I've had Brotherhood for some time but I didn't want to burn myself out before AC 3. Reception to 3 seems less than expected, which should I play and which should I put off for a while?

I really like three. I've only played as Desmond once and haven't had any bugs pop up. I would play Brotherhood first though, not for story, because it's a really good game.

AC2 > AC:B > AC = AC:R > AC3

That's just my opinion, anyway

I've only played AC and AC2 and AC:B. Never did finish AC2 though, something about that game just didn't click with me. But I enjoyed the hell out of AC:B. Might get back into the franchise with AC:R though, just for the story at least. I'm getting a feeling that AC:B is the benchmark for the series, or is that just me?

I don't know if Brotherhood is the best in the series. I'm not even sure if I considered it the best in the series before 3. I think AC2 and AC3 are more comparable, because they tell the origin story of a character in a very story-driven game.

I think Brotherhood made a lot of excellent refinements and additions, but story is pretty important to me and AC2 had the best one. AC3 also has a great story, and they have made refinements and added new things. I would say go with Brotherhood if you want to see Ezio's middle chapter (you should probably play through AC:R if you go this route), but go with AC3 if you want something new.

Those who say that AC3 is bad, a huge step back, or not very good, are crazy and I question whether they have even played the game much at all. Play it.

1. AC2/AC3 (I really can't decide, they are both great games) - they both have great stories, added new mechanics and features, and a new setting.
2. AC:B - because it introduced cool mechanics and tweaks, and had a good story.
3. AC:R - because it didn't add much, but ended the Ezio trilogy (as well as Altiar's story) with some closure.
4. AC1 - because it was repetitive, the main character was emotionless, but the gameplay was fine and the story was okay.

I haven't finished 3 yet, but I have a feeling its my favorite. The main story is good, and it actually has a ton of fun side missions to do.

Right now I'd rank the series

1. ACIII
2. AC:B
3. ACII
4. AC
5. AC:R

Guess I'll have to see if my opinion changes when I'm finished with ACIII, but I have a feeling my thoughts won't differ.

Edit: And just skip Revelations. Its just more of the same of Brotherhood, which shouldn't be a bad thing, but it is. Very little story progression in Revelations, as well.

What the fuck? Brotherhood is way, way too easy to be better than II. And the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series. I still haven't played Assassin's Creed III though.

@familyphotoshoot said:

AC2 > AC:B > AC = AC:R > AC3

That's just my opinion, anyway

I'm in complete agreement with this.

AC:B / AC2 / AC / AC:R / AC3. Brotherhood is incredible. 3 is aggressively terrible. Very sad to see a series fall so far so fast.

3 is probably my favourite, all issues aside. I just enjoy the environment more really.

@familyphotoshoot said:

AC2 > AC:B > AC = AC:R > AC3

That's just my opinion, anyway

Agree

I've been having the most fun with ACIII by far. The core game feels much more open than the previous games and all the extraneous game systems have been trimmed of their fat.

If I had an order it would be 3 > Bro > 2 > Rev > 1

II > Bro > III > I > Rev

I cannot believe people think the first game is better than Revelations. You do the same 3 things in the same order every contract, the repetition is insane.

@Snail said:

And the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series.

...what? The only good thing about that game is that it felt fresh, at first, then you soon notice how repetitive it is.

Altair is really boring too. I think the entire series would be better if they removed the modern day convoluted bullshit entirely.

edit: and the first AC was practically unplayable on PS3, the framerate took a nose dive all the god damn time. Gave me a headache when horse riding.

Thread title LOL ^__^

I feel AC3 on PC could be GOTY, only thing that isnt that great on 360 is framerate\graphics everything else is top notch, the story is very captivating so far and the starting section with your dad is really well told how it transitions. Loved the Karate Kid inspired training part of the story.

I always liked Assassin's Creed 2 better than Brotherhood. Haven't played Revelations or 3 yet.

