Hey Guys

Because of the big expectation towards AC III, and the way the Assassin's Creed series has moved along so far, I decided to replay the series, starting from AC 1. I stopped playing it in 2009, when AC 2 was released, and I completely forgot about it. I have played the series until Brotherhood, and I plan to buy Revelations when the price goes down.

So yesterday, I plugged the disc into my Xbox and started a new game. Man...

I remember when I first bought it. I played it for weeks, literally. Didn't play any other game until I finished it. The game managed to absorb me into its world. The only issue I had with it back then, was the awful ending. But when I started playing it again, it felt so...weird.

First of all, the Abstergo parts. Desmond takes FOREVER to walk from the animus to his cell. The place looks depressing, all gray and empty. Conversations with Lucy and hacking Vidic's email gave me a more clear vision of how the story starts unfolding from the beginning, but those sequences are pretty boring.

The in the Animus. It looks weird playing as Altair after playing Ezio for three games. I think this because Altair's design is so much simpler than Ezio's. His clothes are plain, he only has one sword, knife, and hidden blade, which games the gameplay a lot of simplicity. His voice acting doesn't sound according to the setting (time and place). It sounds weird having a man from the Holy Land speaking English in perfect American accent. On a side note, the voice acting of this games is horrible. Not that the Assassin's Creed series has excelled for its dialogues, but man, the voice acting is just terrible. At least the rest of games have tried to make the character speak according to their context. And the lack of subtitles doesn't help at all.

Then, there's the gameplay. The biggest difference I noted immediately was Alltair's agility. Climbing takes forever as well, and his moves when fighting (as well as opponent's moves) are too slow. As most of you might remember, you lose all of the cool abilities from the beginning, so the first assassination sequence was painful to play. You only have the hidden blade and the sword, you can't counter or dodge attacks, and coordinating your moves to chain a combo is more difficult. And having to complete a full sequence to get a new ability or weapon feels like too much.

To be honest, when I first bought the game, I wasn't bothered at all by the repetitiveness of the gameplay. 4 and a half years later, it's a torture. Go to this town, go to the Bureau, evesdrop some guys, pickpocket letters, follow and beat dudes, complete small favors for fellow Assassins, save the citizens from guards, climb the viewpoints, assassinate target, repeat. And then the Kingdom. Don't get me started about the Kingdom, and finding the flags and the Templar knights.

When it first came out, I thought of the game as revolutionary. It certainly installed a base for later games, both inside and outside the series. It's still good, but for today's standars, I think the review scores for AC 1 would be pretty average. Still have to give credit to the game, for starting what would be a fantastic series in my opinion.

Any comments? Have you replayed AC 1 after all the Ezio games? What's your opinion of AC1?

Cheers!

I replayed it a couple months ago. I still loved it, I've never gone after the flags though.

I loved AC1, but of course it isn't going to stack up against its successors.

I never played the first game. I have it, but I just always heard that it wasn't that good. I started with the second game, which I absolutely loved, and played through Brotherhood but then I stopped there. I feel like in a game like that, you can only do the same thing over and over for so long. Plus, the story wasn't a huge draw. Honestly, I would've been happiest if they had stopped with the Ezio stuff right at the end of ACII and gone straight on to Assassin's Creed III. As it is, they've drawn the series out for way longer than I feel is necessary.

I still really like the first game and I really like the setting. Most pointless part of that game is the Kingdom, big and with nothing in or anything to do in it. Such a waste of time, time that could have gone into making the main assassinations less repetitive. Also I don't know if anyone else thinks the same but I think that graphics wise AC1 looks better than AC2, maybe it's because I have AC1 on Xbox and AC2 on PS3.

@ShaneDev said:

I still really like the first game and I really like the setting. Most pointless part of that game is the Kingdom, big and with nothing in or anything to do in it. Such a waste of time, time that could have gone into making the main assassinations less repetitive. Also I don't know if anyone else thinks the same or it's that I have AC1 on Xbox and AC2 on PS3, but I think that graphics wise AC1 looks better than AC2.

Totally agree with you. If the Kingdom parts were suppresed, it wouldn't feel so tedious to do every sequence. I also like the setting here better than AC2 Italy. Looking at the cities from above is videogame sightseeing at its best.

