• 104 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#1 Posted by CosmicBatman (317 posts) -

So I have never played an Assassin's Creed game before but people keep on recommending it. It seems to me that the game has gotten better and better over the years. Should I start from the very first game or just pick up the newest game?

#2 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

Wasn't the first game criticized for being kinda clunky?

#3 Posted by JCTango (1362 posts) -

@CosmicBatman: First game gets repetitive pretty fast, but for me it's still pretty fun... especially if you consider the time when it was released - there wasn't really anything else that offered that same level of verticality and movement. It can be debated on whether you can skip it for the story, but I think you can still enjoy it.

#4 Posted by katanalauncher (215 posts) -

IMO yes, the story and mechanics definitely hold up.

Stealth assassination unlike the sequels are actually hard to pull off (although you might find this frustrating)

The structure of the game is extremely repetitive, go in without the mentally to do everything, because you will go insane and alot of it isn't fun.

If you can find it cheap just rush through the story and don't do more side quest than you need.

#5 Posted by bslayer (222 posts) -

Um... I don't think the first game ever held up. Doing the EXACT same thing for every assassination sucked. It was interesting though. Story wise it's nice, but I'd probably say skip it and go straight to AC II.

#6 Posted by ZeForgotten (10397 posts) -
@Video_Game_King said:

Wasn't the first game criticized for being kinda clunky?

Only bad things I remember hearing were that it got repetitive really fast. 
I always thought that was kinda weird since I could never remember playing a game that wasn't repetitive.. Heck, even Pong was
#7 Posted by Dixavd (1358 posts) -

I really liked the first one (and take the ending of AC1 as one of my favourite moments in gaming). But honestly the game never held up; it had odd design choices and slightly annoying controls, most of the characters weren't that interesting and the collectable flags were simply a pain to try and get.

However while I think it is mechanically broken, I still really like it and actually found the pacing difference of how they set up the present day in the slow prison-like lab compared to the faster-paced past time.

#8 Posted by CrossTheAtlantic (1145 posts) -

Just don't sit down to play the game in large stretches. Otherwise it gets way too repetitive. There's no reason to really complete everything in the game, so if you're just in it for story, you can just speed through it without completing everything.

However, you probably won't be at a huge loss just jumping straight into AC2 which is a much, much better game. Though the improvements might not be quite as impressive without knowing the redundancy of 1.

#9 Posted by ez123 (1965 posts) -

I played it on PC this year and liked it a lot. The story is very interesting and I think the fun of the missions ramps up and it ends strongly.

#10 Posted by bslayer (222 posts) -

OK, now I feel like I'm in the minority here. Play the game.

#11 Posted by Ping5000 (385 posts) -

I thought it had the best story in the series. Altair's character arc in particular was really well-done.

#12 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Fuck that game.

#13 Posted by WinterSnowblind (7617 posts) -

I don't think the first game ever held up well. The general concept was solid though, it's worth playing for the story and for the feeling of "Wow, this is so much better" when you get to the second game.

#14 Posted by Manhattan_Project (2156 posts) -

It didn't hold up the day after it was released. Play the second one then Brotherhood and wait for the third.

Online
#15 Posted by bwheeeler (449 posts) -

If it's cheap, might as well start from the top. It's a totally good game, just not FUCKING GREAT like the second and third and (to a lesser extent) fourth.

#16 Posted by Sackmanjones (4705 posts) -

I truly dislike this game, I'm very glad my buddy let me borrow AC2 or else I would not be into this series like I am now. The only thing the original had going for it was the shock and awe value of a console game doing something radically different than anything else. After that wore off it became a very repetitive game with rooftop jumping/climbing.

#17 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18955 posts) -

I think I'm the biggest defender/lover of Assassin's Creed 1 on these forums, yet my answer is no. It really doesn't. It had so much when it was new that it was one of the best single player experiences I've ever had, still my all time favorite along with a couple other games, but its mechanics and level design do NOT have the longevity AC2 has. 
 
IMO one of the best games ever made, but playing it in 2012 is a bad idea.

#18 Posted by Jimbo (9810 posts) -

Fantastic game. You should definitely play it.

#19 Posted by BlastProcessing (917 posts) -

That game NEVER held up.

#20 Posted by iAmJohn (6120 posts) -

Hard for it to hold up when it was never good to begin with.

#21 Posted by Chop (1997 posts) -

I'm gonna throw my vote onto the "it never held up" train.

I mean, if you enjoy mindless repetition and clunky... everything, go for it.

#22 Posted by Hunter5024 (5683 posts) -

If you play it, then at least do the bare minimum to get through it.

#23 Posted by Landon (4143 posts) -

Assassins Creed was an awesome game when it first came out. It was just so new and different I think it was easy to overlook the problems it had. I recently went back to it and, no, it doesn't hold up at all.

