I bought AC:R for under $10 a while back, but never played it. Though that for $10, why not. But I've played the other games, except for the first. I could not get through it, just got bored.

I would like to play AC:R before 3, but I spent probably 30+ hours in Brotherhood. I dont want to spend near that long in Revelations.

So ignoring the side stuff, how long might it take for me to get through the main story of this game? I dont want to look up any guides or anything. Just play it as normal, but know to skip most of the side stuff.

I could look up the cutscenes on youtube, but that has little appeal to me.

I already have AC3 preordered, just haven't picked it up since I had work and then class.

Been a year, but if you mainline it probably could get through it in 10-12 hours at a guess.

It felt like a drag for me. But realistically? Probably ten-ish hours. Maybe a squidge more.

Hmm, 10 seems doable. I've played a bit already. Hasn't opened up yet though. Maybe an hour.

Its more of that I bought the game and if I skip it it'll feel like a waste.

Depends how fast you can skim a wikipedia article.

http://howlongtobeat.com/gamebreakdown.php?gameid=3425 (or ~11 hours or, if you know what you're doing, ~3 hours.

I took 35 hours for my playthrough. I think whatever collectibles I got, I got a majority of minus a few hard-to-get ones. I think I also bought all paintings, upgrades, shops, etc.

Don't play it, Revelations feels so forced that you'll be done with AC games for a while.I struggled my way through Revelations but man, I hated the majority of the missions.

If you have to count the hours you would spend slogging through it, why play it in the first place?

@YOU_DIED: Its mainly so that I will have played it. I planned to and never did, not that 3 is out I feel the need to just get through it just so that I have completed it.

I want to know what happens in revelations, from what I've played so far it doesn't seem as throwaway as others have said. I already bought the game, I'd much rather play through it if it manageable instead of reading a wiki or watching youtube videos.

*edit: Look up the ending on youtube if you dont have the time. Its not a great game.

Should have read more carefully, but i think 10 or so hours is doable.

I suggest just skipping the Desmond bits though, they are not at all interesting and have next to no story.

@MrOldboy: Not worth it really. I started playing it but gave up. The tower defense missions broke me. I ended up on YouTube watching the end game.

@peritus said:

*edit: Look up the ending on youtube if you dont have the time. Its not a great game.

Should have read more carefully, but i think 10 or so hours is doable.

I suggest just skipping the Desmond bits though, they are not at all interesting and have next to no story.

However, you want to do the Altair story bits. Although the quests show up on your map like a main quest, I don't think you have to do them. Do the Maycef Key Quests since Altair's story is the best part of the game, if you enjoyed him in AC1.

Also, if you like the AC Brotherhood gameplay, as Vinny said on the bombcast, the stuff that Rev added made it better then Brotherhood (besides the tower defense, but there's several ways to avoid doing those).

However, if you already have AC3 waiting and wanna jump in, go ahead! Don't force yourself to play Rev if you want AC3. You can always come back later.

@mordukai said:

@MrOldboy: Not worth it really. I started playing it but gave up. The tower defense missions broke me. I ended up on YouTube watching the end game.

You only have to do that once as part of the storyline.

Train your men right and you never have to worry about it again.

@Mike76x: By that point I just didn't give a shit anymore. Even though it's something that appears only once, that one time was enough to put me off the entire game. It should have never made it into the final game. I felt the whole thing just didn't fit with AC series.

Just finished it. I bought it on release day and made my way through it at a glacial pace. I only have a vage idea of the acutal plot since many months lie between sessions. I finished it now since AC3 should get delivered end of next week. I got most collectables, upgraded every assasin to max level etc. (which nicely kills the tower defense, only allowed 3 attacks for the trophy), bought nearly all buildings etc. I like it for the setting and the cool action. Also it brings a nice closure to Altairs and Ezios personal stoires, but adds little to the overall plot of assassins vs. templars and "space guys" (?).

The Desmond stuff is Portal-esque. But my game bugged often, not loading these sequences and basically crashing my PS3.

I wouldn't bother with Revelations. Not a great game.

WIth everything people have said about Revelations here, it's still a better game than 3 i think. I don't think it should take that long to finish, probably 10 hours or less if you're not trying for full sync and other collectibles and stuff.

@MrOldboy: I bought it in the steam sale myself, have a good three hours or so play time but my ten year old son was able to beat the entire game in just one sitting, took him about ten hours or so, if it would help you in your decision to play, he really enjoyed it and has subsequently become enthralled with the series, forcing me to buy the xbox copies of all the other games in the series

@Revan_NL said:

Don't play it, Revelations feels so forced that you'll be done with AC games for a while.I struggled my way through Revelations but man, I hated the majority of the missions.

I prefered Revelations over AC2 and Brotherhood. Although I like Brotherhood's vehicles, I hated the setting. Roma was horrible to me. And I liked an elderly Ezio and Constantinople as a whole. Plus, almost no Desmond!