@Sooty said:

I cannot believe people think the first game is better than Revelations. You do the same 3 things in the same order every contract, the repetition is insane.

@Snail said:

And the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series.

...what? The only good thing about that game is that it felt fresh, at first, then you soon notice how repetitive it is.

Altair is really boring too. I think the entire series would be better if they removed the modern day convoluted bullshit entirely.

edit: and the first AC was practically unplayable on PS3, the framerate took a nose dive all the god damn time. Gave me a headache when horse riding.

The first game was a morally grey, thought-provoking assassin simulator. Granted it was repetitive, but there was a point to it. The point being that, at the time, Assassin's Creed was going to be as true to "history" as video games could let them be (while still being fun). The sci-fi trappings were spartan in comparison to how over the top and Lost it became. A lot of people enjoyed the fact that there were no true villains, and that each "hit" could be meticulously planned. I say it's better than AC2 from a pure narrative standpoint. Ezio's story is a well executed revenge tale, but it didn't leave me with any inner conflict from the overarching battle of ideology between the Templars and the Assassins. That's something that AC3 does very well, by the way. It poses a lot of interesting questions but doesn't give you any clear cut "this is right" or "this is wrong" stance. It presents the argument and lets you decide for yourself. I appreciate that.

I've always found Brotherhood to be a disappointing sequel, and along with Revelations, the two weakest entries in the series. This new one seems to take what worked out of those, and applied them to a game with 2's quality. Not a very innovative game though.

Is 3 somehow getting a comeback from all the negative reception? Wow, maybe I should play it sooner than I thought.

My ranking

1. AssBro- Took the fantastic refinements from Ass II and improved them to further an already excellent experience.

2. Ass II- Took the solid original and fixed nearly all of its issues, creating a fantastic game with e memorable main character.

3. Ass I- Provided a rocky foundation for excellent games to follow. It built an exceptional world, had solid stealth gameplay and was very unique for its time.

4. AssRev- A good game, but added the most unnecessary shit that never needed to be there in the first place. It provided an end to Ezio and gave backstory, but beyond that was pretty much a useless iteration.

Brotherhood is the most refined, but 2 is the most important.

Yes. Yes. holy fuck YES.

Brotherhood > ACII > Revelations > AC1 > AC3

I like it more than brotherhood but brotherhood has much better gameplay. I just had my fill of Ezio and thus got bored of it quick. So far three seems the worst in the series.

Brotherhood is Assassins Creed perfected. Best combat, still took actual skill to traverse buildings, actually explained its new elements, and it has vertical gameplay unlike AC3 which says instead of that awesome climbing, we're just gonna give you a couple of terrible chase mission through the streets. And Connor is a terrible character.

But I will say the freerunning through the trees works great. In fact most of the stuff in the wild works great.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Sooty said:

I cannot believe people think the first game is better than Revelations. You do the same 3 things in the same order every contract, the repetition is insane.

@Snail said:

And the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series.

...what? The only good thing about that game is that it felt fresh, at first, then you soon notice how repetitive it is.

Altair is really boring too. I think the entire series would be better if they removed the modern day convoluted bullshit entirely.

edit: and the first AC was practically unplayable on PS3, the framerate took a nose dive all the god damn time. Gave me a headache when horse riding.

The first game was a morally grey, thought-provoking assassin simulator. Granted it was repetitive, but there was a point to it. The point being that, at the time, Assassin's Creed was going to be as true to "history" as video games could let them be (while still being fun). The sci-fi trappings were spartan in comparison to how over the top and Lost it became. A lot of people enjoyed the fact that there were no true villains, and that each "hit" could be meticulously planned. I say it's better than AC2 from a pure narrative standpoint. Ezio's story is a well executed revenge tale, but it didn't leave me with any inner conflict from the overarching battle of ideology between the Templars and the Assassins. That's something that AC3 does very well, by the way. It poses a lot of interesting questions but doesn't give you any clear cut "this is right" or "this is wrong" stance. It presents the argument and lets you decide for yourself. I appreciate that.