#24 Posted by SoldierG654342 (1766 posts) -

Play the first real assassination then YouTube the story bits.

#25 Posted by Joeybagad0nutz (1438 posts) -

After brotherhood I don't think holds up much Anymore.

#26 Posted by Phatmac (5726 posts) -

Probably not.

#27 Posted by Demyx (3237 posts) -

It's worth playing but be warned: it is really repetitive. I still enjoyed it though. And if you plan on running through the series you really should.

#28 Posted by iAmJohn (6120 posts) -

@ZeForgotten said:

@Video_Game_King said:

Wasn't the first game criticized for being kinda clunky?

Only bad things I remember hearing were that it got repetitive really fast. I always thought that was kinda weird since I could never remember playing a game that wasn't repetitive.. Heck, even Pong was

The difference is that Pong ends after someone scores 11 points. Assassin's Creed is a twenty-plus-hour game in which you've essentially seen all the different systems the game has to offer in the first two.

#29 Posted by HistoryInRust (6315 posts) -

The mission structure is garbage.

I've never heard other opinions on this front, but, for me, the first Assassin's Creed was the most interesting one visually. I can't quite put my finger on it, but starting with Assassin's Creed II the art style took a slightly more cartoonish bent. I don't think that change betrays the soul of the series or anything, but I always found it interesting that they moved away from the grit and grime of the original look. Perhaps that has more to do with reflecting the time period, since the Crusades were several times more gruesome and barbaric than the Renaissance.

Who knows.

Otherwise, no. The first Assassin's Creed has a hard time staying relevant.

#30 Posted by Dad_Is_A_Zombie (1225 posts) -

I still like the game but of you're new to the series, start with AC2. If you fall in love with the franchise and have to have more of it, then go back and play 1. You'll probably be more willing to put up with it's deficiencies.

#31 Edited by Rebel_Scum (710 posts) -

Thanks for starting this thread because I was thinking about getting an assassin creed game to see what they're like. I've just bought 1 and 2, I'll do those and get 3 later this year. Not gonna bother with brotherhood or revelations.

#32 Posted by Doctorchimp (4076 posts) -

Fuck that game.

No reason to play it. Read that wiki article and play II.

#33 Edited by RedCream (705 posts) -

I may be in the minority here but I enjoyed the combat of AC1 more than AC2. I also never got tired of saving people from mobs but your mileage may vary. For me, It still holds up well however I can be very tolerant and impressionable when it comes to video games.

#34 Posted by newhaap (421 posts) -

I agree with most people regarding the first one getting repetitive very quickly. If you haven't played the newer ones though I think it would still be enjoyable.

@Rebel_Scum: I personally think Brotherhood is the best out of the Assassin's Creed games so far so you should give it a try (although you might want to anyway when you finish AC2, if you enjoy the story)

#35 Posted by WarlordPayne (700 posts) -

AC1 is like a proof of concept showing how the traversal, crowd, and assassination stuff could work in a game, but rather than build a whole game around it they built 1/10 of a game and made you repeat it over and over again. By the end I hated Assassin's Creed more than any other game I've completed. The one thing it has going for it is that it has the most Desmond content of any of the games.

AC2 and Brotherhood are both incredible and I can't recommend them enough. Revelations was tired and unnecessary.

In short: Skip 1, play 2 and Brotherhood, skip Revelations.

#36 Posted by Rebel_Scum (710 posts) -

@newhaap said:

I agree with most people regarding the first one getting repetitive very quickly. If you haven't played the newer ones though I think it would still be enjoyable.

@Rebel_Scum: I personally think Brotherhood is the best out of the Assassin's Creed games so far so you should give it a try (although you might want to anyway when you finish AC2, if you enjoy the story)

Yeah I probably will. ;)

#37 Posted by Trav (241 posts) -

While I played through all of it and appreciated its technical excellency when it was released, it had some huge flaws with repetition of missions and feeling like it was artificially lengthened through further repetitive side missions. I would recommend watching the cutscenes online and skipping to AC2. AC2 had similar issues, but they were far less prominent and the experience overall was highly improved.

#38 Posted by LiquidPrince (15949 posts) -

It's an amazing game. It does have some flaws, but it's still 100% worth playing. You always feel as though events are more epic if you have some back story, and all subsequent AC games will feel way cooler if you've played through the first.

#39 Posted by MachoFantastico (4687 posts) -

Played it last year and yes it held up... at least for me and I have pretty great memories of that game. It as problems but still an enjoyable game. 

#40 Posted by S0ndor (2716 posts) -

You should start with 2. The first one was pretty bad at the time, already, so it doesn't hold up at all now. The sequel, however, is a phenomenal game.

I'd suggest watching some YouTube vids and reading the wiki page for 1 so you know the story when you jump into 2.