Just beware, the first hour and a half-ish is complete shit. Who thought opening a game with a garbage horse and carriage fight following a lengthy tutorial sequence was a good idea? I almost turned it off right then and there, but I'm actually glad I stuck with it, and had a pretty good time overall. In my playthrough, I only had to do the tower defense shit one time for some reason, so it didn't get in the way.

Don't play revolutions if you're just aiming to 'blast through it'. It's not ment for that sort of thing and all it will do is burn you off from more AC, play the game when you are done with 3 or something, or have ample time to play revolutions. It's not worth seeing it's bits if you can't spend the time with it etc.

Revolutions is a third hamburger you didn't order after you've already scarfed down 2 plus fries, it's not bad.. if anything it's got an extra pickle and tastes just as good as the others but if you were to destroy it with your face just so you could eat desert (AC3) then your desert isn't going to have the same impact as it should.

METAPHORS!!!!

The Assassin's Creed games are really lengthy. With that said, if you plowed through it as fast as you could, you could probably do it in less than 15 hours. If you skip the cutscenes, you could beat it a lot faster too.

I guarantee that you will like Assassin's Creed 3 less if you play Revelations and then go directly to the next one.

Well I thought I'd update on this thread. I ended up playing about 3 hours of the game. It felt like a well made game, but just too similar to the last two.

So like I thought I ended up just going into AC3.

Not to spoil anything, but I do think that playing the series is a must for people to enjoy AC3. I think a lot of people here might dismiss AC: Revelations because of Ryan's constant encouragement to skip it, but playing a few hours into AC3 I wish I knew what happened during that game. Again I dont want to spoil anything so I wont mention why, but I am thinking of actually going back and trying to get through the story. Or at least reading a length summary.

Revelations and AC3 are as bad as each other to be honest. This series needs to take a break and go back to the drawing board to fix the combat, AI, and stop forcing us to re-learn the mechanics every fucking game for a few hours. The padding to stretch out the time it takes to get through the game is extremely annoying to me, there's so much fluff that could be cut out in favour of a more concise and interesting game.

I wouldn't even bother trying to read the 'lore', this series is way past the point of being convoluted nonsense, I wish they just scrapped the Animus crap and told a self-contained story in the time periods in which the games are set.

Would anyone argue that 2, Brotherhood and Revelations would have been worse if it was just 100% Ezio? I didn't care at all about what was going on with Desmond and all the modern day nonsense, it was what was happening with Ezio and his family that I was interested in.

I am doing the same thing as you, I actually do like the setting (big middle eastern history nut), but I am finding it very difficult to main line the story. I just can't play a game like AC like that. I think vinny had the same problem on the latest podcast, you see a god damn view point and you just have to climb it, you get a chance to send an assassin on a mission and you just have to do it. So right now I'm really in a bad situation, because I don't enjoy just main lining games like AC, but at the same time I feel there is way too much systems and general stuff going on with Revelation (seems very similar to Brotherhood but even more shit to do if that was possible). Plus, I really do want to give AC3 a chance sometimes in the near future, so I'm not sure playing Revelation and burning myself on AC would be a good call.

So I'm in this really weird situation, where I want to play Revelation cause I enjoy AC and I really, really like the setting; but at the same time I don't want to put anything more than 10 hrs in to this game and I really want to play AC3 sometime soon and I have a ton of other real life stuff to deal with right now so my gaming time is limited. Plus Halo 4 is coming out on tuesday and I just need to play that really, really badly (its like crack for me).

In conclusion : FUCK YOU UBISOFT, YOU FRENCH ASSHOLES! WHY CAN'T HAVE MADE BROTHERHOODS AND REVALATIONS INTO ONE FUCKING GAME

I still have Assassins Creed II to get through, I'm not enjoying it as much as Assassins Creed 1.

My experience with the franchise:

• First game: Totally fine, but a drag if you went for collectibles and sidequests.
• Second game: A step up in every way, my personal favorite.
• Brotherhood: A step down from second game, and felt like a drag towards the end.

I'm in the same place as the OP, that I want to play and finish Revelations before eventually buying ACIII. Knowing myself, however, I know I won't be able to leave sidequests and collectibles out of the way. Everyone seems to be generally hating on Revelations, but since it's dirt-cheap nowadays I'll still play through it before ACIII. Hopefully it won't burn me out on the franchise entirely, Brotherhood was disappointing for me after playing ACII.

Even if you're just blasting through it I still recommend you do the Desmond sequences, the gameplay isn't very good but it gives you a lot of insight into the character which wasn't there before.

@Hunter5024: Indeed, but dear lord, that first person platforming! What a fucking slog! That's some real unnecessary fluffy padding if I've ever seen it.

I liked Revelations. However if you're just going to blast through it don't bother. When you have some free time get into the game and see if you enjoy what it offers, I know I did.

@MrOldboy: The thing is that basically only happens in like the last two minutes of Revelations, without very much elaboration at all. You do learn a lot more about the twos relationship dynamic from the Desmond sequences in Revelations, but as someone who actually played that game I still have a ton of questions about that myself. Honestly if you want to skip Revelations I'd say watch the Desmond Sequences and ending on Youtube, because there's no point in playing a ten hour game for 30 minutes of plot.