemented system, and this is the furthest thing from the case. You can't sell a AAA, big-budget action game loaded with mandatory stealth spread throughout the experience; why do you think that Splinter Cell, Metal Gear, and the like have moved into being a lot more forgiving? And the game is actually designed to be a lot more rewarding if you take the stealth approach, just look at the notoriety system, or the synchronization system.

You seem to be oblivious to the social stealth system: it has nothing to do with notoriety. Social stealth is manipulating social encounters (rather than shadows) to bypass obstacles. It's blending in with crowds, blending in with the environment, using courtesans, using thieves, using mercenaries, throwing money, using corpses, using your brotherhood members, using poison, etc.. You use these tools to overcome obstacles without raising awareness to yourself, and it's a system almost wholly unique to the Assassin's Creed series (other stealth games certainly have social stealth elements, but certainly not to this degree). Less punishing =/= more shallow. It's optional, but that doesn't make the system any less nuanced. Let me use this same argument to unfairly judge Dishonored/Conviction/MGS4: I can just murder my way through all the guards in Dishonored/Conviction/MGS4 without any real repercussion... so the stealth must be fucking shit in those games.

I think we'll get an "untold tale" of Ezio game at some point due to the popularity of that character.

@project343: First of all, the word counter and combo are completely different, so what the hell are you even talking about. Second of all, the combat is when the guy actually knows you are there, not the ways you can kill him when he doesn't. When the guys know you are there, the game is strictly about countering their attacks, that's just the way the design is. When they don't know you're there, you have many ways to kill them, which can be fun, but the easiest one is usually an assassination.

Second, if you're trying to use a stupid marketing term to argue about something in a game, you've already failed. Social stealth means nothing. Those two words together have literally nothing to do with anything in the Assassin's Creed games, so don't act like knowing a marketing term means anything. As I've said twice already, the stealth systems in the game act as a GTA police rating, and the mechanics are designed around that to make the game feel more believable so it's not about stealth, it's about being a part of a believable world.

I'm going to stop responding and repeating myself because you clearly aren't reading what I'm writing. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing, which is made extremely clear by your touting of a marketing term.

@DoctorWelch: Word substitution. They obviously have nothing to do with one another. I've since edited my initial post in case you're still dumbfounded. You have entirely different weapons, you have unarmed with stuns, disables, and disarms, you have guns, smoke bombs, throwing knives, grapples, throws, environmental kills... countering can certainly be the most efficient in certain situations, but in others it's entirely useless (i.e. dudes with polearms).

It's the name of a system. When I talk about social stealth, I'm not talking about the fucking nomenclature, I'm simply using it to summarize the before-mentioned mechanics at play that fall under that name. You're arguing semantics, and completely ignoring my argument. Address the blending in with crowds, blending in with the environment, using courtesans, using thieves, using mercenaries, throwing money, using corpses, using your brotherhood members, using poison, etc., and stop talking about the notoriety system (read: what you call the 'GTA police rating'). That is an entirely different system that I'm not including under the social stealth system when I use the term 'social stealth'.

Clearly you aren't reading what I'm writing if you're still bringing up GTA.

@project343: Let me break it down.

1. The disables, disarms, guns, bombs knives, etc. are completely separate from the combat because the combat is purely about countering. That other stuff is used before the combat, and during the combat to escape. There's no point in arguing that further because that is just a fact about the design.

2. The fact that you said combo instead of counter means you didn't comprehend my explanation of the combat. So, going back and fixing it after I point it out doesn't mean you suddenly understand.

3. The notoriety system, which is analogous to the GTA system, is what causes there to be stealth. Without it there would be no point to any of the other mechanics you list that let you interact with that. There is my point.

If you still don't understand why the combat is simple compared to something like Batman and stealth is simple compared to other stealth games because both of those systems are designed that way to perpetuate the flow of the gameplay and believably of the world, I can help you no further.

@SeanFoster said:

I think we'll get an "untold tale" of Ezio game at some point due to the popularity of that character.

I fucking hope not. Revelations stretched him thinner than a potato chip.

The original plan was to make a trilogy wasn't it? But since alot of the key people behind the original game left I doubt it.

@DoctorWelch: You can't just close stuff off to argument by calling it a fact.

1. Disables and stuns can only be used in combat. Guns are paramount to taking out key targets mid-combat. Knives are spectacular for killing targets who aren't focused on you. Smoke bombs work wonders to stun the entire group and give you ample time to assassinate a few trouble markers before returning to the defensive. Clearly you did not state a 'fact' if I just provided evidence to the contrary. My point is that there is a lot more nuance to the melee combat (with the second entry onward) than countering.
2. What does a word substitution have to do with my comprehension of the system? I should have re-read over what I wrote and edited it before submitting. If you would like to learn more about word substitution, here is a fantastic little link for you. In case you're lazy: I was thinking 'counter' and wrote 'combo' because I was reviewing your argument on the lack of a proper combo system. Naturally, combo stuck in my head when writing my rebuttal. Simple as that. What did you actually say? a) there is no traditional combo system in the game, b) the entire thing is counter-driven, c) there's not a whole lot to the combat aside from the counter system as it is the most effective way to take people down. Did I get that right? If so, see #1 for my counter-argument.
3. The notoriety system makes the use of social stealth significantly more important, but there are other ways that the series forces you to use social stealth without it (restricted areas, guards blocking pathways, non-natural activity like being on top of buildings, the syncronization system). Hell, the notoriety system was introduced with the second entry... so does that mean that it was non-existent in AC1? Fuck no. It was all over that game, and crutch to quite a few of the assassinations. You could certainly find a way around it, but it made your life significantly more difficult. In GTA, you cannot use social stealth (read: blending in with crowds, blending in with the environment, using courtesans, using thieves, using mercenaries, throwing money, using corpses, using your brotherhood members, using poison, etc.) to avoid these encounters. These tools are what make the Assassin's Creed series, not the silly notoriety thing. These tools are what nuance the stealth well beyond the simple 'run far enough away from pursuers' of GTA; it is not a simple system, and these tools certainly justify that.

It just sounds like you're playing these games like a quarterback. I mean, fair enough. It certainly requires the least mental effort, but you can't go around saying that these are simple systems because you refuse to take advantage of them. Do you need them? Fuck no, but it makes the experience significantly more nuanced and unique.