AC1 is my fav AC :]

I played AC1 for the first time a couple of years ago and hated it. It's one of the very few games that I would never recommend to anyone, and in fact warn people away from at every opportunity. It felt more like a proof of concept of the gameplay than an actual game.

I loved the first AC. Played the shiiiit out of it for a long time. I don't really wan't to go back though... It can't possibly have aged well, and I want my memories muddled and rose tinted forever.

I only played AC2 and didn't really like it that much- I thought the controls were infuriating and the story felt a bit too 'Dan Brown' for me. I could see why people enjoy it though.

@TobbRobb said:

I loved the first AC. Played the shiiiit out of it for a long time. I don't really wan't to go back though... It can't possibly have aged well, and I want my memories muddled and rose tinted forever.

Believe me, If you played the next AC games, it didn't age well. I still think it's a great game though, just not as mindblowing as the first time i played it. Keep your memories intact.

I effin loved everything about AC 1 but after replaying it the movement felt super stiff compared to AC2. The game still holds up amazingly besides that one little thing.

@jrodrz said:

The only issue I had with it back then, was the awful ending.

You say that like the sequels were better in that regard.

@Morrow said:

AC1 is my fav AC :]

This. Dunno if you have the same reasons as me, but despite all the gameplay improvements in ACII, it was not as fun to play, and way stupider.

I replayed it on PC (played it first on 360) when I got it in an Eidos bundle at the end of last year... I have to say that I enjoyed it MORE than I did the first time around (and, no, it was not because of the added mission types -- the destroy the merchants missions are really annoying)...

But I really love traipsing around an open world on horseback/foot/car so I'm pretty easy to please that way...

@MarkWahlberg said:

@jrodrz said:

The only issue I had with it back then, was the awful ending.

You say that like the sequels were better in that regard.

It's not that the sequels had an incredible ending either. But I feel that at least the sequels' endings have much more suspense than AC 1's, and leave you wanting for more. AC1 ending felt like the producers didn't bother to finish the game properly, or an ending that made you llok forward to play AC 2. At least that's my opinion.

I love AC1 too much to risk replaying it and hating it. 
 
I understand that as a first title in an original and somewhat revolutionary IP, a lot of the designs were too novel and basic in it, something to be enjoyed a few times while the game still has the smell of a new box, but not something to replay further in the future. 
So I've refrained from making your mistake. I hold the first game dearly in my heart as one of the first games to me where the experience was truly immersive and engaging, a game I woke up a couple of hours before school time to play at dawn.

@jrodrz: Hm. I've had this conversation on here before so I know I'm in the minority on this, but I always felt that 1 did a good job of putting a little twist on what had been hinted at throughout the game, and opening up the story to a larger range of possibilities, which is kind of what you need to do for a sequel.

I didn't care for most of the story in the second one, but the ending was just 'herpderp chariots of the gods also the suns gonna asplode okay bye'. Had nothing to do with anything, and tonally dissonant from where the story had been going previous to that point.

My biggest problem with AC1 is how guards will pretty much constantly be chasing you, since you can't bump into a person without alarms going off. But I did like the overall tone of that game better than the sequels, and I appreciated the dedication to making you move through crowds, something which was pretty much made inconsequential in 2.

@MarkWahlberg: Yeah, maybe you're right. I guess we can come to conclusions once we know what AC3 has in store for us.

I stayed away from replaying AC1 because I was afraid it wouldn't be as good as I remembered, and now that I read this I'm glad I never picked it up again. Thank you jrodrz for saving me from going back.

@jrodrz said:

@ShaneDev said:

I still really like the first game and I really like the setting. Most pointless part of that game is the Kingdom, big and with nothing in or anything to do in it. Such a waste of time, time that could have gone into making the main assassinations less repetitive. Also I don't know if anyone else thinks the same or it's that I have AC1 on Xbox and AC2 on PS3, but I think that graphics wise AC1 looks better than AC2.

Totally agree with you. If the Kingdom parts were suppresed, it wouldn't feel so tedious to do every sequence. I also like the setting here better than AC2 Italy. Looking at the cities from above is videogame sightseeing at its best.