You've become my own personal hero. I wouldn't call it the BEST, so far as mechanics go, but the story, the art direction, the entire aesthetic of the world and what they set up is just so much better than anything that followed.

2>3>B>R>1

@MayorFeedback said:

AC:B / AC2 / AC / AC:R / AC3. Brotherhood is incredible. 3 is aggressively terrible. Very sad to see a series fall so far so fast.

Seconded.

I really enjoyed 2, but I felt the plodding pace in the first half was unnecessary considering the first game threw you in after a few tutorials. (still not half as bad 3)

Revelations in hind sight wasnt that bad, the story just wasnt interesting at all and tower defense was utterly pointless. Granted the first game had you repeat the same tasks over and over but to the game's credit each assassination felt unique and climatic as a result. (I had similiar feeling playing through the first No More Heroes)

@HolyHackZack: Brotherhood was crap imo. AC2 was the best, but 3 is really good once you hit sequence 4, before that its insanely slow(but for a reason)

Brotherhood is the best from a single player perspective, 3 is the best from a multiplayer perspective; Brotherhood owes a lot to 2 for a foundation but is still a generally superior game overall. Revelations is still a much much much better game than AC1, though weaker than the rest of the series.

I think AC 2 is the best game in the series. Then I'd go with AC1, Brotherhood, AC 3, and Revelations is the worst. Probably won't play Liberation unless someone gives me a vita.

Did you know in Phantasy Star Online there is an enemy called a Grass Assassin? It says "ass" 3 times in a row.

The inclusion of the assassin recruitment added alot to AC but AC3 takes the series further with, although very scripted and segmented, naval combat and a newer, more intelligent free run engine. And they added like a mini-sims to the game! Lets also not forget that AnvilNext looks freaking gorgeous.

If I had to rank them, it'll be AC3 > AC:B > AC2 > AC:R > AC1

Not getting the negativity for 3 at all. It's a pretty amazing experience. I've only played 1 and 2. No Revelations. But in my opinion it's at least better than the first two. Maybe it's because I'm more into the subject material.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Sooty said:

I cannot believe people think the first game is better than Revelations. You do the same 3 things in the same order every contract, the repetition is insane.

@Snail said:

And the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series.

...what? The only good thing about that game is that it felt fresh, at first, then you soon notice how repetitive it is.

Altair is really boring too. I think the entire series would be better if they removed the modern day convoluted bullshit entirely.

edit: and the first AC was practically unplayable on PS3, the framerate took a nose dive all the god damn time. Gave me a headache when horse riding.

The first game was a morally grey, thought-provoking assassin simulator. Granted it was repetitive, but there was a point to it. The point being that, at the time, Assassin's Creed was going to be as true to "history" as video games could let them be (while still being fun). The sci-fi trappings were spartan in comparison to how over the top and Lost it became. A lot of people enjoyed the fact that there were no true villains, and that each "hit" could be meticulously planned. I say it's better than AC2 from a pure narrative standpoint. Ezio's story is a well executed revenge tale, but it didn't leave me with any inner conflict from the overarching battle of ideology between the Templars and the Assassins. That's something that AC3 does very well, by the way. It poses a lot of interesting questions but doesn't give you any clear cut "this is right" or "this is wrong" stance. It presents the argument and lets you decide for yourself. I appreciate that.

I do see your point but I just can't look past the repetition in 1, it totally soured me on the series. I didn't even get around to playing II until last year because the first put me off so much!

Every time they cut back to the Animus and Desmond I'm pretty sure I audibly groan though.

For me it's AC3 > Brotherhood > AC2 > Revelations > AC1.

I'm honestly baffled that this game is getting such a negative reception from fans. I absolutely love it. Easily the best in the series for me. Just my opinion, though.

yup

Anyone who says 3 is the worst is out of their minds, there is no way it is a worse game than AC 1 and Revelations. AC 1 was insanely repetitive and for the most part visually boring with alright controls that needed refinement, and Rev had a terrible terrible story with more gadgets and weapons then anyone would ever need while also doing nothing to improve the series in an also boring setting.

