Something went wrong. Try again later

bigsocrates

This user has not updated recently.

6251 184 27 36
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

The first Assassin's Creed game is a flawed but immersive experience that aged better than I expected

Assassin's Creed is best when you're climbing and exploring. Here we can see a direct route to the perch on the upper right, but there are some areas where you need to take a more circuitous path.
Assassin's Creed is best when you're climbing and exploring. Here we can see a direct route to the perch on the upper right, but there are some areas where you need to take a more circuitous path.

I first played Assassin’s Creed in 2008, about six months after its release. I got about a third of the way through the game before abandoning it for Grand Theft Auto IV, a game I absolutely adored and spent a month making my way through. I always intended to get back to Asssassin’s Creed but I found it kind of boring during my first playthrough and was never compelled to go back, even after the sequel was released and got much better reviews. After a time I knew I’d want to replay from the beginning and really didn’t want to do that, so I let it simmer on my backlog, always intending to play it again and quietly collecting its various sequels when they were on deep discount or via PS+ and Games With Gold giveaways.

On January 1, 2020, I woke up with a headache feeling unmotivated and wanting something low key and maybe even a bit boring to kill time until I felt better. Assassin’s Creed seemed perfect, so I started it up again for the first time in over a decade, and I quickly found my rhythm in the game. A few days later I had rolled credits and while I hadn’t experienced any grand revelations from the story or fallen in love with any of the characters, I did have a decently good time and appreciated the game much more the second time around. I think age has blunted many of my criticisms from the first go round. You don’t expect a 2007 game to have great controls or characterization or anything. You cut it more slack than you do a modern game, and giving Assassin’s Creed the benefit of the doubt in those areas allowed its strengths to work much better.

Assassin’s Creed is a pretty simple story of two men. One is Desmond, a modern everydude from the late Bush administration who perpetually wears the same hoodie and jeans and slouches around the facility where he’s being held prisoner and forced to relive the experiences of his ancestor, Altair, a hotshot assassin in the Holy Land during the third crusade. As Desmond you walk around a small environment and chat with the scientists who are guiding him through the experience, one a kind and fetching young woman and the other an arrogant and kind of nasty, though not outright villainous, older middle-aged guy. You really don’t do all that much, other than have a few conversations, read a few boring emails, and get into the animus, a weird machine that lets you access “ancestral memories” stored in your DNA (It’s really dumb but whatever) and records the past through your perspective.

Talking to Lucy is pretty much all Desmond can do. Their conversations are okay, but nothing special.
Talking to Lucy is pretty much all Desmond can do. Their conversations are okay, but nothing special.

As Altair you actually play the game. At the beginning of the game Altair is kind of an arrogant jerk and gets stripped of his equipment and rank by the boss of the assassin’s guild, and you play him as he earns his way back into the fold by assassinating 9 evil dudes in the cities of Damascus, Acre, and Jerusalem. This is supposed to teach him the importance of the Assassin’s Creed, a set of rules the Assassin’s guild (which hilarious has actual bureaus with its logo in each of the cities) lives by, but which doesn’t really factor into the game much and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense for a set of rules for assassins anyway. There are some plot twists and minor side activities (such as killing Templars, finding flags, which characters in the game are obsessed with, and helping citizens being harassed by guards by murdering those guards) but for the most part it’s pretty straight forward and repetitive. You enter a new section of one of the cities, climb a tower to display icons on part of the map, do one of a few repetitive side missions to gather info on your target, then assassinate your target, rinse and repeat.

Assassin’s Creed is a deeply flawed video game. It has clunky controls, with touchy climbing, stiff combat, and jumping that often sends Altair hurtling into the water or off a rooftop instead of to the obvious foothold he was pointed at. The part of its story set in the modern day is boring and doesn’t even come close to resolving, amounting to little more than a trail of breadcrumbs that, as I understand it, never really got paid off. The part of its story set during the crusades is incredibly cliché and predictable, with paper-thin characters and an unlikable protagonist. The combat is outright bad, relying mostly on standing around and waiting to counter attacks by enemies, who have about 6 different attack patterns they utilize one by one as they encircle Altair. The ‘stealth’ is bare-bones at best, relying primarily on just moving very slowly through a world that’s only really fun to traverse at high speeds. The conversations Altair has with the people he assassinates are very weird in context, since he often kills people in open combat while surrounded by a bunch of their guards, who apparently stop attacking long enough for them to chat and then get back to business after the conversation is over. The objectives you do before each assassination are extremely simple and repetitive, often amounting to the flimsiest excuse for video game busywork. The actual assassinations themselves are quick and simplistic, and very easily devolve into just a bunch of open combat against about a dozen guards. The final boss encounter is just kind of weird. The gameplay rewards you get for finishing missions are minor at best after you get the counter move, which is the most important in the game (and is somehow presented as a piece of ‘equipment’ being restored, even though it’s totally unclear how your master could remove or restore a sword fighting skill, or why he’d want to limit you in that way.) Playing as Desmond is slow and boring, with almost nothing to actually do other than read other people’s email. The game is, overall, kind of a mess.

