Is first game worth getting? I play 2 for fist time and it is fantastic.
Graphically it is amazing, architecture and surroundings looks believable.
Killing is fun thanks to animations, nice sounds and variety of weapons.
Parkour is dope especially in assassin's tombs where you have to climb high shit.
I am only pissed by HUD and lack of skip cutscenes button.
...
...
AC1 is strictly worse in gameplay, but the story is good.
Nope. Ass Creed 2 is all around better than the first. Only reason to play 1 is if you're in 2007 or you're a hardcore gamer who needs to know all the important plot points (pffffffffffft)
whats wrong with the hud and why would want to skip the cutscenes if you haven't played it before
I thought the first one was fun, combat is still easy and if you perfect countering attacks then the hidden blades are OP.
does it have many cool places to visit?
Not really unless you -really- like the middle east.
>whats wrong with the hud and why would want to skip the cutscenes if you haven't played it before
it is always on, I don't need to see my health bar if it is full and so on.
when I want do redo mission, i can't skip intro, or each time I talk to architekt he speaks to me same line.
>Killing is fun thanks to animations
this is why gaming is dead
get the fuck out of my thread faggot
sorry man you're praising one of the worst franchises of all time
The first game is worse in every aspect.
Play it only you wanna know the origin "story" of Desmond
cool
>The first game is worse in every aspect.
The investigation system is better than the 'lol just go here and kill him m8' we get in 2
Everything else, 2 is better. But 1 is the most Assassin-y Asscreed game
First game was so bad I never played another AC after I finished it and no Ubisoft games since except Rayman.
It the Ubi open world formula at it's purest. Once you played the first AC you see right trough all of them. They're all the same. It's insane. And this game was so thin it was basically a glorified tech demo if you ask me. Which is a damn shame because I initially thought it was one of the coolest concepts of that generation at the time.
Graphics were nice though at the time. They can do that at Ubisoft. Graphics...
AC1 was the proof of concept. AC2 was the actual refined game with good mechanics.
AC1 had a nicer idea with its story though (even if the execution is a bit lacking), with Assassins and Templars generally operating behind the scenes and not fist-fighting the fucking pope and shit like that.
Oh and also, from what I have seen, they never managed to make the combat fun in any of the other games since then either. Also insane. Ubisoft as a company is just baffeling to me.
>so bad I haven't played any Ubisoft game since
>but I do know that all Ubisoft games since then were all the same
Every game up until III were great games and only Sup Forums hipsters will tell you otherwise. If you enjoyed II a lot then you will enjoy I. It might not be quite as good as II in some respects but I think the story is personally a little better. If you think I isn't as good after trying it I think revelations and brotherhood are actually the two best in the series and they are essentially expansions on II.
PC version of 2 is abysmal unfortunately
Do you know what year you live in? It's not like there is a lack of coverage for these big budget titles or a lack of video content.
Revelations was incredibly dull, it took me months to finish it when it came out and I dropped it halfway through when I replayed the Ezio games again a few months back
The investigation system in 1 is also just "lol, just go there, turn on the eagle system and find yo target".
But honestly, the first one is the only true one about assassins.
Atair was a trained assassin, doing and killing without asking questions and Ezio is just some guy learning his climbing skills to escape after banging some girls.
Also, to be fair, it wasn't ONLY because of AC. I also had a love hate relationship R6V and genuinely hated GRAW.
Great tier opinion
GRAW was fucking great and almost as good as GR2. No idea what you are talking about and every R6V game was fantastic. You must hate video games. Why are you on Sup Forums... or wait fuck this board
The Far Cry games are not even remotely similar to Assassin's Creed in gameplay or appearance other than the climbing towers shit and the completely ignorable mini-games/challenges. As for the Assassin's Creed games, both AC2 and AC:B expanded upon the original game's gameplay so that they were both a fresh and enjoyable experience.
The later Ubisoft games like Asscreed 3, Asscreed Unity, that shitty driving game, and Watch Dogs 1 were shite because they were just shite, not because they were similar to Asscreed 1.
Yeah, Ubisoft makes shit games. Guess AC was just when I realized it. No matter how much the pile on top of the AC formula I won't play another one of those. And I don't have to. I think they suck for the combat being as bad as it is alone.
Your choice, but you're missing out. If not the Asscreed games then at least Far Cry 3, that was a genuinely solid game on all fronts.
>AC1 is strictly worse in gameplay
The combat was better in AC1. Instead of removing or changing counters AC2 removed all the good offensive elements like heavy and timed attacks. Really, AC1's combat system would be great if counter's weren't insta-kills.
I loved AC1 at the time, but I would imagine going back and playing it after newer ones would be a painful experience because it was improved upon greatly. Black Flag is the best one in the series, you should check that one out now.
>solid
if you mean 7/10 its okay
also Rogue >>BlackFlag
Ass Creed 3 is free on pc rn f a m f a g s
Nah, Far Cry 3 had some of the tightest shooting in a while and the wingsuit mechanics were dope as fuck. It also had a nice story with enjoyable and charismatic little characters.
The open world was visually very nice too.