AC 3 refines the combat to make it much smoother, provides a fairly strong story(in the animus, the Desmond stuff is retarded but if you focus on the Desmond stuff you are playing the game for the wrong reason) that has a variety in its missions, introduces naval combat which is very well done for something that's only a side thing, weather that looks great for a game of it's scale and expands on stealth mechanics as well as improves how notoriety is handled. It may be buggy, while I've only experienced very minor bugs, it is in no way the disappointment people are making it out to be.

I'd rank them 3 > 2 = Bro > Rev > 1.

Yes. Yes it is.

@xxizzypop said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Sooty said:

I cannot believe people think the first game is better than Revelations. You do the same 3 things in the same order every contract, the repetition is insane.

@Snail said:

And the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series.

...what? The only good thing about that game is that it felt fresh, at first, then you soon notice how repetitive it is.

Altair is really boring too. I think the entire series would be better if they removed the modern day convoluted bullshit entirely.

edit: and the first AC was practically unplayable on PS3, the framerate took a nose dive all the god damn time. Gave me a headache when horse riding.

The first game was a morally grey, thought-provoking assassin simulator. Granted it was repetitive, but there was a point to it. The point being that, at the time, Assassin's Creed was going to be as true to "history" as video games could let them be (while still being fun). The sci-fi trappings were spartan in comparison to how over the top and Lost it became. A lot of people enjoyed the fact that there were no true villains, and that each "hit" could be meticulously planned. I say it's better than AC2 from a pure narrative standpoint. Ezio's story is a well executed revenge tale, but it didn't leave me with any inner conflict from the overarching battle of ideology between the Templars and the Assassins. That's something that AC3 does very well, by the way. It poses a lot of interesting questions but doesn't give you any clear cut "this is right" or "this is wrong" stance. It presents the argument and lets you decide for yourself. I appreciate that.

You've become my own personal hero. I wouldn't call it the BEST, so far as mechanics go, but the story, the art direction, the entire aesthetic of the world and what they set up is just so much better than anything that followed.

Gentlemen, I agree with you thoroughly and I thank you for putting it to words in the manner that you did. It also annoys me how they did some strange gameplay decisions that seemed like cheap attempts to add depth. The economy system in Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood, for instance, felt really barebones and unnecessary. That and dropping the "Animus Sync" as a health bar system (WHICH WAS REALLY COOL BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY MADE A "HEALTH BAR" MAKE SENSE) to make room for an also barebones RPG-like upgrade system that felt silly and out of place. Though I really wish the first Assassin's Creed had all of those assassination mechanics they added to the second one.

If only they released an Assassin's Creed I remake where you could air-assassinate fools. That would just be the best.

1. Assassin's Creed 2
2. Assassin's Creed 3
3. Assassin's Creed Brotherhood
4. Assassin's Creed Revelations
5. Assassin's Creed

I love all of them though.

Is 3 somehow getting a comeback from all the negative reception? Wow, maybe I should play it sooner than I thought.

My ranking

1. AssBro- Took the fantastic refinements from Ass II and improved them to further an already excellent experience.

2. Ass II- Took the solid original and fixed nearly all of its issues, creating a fantastic game with e memorable main character.

3. Ass I- Provided a rocky foundation for excellent games to follow. It built an exceptional world, had solid stealth gameplay and was very unique for its time.

4. AssRev- A good game, but added the most unnecessary shit that never needed to be there in the first place. It provided an end to Ezio and gave backstory, but beyond that was pretty much a useless iteration.

I have really enjoyed AC3, the enviroments are just much more interesting and varied (especially after you have played 3 games in the Ezio era). Running in the woods stabbing bears in the summer and winter just give you something new. Also I really like the naval stuff. It's all pretty simple and easy but it just looks and feels amazing. The cities also have a completely different feel to them.