Combat frequently shifts into kill animations, which are pretty gruesome and start off cool but get boring quickly.
Combat frequently shifts into kill animations, which are pretty gruesome and start off cool but get boring quickly.

Even more annoying, there are guards and enemies everywhere and if you’re not careful it’s very easy to alert them to your presence, though what actually triggers them is also inconsistent. You can assassinate their friends right next to them without being noticed but if you get too close to them or try to do something they don’t like, like climbing a building or pushing away a beggar who’s harassing you, they attack, alerting their comrades and forcing you to either stand your ground and fight or try to flee and reset their alertness. Neither option is particularly hard, especially later in the game when you’ve gotten more skills and health points, but it can be very annoying because the only really fun thing to do in the game is to parkour and yet the game constantly punishes you for trying it by swarming you with annoying guards. Similarly it gives you a horse to ride in the “kingdom” area connecting your base with the three cities, but asks you to go into super duper slow mode past any guards or they’ll get mad at you for some reason and give chase (The game implies that they recognize Altair from his stupid Assassin outfit, which begs the question of why he wears it given that it’s constantly compromising him and putting him in danger.) This extreme tension between what’s actually entertaining in the game (running and climbing) and what the game seems to want you to do (move very slowly and remain hidden) persists throughout and remains extremely annoying. In addition, Assassin’s Creed has no idea what to do regarding collectibles. It scatters flags throughout all the various open world areas and has 60 identical templars that you can fight if you want to, but you don’t get any real lore or substantial in-game benefit for doing either, which means that the collectibles don’t so much incentivize you to explore the detailed worlds as they add random things to do along the way, grabbing a flag here or killing a templar there if you feel like it. Add that to the mediocre controls and you get a game that often seems to be leaning away from, rather than into its strengths. This was my impression in 2008 as well, so I’m not just looking at it through modern eyes. Assassin’s Creed is clearly a first attempt at a formula that would be improved over the next few iterations, before apparently falling apart and becoming an uneven series during the 2010s.

The streets in this game are a definite highlight, full of life and activity. Most modern games have streets full of cars but these tightly packed pedestrian areas are much more interesting to me.
The streets in this game are a definite highlight, full of life and activity. Most modern games have streets full of cars but these tightly packed pedestrian areas are much more interesting to me.

Yet, despite all this, playing through it in 2020 I actually had a pretty good time. Assassin’s Creed does a lot of things badly, but the thing it does well; creating believable and ancient cities that are fun to explore and exist in, it does better than the vast majority of games on the market even today. Assassin’s Creed is saved by its setting; the three cities of Acre, Jerusalem, and Damascus during the Third Crusade. They are each mini-open world maps, divided into three different quarters that unlock as you progress through the stories, and they are fun to traverse and exist in. Assassin’s Creed’s approximation of street life is very 2007, with repeated character models and simple behaviors, but the streets are densely packed and vibrant, full of guards and merchants and thugs and beggars. At times the game can be incredibly immersive, such as when you are following a target and trying to keep a low profile when a beggar charges at you demanding coins and leaving you trying to get around her without arousing the suspicion of your target or the guards. Taking to the rooftops to get around the winding streets or a guard post can also be fun, as can trying to find your way to one of the many lookout points that populate the map. The longer I spent in the world the more I came to appreciate it, and it was that experience that kept me pulled into the game experience during the ~15 hours it took to complete it. It wasn’t just the detail and care put into each location, but also their manageable sizes, easily traversed in just a few minutes either on ground or rooftop, and the fact that the game is built around trying (and mostly succeeding) to make traversal fun and exciting. Unlike so many huge boring open worlds that you need to spend many minutes just commuting from one objective to another (Watch_Dogs, I’m looking at you) Assassin’s Creed invites you to run, climb, and leap your way through compact areas, stumbling upon details and secrets, between tightly packed objectives as you go about your deadly business. It’s also fun and empowering to kill people with the wrist blades and slip into the crowd. Hearing the guards try to investigate behind you as you walk quietly away gives you a sense of power that the game itself comments on at times. Finding vantage points to synchronize with can make for fun, if sometimes frustrating, climbing puzzles. Assassin’s Creed is also a very easy game. You’ll rarely die and when you do checkpointing is very generous. I can’t remember really getting frustrated by the difficulty, though I was often annoyed at how frequently the guards harass and attack you even when you’re minding your own business. Despite those irritations it’s a fun and easy game to just chill with, pecking away at its quests despite their repetition, and the low-key pleasantness of the moment to moment gameplay allows it to transcend its flaws.