#41 Posted by Vextroid (1404 posts) -

@LiquidPrince said:

It's an amazing game. It does have some flaws, but it's still 100% worth playing. You always feel as though events are more epic if you have some back story, and all subsequent AC games will feel way cooler if you've played through the first.

Agreed. While 2 did polish up the guard A.I it still serviceable in 1.

Also the sequence where you have to sneak through a castle to get to a target was an unforgettable moment. Spending 40 minutes climbing on the outside walls of the castle overlooking a cliffs-edge, silently taking out the guards before dropping behind my target surprising him before stabbing him in the face and neck.

No other part of any other Assassins Creed game has matched that experience for me.

#42 Posted by CookieMonster (2417 posts) -

Its a bit shit.

#43 Edited by UitDeToekomst (714 posts) -

Interesting that this comes up now, as I am in the middle of playing it for the first time right now, after picking it up for $4. I was late to the AC train, having started with AC2 in early 2011, then Brotherhood last summer, and Revelations shortly after it came out. I got a bit burned out on Diablo, so I decided to hit up my backlog some and popped in the first AC. I have to say, being roughly what I assume to be two-thirds or so of the way thru, the people saying it get really repetitive are 100% correct. It is the exact same 4 missions types repeated over and over in three different districts of three different cities. I keep waiting for something new to appear, but it just doesn't. Another beef I have is the long runs from area to area. Even when fast-jumping is enabled after completing the first few mission sets, it can be tedious to go from town to town. The cut scenes also get pretty tiring, and there is no way to skip them that i have found. All that being said, it is still a pretty fun game. The basic mechanics are good, they are just not implemented with enough variety. It is probably worth playing, but like others have mentioned, you may just want to run thru doing the bare minimum. If nothing else, playing the first one will make you appreciate what tremendous leaps in gameplay and design were made with the next few games.

#44 Posted by CheapPoison (731 posts) -

No, It wasn't even that great then.

Showed lots of promise but wasn't that awesome. IT really came into it's own on assassin's creed 2.

#45 Edited by Tennmuerti (8101 posts) -

I come from the perspective of playing this game when it came out on the PC and by that time the repetitive nature of side missions was a non issue. When first released there were only like 3-4 side mission types, later on they increased that count to about 7. You only need to to 3 side missions to open up the main assassinations period, so the game never became repetitive for me.

As far as it holding up mechanically, if you played the later AC2 games then no it would probably not hold up mechanically wise, but if you never played the series then playing AC1 for the first time without knowing of later improvements is perfectly fine.

For me the story was the strongest aspect of AC1 and it created a far more engaging and interesting narrative then the following games, because they simply iterated and expended and just meandered about for the most part in terms of overall story. AC1 story and speculation is what made a lot of people interested in the series in the first place.

Personally I have always preferred Altair from AC1 as a character than Ezio, he has character growth at least and starts of as a far more grey character, not a baby martyr loosing his parents and going on a vengeance spree. One of the main reasons why i disliked the last AC2: Revelations is how badly they portrayed Altair in it. Say what you will Altair was far more bad ass and hardcore assassin in tone then Ezio. A "good guy" just can't pull of the same air of deadliness then a flawed character no matter the arsenal. Also Altair's plain robes and limited hardware just served to make him even more believable and deadly rather then the garish walking armory that Ezio quickly became.

And finally if you are going to start the series, start at AC1 it will let you appreciate both the story and the mechanics of the later games far more.

2c

#46 Posted by Shady (503 posts) -

Unless you get a copy of Assassin's Creed: Revelations for the PS3 that has AC1 on it, I can't recommend you play it. The combat is broken in your favor as countering with the hidden blade is all it takes to win battles. As for the story, I honestly don't think it is all that interesting until the twist at the end. Altair is pretty stupid to what's happening around him and doesn't realize it until it's blatantly obvious. You could say it's because he just does as he's told, but you have to be pretty blind to not see the writing on the wall. He's not even proactive until the very end. If anything, all it does is make AC2 seem more coherent (at least until the end) when you go through Ezio's life.

#47 Posted by ajamafalous (11994 posts) -

No, game wasn't even good when it came out, it was just novel. AC2 and onward are actually good games, though.

#48 Edited by MEATBALL (3241 posts) -

It was the sort of game you kind of just tolerated for its potential, the few good things it did and the intriguing story in the first place, really.

#49 Posted by Stealthmaster86 (655 posts) -

Lets just say that I couldn't play the first one after I played ACII. That NEVER happens. Most of the time I can jump into the first game of a series, and have a great time with it. Here, not so much. That shows you how much they improved between Assassin's Creed 1 and Assassin's Creed 2.

#50 Posted by Boboblaw (290 posts) -

It was never a good game in the first place, so I doubt it has aged well. It was one of the most boring games I finished.
 
Thankfully AC2 was so much better