I think you can just play Brotherhood and then take the break you feel like you need and then come to AC3. What's the hurry? They are both worth playing.

Agreed. I loved the multiplayer, the economy system, and your assassin's guild.

Assassins Creed 2 still holds to be the best AC game - to me at least. Brotherhood was fantastic as was Revelations, but AC3 brought an entire new setting and a wonderfully interesting world and characters.

@Snail said:

@xxizzypop said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Sooty said:

I cannot believe people think the first game is better than Revelations. You do the same 3 things in the same order every contract, the repetition is insane.

@Snail said:

And the first Assassin's Creed is the best in the series.

...what? The only good thing about that game is that it felt fresh, at first, then you soon notice how repetitive it is.

Altair is really boring too. I think the entire series would be better if they removed the modern day convoluted bullshit entirely.

edit: and the first AC was practically unplayable on PS3, the framerate took a nose dive all the god damn time. Gave me a headache when horse riding.

The first game was a morally grey, thought-provoking assassin simulator. Granted it was repetitive, but there was a point to it. The point being that, at the time, Assassin's Creed was going to be as true to "history" as video games could let them be (while still being fun). The sci-fi trappings were spartan in comparison to how over the top and Lost it became. A lot of people enjoyed the fact that there were no true villains, and that each "hit" could be meticulously planned. I say it's better than AC2 from a pure narrative standpoint. Ezio's story is a well executed revenge tale, but it didn't leave me with any inner conflict from the overarching battle of ideology between the Templars and the Assassins. That's something that AC3 does very well, by the way. It poses a lot of interesting questions but doesn't give you any clear cut "this is right" or "this is wrong" stance. It presents the argument and lets you decide for yourself. I appreciate that.

You've become my own personal hero. I wouldn't call it the BEST, so far as mechanics go, but the story, the art direction, the entire aesthetic of the world and what they set up is just so much better than anything that followed.

Gentlemen, I agree with you thoroughly and I thank you for putting it to words in the manner that you did. It also annoys me how they did some strange gameplay decisions that seemed like cheap attempts to add depth. The economy system in Assassin's Creed II and Brotherhood, for instance, felt really barebones and unnecessary. That and dropping the "Animus Sync" as a health bar system (WHICH WAS REALLY COOL BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY MADE A "HEALTH BAR" MAKE SENSE) to make room for an also barebones RPG-like upgrade system that felt silly and out of place. Though I really wish the first Assassin's Creed had all of those assassination mechanics they added to the second one.

If only they released an Assassin's Creed I remake where you could air-assassinate fools. That would just be the best.

Yeah I always thought the RPG stuff was really boring, it felt like a massive chore to me. I still don't think that makes the first game good though, I'd definitely take II or Brotherhood over that any day of the week. Something I don't understand is why they feel the need to hold your hand for 5+ hours in every game though, you'd think by the fifth game in the series we'd have moved on from forced hour long tutorials.

I'm done with the series unless they revamp it, make the combat not terrible, improve the AI and perhaps remove the modern day nonsense. I can hope.

No, the first assassins creed is the best one!

i feel AC2 is the best because it showed the most improvements from its predecessor. brotherhood is not far behind it though.

I haven't finished Revelations yet but so far it would go to the bottom of the list. This is how I'd rank them: AC2>AC1>Brotherhood

Probably won't play AC3 till at least next year but based on the setting and the fact that I'm ready to move on to Desmond it'll probably be near the bottom.

I just finished Brotherhood tonight and it's definitely my favorite of the ones that I've played. I would recommend playing through it. I haven't gotten to 3 yet so I can't comment on that.

I haven't played Rev yet (or gotten more than an hour into Brotherhood :( ...) but you guys are really ranking AC1 above ACR? AC1 was almost unplayable when it came out but it kinda escaped that criticism because what it was doing was so unique; after playing the sequels I'm sure it's aggressively bad.