That draw distance and perspective is a hallmark of the series. It still looks impressive for the camera to swoop and pan, even all tehse years later.
That draw distance and perspective is a hallmark of the series. It still looks impressive for the camera to swoop and pan, even all tehse years later.

The game also does some relatively fun things with the narrative of the animus, the thing that allows Desmond to relive Altair’s various memories. It’s interesting Altair’s world is filtered through Desmond’s mind and the animus leading to ‘glitches’ and limitations on what Altair can do, and to weird little side issues like the fact that most of the citizens you rescue say one of only a few lines, even though they do so with different voices (presumably because Desmond only remembers the gist of what’s said.) Some of the story beats in the ‘real’ world that tie into this (Desmond is informed that the ‘official’ history of the world isn’t as accurate as he might have thought) are cool too. Overall the story is pretty limited and doesn’t go anywhere, since it’s more interested in laying out bread crumbs than following them but the voice acting is decent and it’s entertaining enough for a video game story circa 2007. In fact the game generally sounds great, with good music and nice street sounds, and the Xbox One X does a good job upscaling the graphics so it looks more like a remaster than a game from 2007, though the washed out color palate of grays and browns does mark it as a game of its particular time (and make it uglier than it has to be.)

Hope you like blending with scholars because it's the only way into and out of a fair number of areas. You move. so. slowly. It's not great game design and it's incredibly repetitive and gamey, as are a lot of the NPC interactions in this game.
Hope you like blending with scholars because it's the only way into and out of a fair number of areas. You move. so. slowly. It's not great game design and it's incredibly repetitive and gamey, as are a lot of the NPC interactions in this game.

I’ve long told myself that one year I will play through the whole mainline Assassin’s Creed series to get the scope of one of videogame’s most sprawling stories and to get to the later games in the series, which have apparently rebounded in quality from the uneven middle chapters like Assassin’s Creed III and Unity. That’s not going to happen. There’s no way I can devote hundreds and hundreds of hours to one series, and I can tell the Assassin’s Creed’s gameplay will grow stale to me if I try to binge too much of it. By the end of the first game I was already feeling a little antsy, eager to get to the end and move on. But I’m intrigued enough by the apparent jump in quality from the first game to the second that I think I’ll try that next, and I do intend to keep chipping away at the series, not because I think there will be some big narrative pay off (I don’t know what happens but I do know it got a negative reception) but because at least the first game had the kind of open world I enjoy, and taught me something about what gets lost in the expansive open worlds we have today. I’m aware that eventually the games get much bigger and emptier, and I’m interested from a design perspective to see how that happens and how a series that started off very uneven but with a lot of promise went awry and then redeemed itself. I don’t know that I’ll finish all the games if they get really bad, but I do know that I’m interested enough to keep going for now. Assassin’s Creed is a relatively small game that started what is arguably gaming’s largest narrative series, and playing through it in 2020 you can definitely see the seeds of that in the first game, from its incredibly open narrative that obviously planned to spawn sequels to its low-key and forgiving gameplay that serves as a good basis for future worlds and adventures without requiring highly tuned level or encounter design. Ubisoft knew what they were doing when they started this franchise, it was only later that they lost the plot.

