This topic is locked from further discussion.
Brotherhood is just another AC game. Halo 3 is pretty important, but I guess that's not what this shitty thing is about though is it.
Years from now when I look back on the 360, my first thought won't be of Assassin's fucking Creed. It'll be of the slow, gradual downward spiral the system took as Microsoft desperately tried to latch onto multimedia features to extend its already-too-long lifespan, and how the system finished its life as a shell of its former self.
Then, my second thought'll probably be about how much goddamned fun I had with Halo 3.
I went with Brotherhood. Why? It showed how to make small-scale open-world games, and by the time the slow burn that was the first six hours of that game is done, it's a hell of a ride. Halo 3 is my overall LEAST favorite of all the Halo games, and in all honesty, Halo 2 was the most important piece of that franchise.
It's still a mistake that Brotherhood won the preliminaries over AC2. Brotherhood did iterate on the formula and make an even better playing game, but AC2 was the far more memorable, important, and pivotal title. It took a flawed game with promise (AC1) and made the leap to being a fantastic game. Everything after that is far more minor iterations and improvements on the formula.
Even if they liked playing it more, Brotherhood will still just be an AC2 expansion pack in most people's minds. It's certainly not what I think of as the defining title of the series that should be representing it in this competition. That said, rankings like these are utterly pointless as anything but a fun distraction - not complaining, just telling my own self that I shouldn't worry about taking it seriously.
Seriously? First Bayonetta and now Halo 3? Did anyone even touch Brotherhood after completing it?
Re-playability is of zero importance to the very many people who just want to play a game and move on to the next. It could even be argued that a game with high re-playability suffers as a result of being designed in such a way to accommodate it.
You can walk up to dudes, whistle, and make death rain upon them as you casually walk through the chaos.
If only they kept the balance of stealth vs action from AC1 in that series. It's the only one that felt like you were a single person entrenched in a dangerous world. The combat was tense and the assasinations required some care. AC2 onwards was just "run here, kill everything, run there, kill everything".
Halo 3 isn't even the best Halo game overall (CE) or best 360 Halo (Reach). That being said its a very important title and was still pretty fun, had a good soundtrack, and actually wrapped up the trilogy in a semi-satisfying way (Spark or no Spark).
But AC:B made a SP game have MP where it had no business being, and pulled it off. While I didn't play a ton of said MP the fact that it worked at all is a good accomplishment. It also has one of the best campaigns in an AC game and the most compelling characters/setting to still be featured in a AC game. Also feel the setting was the best the series has offered.
Toss up here. Going AC:B for the mostly personal reasons. Both are good choices, but one has to lose.
Man, these games aren't even remotely comparable O_O
Still though, Brotherhood was great but it wasn't my favourite Assassins Creed and Halo 3 by far was the most balanced of the Halo's. Great end to the trilogy, four-player co-op was HUGE and the multiplayer built upon everything Halo 2 revolutionized on the original Xbox and pushed it even further. It's hard to argue the merits of Halo 3.
I am shocked to see Halo 3 getting beat by Brotherhood. ACB was the last AC game I bothered to play, I had enough of the same crap over and over again.
Halo 3 was best Halo game of this generation (one could argue this didn't require much since Reach and 4 were so shitty) and in my top 3 games of top 3 this gen. Countless of hours spent in multiplayer and never got bored.