Once you've visited each location you can skip right to it from the castle (and get the option to quick return to the castle after the mission is complete)... or is that an option only in the PC version?

One thing I liked about the first one is that it seemed to offer better opportunities to preform a "blade in the crowd" stealth kill (or, at least, it felt that way the second time around)...

I bought Assassin's Creed new, not quite on release but shortly after. I have a great love of the puzzle platforming of the Prince of Persia games and the stealth assassinations of Hitman games so I saw the opportunity for something amazing in this game. I did enjoy the whole game, but I didn't get the same satisfaction of stealth assassinations like I do with Hitman. Free running through fully realized cities was amazing and pretty much worth the price on its own. I don't know where I heard or read this, but at some point I saw that people really liked Altair as a character. I did not like him, any time I had to hear him speak it was torture. I thought he was a pompous arrogant ass, who I was glad had been knocked down a few pegs and now was just pouting like a 10 year old girl. The combat was kind of iffy, but I was alright with that since it just encouraged that it was better to run than to fight. Naturally, that last bit with the survival horde mode at the end was ugly, but I thought the final fight had a weird call back to Disney's Aladdin which was kind of cool.

Everything outside the Animus made me just want to be in the Animus, which I also felt like was intentional. The stark comparison to Altair's bravado and ability with Desmond's confusion and confinement. The voice acting was much better with those characters and I was genuinely curious about the tidbits of story and things they mentioned briefly or you read in emails. Then, everything goes off the rails with Desmond at the end and I was totally on board for a sequel, I got chills looking at the walls and stuff before I left that room (Note: I am a huge MGS fan so incomprehensible story is right up my alley).

The other thing I could tell right away after finishing the game is that I knew it was an excellent starting place. I knew some refining here and there, some streamlining and another iteration would really yield something amazing. Granted, I loved it then, but I won't go back to it. That series has evolved too far from the experiment that was the first game. I remember it fondly and that is that.

The short answer: I love Prince of Persia, Hitman and Metal Gear Solid, so I like this game too.

@BombcastGoldthwait said:

I stayed away from replaying AC1 because I was afraid it wouldn't be as good as I remembered, and now that I read this I'm glad I never picked it up again. Thank you jrodrz for saving me from going back.

Don't get me wrong. I still think AC 1 is an amazing game. It just didn't have the same impact on me like the first game. If you decide to go back, you won't find a torture, just mixed feelings.

Cheers

@MrSlapHappy: Glad we agree in many points dude.

Cheers.

I only ever played it on PC which was clearly the better version of that game.

I like the tone of that game more than any of the Ezio ones. Altair always seemed more of a predator than Ezio whom I always think of a Renaissance playboy who sometimes murders dudes.

I really like the environments in the first game, because they vary way more. There are clear differences between the European cities and the Arabic ones. Something that I hope that they can achieve in AC3 with American vs British cities/towns.

That being said, Florence is my favorite AC city so far

I remember when it was pointed out Optimus Prime makes a cameo in the game in "one location"

But when I played the game myself, I noticed him EVERYWHERE. It almost ruined the game because he was literally like every other block.

Otherwise, I beat the game once, I may have replayed a small part here and there, but I stopped caring after that first playthrough. I've only played AC2 for a few hours and some of Brotherhood's multiplayer, and thats it. I wish I liked those games, but I just don't.

@MarkWahlberg said:

@Morrow said:

AC1 is my fav AC :]

This. Dunno if you have the same reasons as me, but despite all the gameplay improvements in ACII, it was not as fun to play, and way stupider.

I think AC1 has just more charm. Yes, gameplay was repetitive, but the characters had more depth and the setting seemed more interesting to me. I like Ezio, but he will never reach Altair.

@Morrow said:

AC1 is my fav AC :]

Woah, you don't abide by any normal smiley conventions.

You're a maverick and I applaud you for that.

@jrodrz said:

It's still good, but for today's standars, I think the review scores for AC 1 would be pretty average.

So, like a 7 or an 8?

@CandleJakk said:

@jrodrz said:

It's still good, but for today's standars, I think the review scores for AC 1 would be pretty average.

So, like a 7 or an 8?

Yeah, more like a 7. I think nowadays that the repetitiveness would have a more negative impact now that when it was released