23 Comments

23 Comments

Avatar image for therealturk
TheRealTurk

1412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

If you haven't played ACII and Brotherhood yet, at least get through those. I actually played through them on PS4 just recently and they're still legitimately great games. Probably the best balance between story and gameplay of the series and it was still in an era where the games cared about creating the environments and encounter design rather than plopping down a bunch of same-y buildings and enemies wherever just so they could make the game gigantic (looking at you, AC: Odyssey).

As far as ACI goes, I kind of secretly like it the best among the series, mainly because it was the one willing to take the most risks. I mean, I love a lot of the ideas in ACI, even if they aren't executed in the best manner possible. I really like the Animus as a framing device, even if it the series later tried to stick way too much plot on what was, at best, a coat hanger.

I also like the concept of having to plan out the assassinations, even if it was really threadbare in practice. You actually felt like an assassin as opposed to a meat-headed goon who was good at occasionally hiding in bushes. It's a direction I wish Ubisoft had continued to explore rather than getting more action focused like they did. ACII and Brotherhood kind of did it, but that was mostly cutscenes. I'd loved to have seen it implemented more in gameplay.

Avatar image for colonel_pockets
Colonel_Pockets

1458

Forum Posts

37

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 46

I'm playing through AC: Odyssey right now, and I 100% get what you mean. Origins and Odyssey aren't even Assassin's Creed games anymore. It's sad what the series has become, but I know I'm in the minority in what I want from an AC game.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
bigsocrates

6251

Forum Posts

184

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

bigsocrates  Online

@therealturk: I started ACII today, and a few hours in I really like it. It's already a very different game from the first one, and I understand what you mean about AC1 taking risks. It would have been interesting to see where the series would have gone if they had followed more of the direction that AC1 laid out in terms of tone and playstyle. ACII is clearly a better game than AC1 in a lot of ways, and feels way more modern, but it's also a very different game. It's looser, less demanding, much more of a standard open world adventure (though a very good one) than AC1 was.

I agree that planning out the assassinations was a cool idea, but...maybe it's because I played through AC1 in like 3 days...it's a serious repetitive drag as executed. A lot of the information you gain isn't useful, and the various mission types get super boring as you repeat them over and over. If they had taken the time to make unique side missions (kind of like GTA V's heist prep stuff) it might have been a different story. I appreciated the concept but not really the execution.

Also the assassination attempts themselves often just devolved into chaos for reasons I didn't understand because of the weird guard AI. The awareness meter from ACII is gamier, but something like that (or at least a hidden vs not hidden meter, or even the ability to crouch and hide behind things) would have made the assassinations feel a lot more assassiny.

AC1 laid out an interesting blueprint, and it's an enjoyable game for its sense of place and just how different it is from most open world games, but as I said it has a lot of problems.

Avatar image for whitegreyblack
whitegreyblack

2414

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

I'm with you.

In 2019 I attempted to start playing through all the AC games... and failed miserably. I loved AC 1 and wrung every drop out of AC2, but by the time I started AC brotherhood I was already really dismayed with how Ubisoft decided to lean on vomiting meaningless stuff all over the game map. I have not felt the need to get back into it past the first hour or two.

AC 1 is definitely my favorite: I turned the HUD completely off and could not believe how playable it was... Quest givers even give rudimentary directions including landmarks and I was seriously impressed. Every side collectable felt at least somewhat naturally placed in the game world. The ending made me laugh out loud at its abruptness, but I was clamoring for more. I sure hope the series gets better, because it looks like it certainly got worse.

Avatar image for efesell
Efesell

7501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@therealturk: Altair seems like the MOST meat headed goon in all of AC though, until later games sort of just retroactively establish otherwise.

Avatar image for therealturk
TheRealTurk

1412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@efesell said:

@therealturk: Altair seems like the MOST meat headed goon in all of AC though, until later games sort of just retroactively establish otherwise.

Personality wise, absolutely. But ACI's gameplay nominally wanted you to be in stealth. Granted, you ended up in big melees more often than not, but at least the intention was there. The more recent entries of the series prioritize getting the biggest club you can and just smashing people's skulls in.

Avatar image for efesell
Efesell

7501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@therealturk: Syndicate, Unity, Origins, and Odyssey all reward you for stealth and planning more than any entry prior though. AC1 only makes you go through a few mandatory tasks before you inevitably alert every guard in the area.

Avatar image for therealturk
TheRealTurk

1412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@efesell said:

@therealturk: Syndicate, Unity, Origins, and Odyssey all reward you for stealth and planning more than any entry prior though. AC1 only makes you go through a few mandatory tasks before you inevitably alert every guard in the area.

I could not disagree more. While I freely acknowledge that the series was never great (and frequently very bad) at stealth, the older games at least made the effort to make it a pillar of gameplay with ideas like social stealth and giving you clear mechanics to ditch the guards, like the vigilantes in AC1.

The more recent entries have pretty much given up even trying and instead put their effort into spectacle and funneling you into these massive battles (literally, in Odyssey's case). I mean, in that game, your hidden blade attack won't even kill enemies if you haven't upgraded it sufficiently or if the enemy is too high a level, which makes stealth useless anyway. While there might be genuflections to being sneaky with bushes and such, it's clearly playing second fiddle to just bashing heads.

The primary issue is that good, satisfying stealth is about 90% encounter and environment design. You need to have unique areas with interesting patrol patterns, intelligent enemy behavior, and a variety of stealth options to help you "solve" the puzzle being presented. It's something a game like Hitman does really well. And yet, for all of the camps dotted on the map in Odyssey, there's only about 4 or 5 distinct layouts that just repeat over and over. While that's probably a necessary strategy for a game that massive, it isn't particularly conducive to great encounter design.

Avatar image for efesell
Efesell

7501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@therealturk: A matter of preference then. I give more credit to a game that allows for relatively organic stealth than one that tries and mostly fails to build directly around that. Any mission that had a stealth fail state was bad, social stealth was always slow and tedious, and abilities to distract guards only led to annoying memes.

As an aside, I don't really know what you mean about Odysseys 'hidden blade'. If there's anything that can truly break the need for stealth in that game it is how ridiculously overpowered it is. It starts powerful and upgrades into game breaking.

Avatar image for whitegreyblack
whitegreyblack

2414

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@efesell said:

@therealturk: AC1 only makes you go through a few mandatory tasks before you inevitably alert every guard in the area.

My favorite part of AC1 is how paying attention to the intel you can dig up and doing elaborate prep is NOT a mission objective - you just need to pay attention to the info you're provided. I remember at least a few assassinations where I poured over the journal entries of guard maps and such, figuring out how to either take out archers and sentries to make my escape easier, or better routes to take to the target to avoid the bulk of their protection. Add in a low/no HUD layout and *chef's kiss*!

Avatar image for alias
Alias

210

Forum Posts

385

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@whitegreyblack: Yeah it felt a lot more Hitman-like than the later games which seemed to guide you a lot more when it came to assassinations

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

I always really liked the story of Altair much more than any of the other protagonists they introduced along the way. The way you are an arrogant jerk and get humbled, then have to earn back favor worked well from a narrative standpoint and from a gameplay perspective of having to earn your "gear" back. Also I do like that his character actually changed. He did actually become a better guy by the end of it.

I was always in the minority that didn't enjoy Ezio, and this is because Ezio had a weird character arc of "I'm a spoiled brat, oops, I guess I'm a master assassin now." Like he also had the whole "learn to be a better person" evolution but it was very sudden. I always wished they had stayed with Altair somehow and while I looked forward to his appearance in Revelations it wasn't all that great.

These days AC isn't even the same game anymore. The climbing isn't as technical, the combat feels odd and mashy.. The locations are better built for their new open world setting meaning more landmass but less detailed content. Part of the AC magic was seeing what amazing metropolis they were going to recreate next in painful detail. Unity for all it's warts had a magnificent Paris to explore. I felt very little satisfaction in exploring the landmass in Origin and didn't even bother with Odyssey. What stings most is that most people consider this a great shift for the franchise, with guys like Jeff and others saying "oh now it's finally good."

Avatar image for therealturk
TheRealTurk

1412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@humanity said:

These days AC isn't even the same game anymore. The climbing isn't as technical, the combat feels odd and mashy.. The locations are better built for their new open world setting meaning more landmass but less detailed content. Part of the AC magic was seeing what amazing metropolis they were going to recreate next in painful detail. Unity for all it's warts had a magnificent Paris to explore. I felt very little satisfaction in exploring the landmass in Origin and didn't even bother with Odyssey. What stings most is that most people consider this a great shift for the franchise, with guys like Jeff and others saying "oh now it's finally good."

This 100%. I think my ideal version of Assassin's Creed would essentially be "historical Hitman." Really, Hitman is the idealized version of what AC was going for in the original game. The huge "social stealth" element to gameplay, and while you can just run up on someone and plug them, the more rewarding path is really poking around a level and planning how to get close to your targets so you can kill them.

I'd love to see the Hitman-style gameplay in a really wonderfully detailed historical environment like they had in the older games.

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

@therealturk: Oddly enough I always wished for the Assassins Creed freedom of movement in a Hitman game.

Avatar image for efesell
Efesell

7501

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I just don’t know that I can understand the comparison to hitman, or how the series ever wanted to be anything like it.

Even if there was slightly more of a focus this was never a pure stealth franchise and that’s the only thing hitman does.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
bigsocrates

6251

Forum Posts

184

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

bigsocrates  Online

@humanity: I think on paper Altair's arc is good, but in the first game itself it's super bare bones. You don't get any understanding of his motivation, why he's an arrogant jerk, any relationships with anyone else or really anything about the character other than the brief sketch you wrote up. It makes it hard to connect or care about him, and also hard to really buy his change of attitude because nothing really provokes it other than a few conversations with the people he kills, who he doesn't really trust, and his master, who was lying to him the whole time anyway. Also, in the end is Altair really humbled. He sort of learns the lesson that actually he shouldn't follow orders after all, except maybe for the right reasons this time? It's a bit of a mess if you parse it out, and none of it feels organic.

Ezio is a cartoon, so you're right that he lacks a deep and meaningful character arc, but he's entertaining and much more fleshed out. We know where he comes from, what he values, and who his friends are. I think people also like him because his games are much more crowd pleasing, and you spend a lot more time with him both as a character and in cut scenes. He probably has 10 to 20 times as much dialog as Altair does, so he establishes himself as much more of a character, and who doesn't love a charming, fun loving, rogue, so long as you don't need to pick up the pieces from his actions.

Altair is a serious and dour character for what is kind of a serious and dour game. Ezio is a goofball in a goofball game. I think which you prefer will depend a lot on which style you like better.

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

@bigsocrates: This is all very true and to be honest I haven’t played the first game maybe..since release? And you just did so I definitely won’t argue any of the finer points. What I can say is that back then narrative in games was a lot simpler. I think as players we sort of inherently accepted certain facts - why is he arrogant? Well because he’s apparently really good at this stuff and also because, well, he just is. There wasn’t such a deep rooted need for fully fleshed out characterization. Of course I don’t want this to be a blanket statement for the entire industry at the time, but for triple A action games this was certainly more often the case.

Also you are absolutely right in that AC1 took itself very seriously where the subsequent games introduced a lot more levity to the experience. There is also the whole thing where Ezio was around for several games while we got to play as Altair once. This is why Revelations was exciting for me because we would get to revisit the character.

Ultimately it’s a matter of taste. AC has been steadily getting away from all the things I thought were great about it in the very first entry. I liked the blend of sci-fi and history. The seriousness, the systems, the complicated hand/feet mechanics and the counter based combat. All of those things made the game stand apart from other titles at the time. In a way it reminds me a lot of Death Stranding which also has a lot of quirky systems and movement mechanics that make it so vastly different from other third person games. These days AC doesn’t really feel like anything special or different anymore. Plenty of games do climbing well and open world gameplay. I’m curious to see where and when the next game will take place because Origins did nothing for me and Odyssey looked very similar.

Avatar image for bigsocrates
bigsocrates

6251

Forum Posts

184

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

bigsocrates  Online

@humanity: I think some AAA games were already moving towards deeper characterization at this point. It's post San Andreas, for example, and while Grand Theft Auto is a different thing, it was also an open world action game. Gears of War also did characterization, even if it was an action movie version. That's not to say it was the norm at that point, or even that Assassin's Creed was lazy (I think it was going for kind of a bare bones tone) but I think it makes sense why people didn't connect to the character in the same way.

The next AC game is rumored to be about vikings. This seems to be a continued abandonment of the things you liked about the series (though I would LOVE if they made a viking stealth game, that would be a great subversion of expectations.)

I'm curious if you ever played the Bonfire of the Vanities DLC of Assassin's Creed II. It's mandatory for the Ezio collection and it basically consists of a bunch of assassinations you have to carry out without being seen, in pretty open areas that offer a number of potential approaches. I don't love stealth games in general, and I'm bad at them, so I can't say that I'm enjoying it (it's also clear that they did not spend the time or resources on it that they did on the main game) but it gives an idea of where Assassin's Creed could have gone if it hadn't just become an open world action franchise.

I totally understand where you're coming from in terms of feeling like Assassin's Creed chose the less interesting route. I think it was in part because the franchise got annualized and also because it's just easier, but there's definitely something lost between the first game and the second, and even though I probably like the second more I'd say the first was more memorable. Assassin's Creed 1 is kind of a unique title in a lot of ways, from its gameplay to its tone to its refusal to explain what the hell is happening. Assassin's Creed 2 feels like a lot of other games. It's very well made for the time and it has a lot of good stuff going on, but I kind of miss even the slow pacing stuff that I didn't love about AC1 because of how different it was. In Assassin's Creed 1 if you wanted to make your way undetected you had to be methodical and careful. In Assassin's Creed 2 you can just hire courtesans or walk with a group. Assassin's Creed 1 didn't quite pull off what it wanted to do (the guard AI was too unpredictable to really let you find a rhythm) but if they had tried to iterate on that instead of saying "lol forget it now you have a cape that makes guards not care about you!" it could have made for a very interesting game.

I'd also like to see a game with Assassin Creed 1's tone, but the same care put into the writing/story that Assassin's Creed 2 had.

Avatar image for bakoomerang
bakoomerang

385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

AC 1 gets a lot of flack for being great in concept but poor in execution, but it's still my favourite. AC 2 and Brotherhood (and to a lesser extent Revelations) were probably better in terms of gameplay and design, but I just always preferred the setting and the tone of the first game (even if, as others have said, Altair was kind of a meathead in that one). I didn't even mind how repetitive it was because I was just so enthralled by the world and the experience it provided the player of being an assassin that was so unlike anything else. The first time I climbed a tower, perched at the top to scan my surroundings, and then eagle dived off was a truly amazing moment. And blending in with a crowd, shanking some unsuspecting fool as I walked by, and then slinking away as if nothing had happened as the body was still falling never got old for me.

I liked the Ezio trilogy (although it took a while to warm up to him), but even by then the scope of the games had started to increase enough where things were getting a little too complicated for my tastes, with the number of the icons on the map increasing almost exponentially. I played AC 3 and really didn't like it (the main character was awful, and the setting was uninteresting to me). AC 4 was much better than 3, but the series was clearly moving further and further away from everything I loved about 1 (plus I never enjoyed the sailing parts). After that I checked out of the series completely until Origins. I actually enjoyed it quite a bit, but it's obviously a very different game at this point. I didn't bother with Odyssey because the Greek setting didn't appeal to me and I kinda got my fill of that kind of game with Origins anyway.

I'd like to see them go back to a game with a tone more similar to the first one, with a much more focused experience, but the series has moved on so it probably won't ever happen.

Avatar image for humanity
Humanity

21858

Forum Posts

5738

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 16

Just wanna post this original trailer from around 2007.

I remember back then all of this was absolutely revolutionary to me. Personally I could not even believe that some of the fighting scenes or climbing was real-time gameplay. It all seemed too smooth, too cinematic.

Loading Video...

Avatar image for philipduck
PhilipDuck

809

Forum Posts

19

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Great read, thanks.

Avatar image for meierthered
MeierTheRed

6084

Forum Posts

1701

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@humanity: I was blown away by it back then too. And despite many repetetive segments AC1 still stands out to me as one of the best ones in the series. Sure other games in the series later streamlined controls and combat to be a lot better. But AC1 was refreshing and new at the time and i had a lot of fun playing it.

Avatar image for lead_dispencer
lead_dispencer

552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

I just got major flash backs of this game. I would equip the dagger and if you hit the parry or block button he would do a figure 8 weave with it.

My head cannon was that that move was Altair’s way of a nonverbal cue that if you persist to attack me you will die a most painful death

I liked Altair’s character very much back in the day. Although I was about 16 at the time so my taste might not have been great. I just saw him as this monk like figure who absolute bought into the creed’s mantra and lifestyle but he got too cocky for his own good and was reprimanded for it.

13 years ago.... fuck