LOL
I didn't say it was a sandbox game, I was just using it as your example as the good outweighing the bad in a game.
Assassin's Creed 2 review (MyGaming)
- Thread starter Tinman
- Start date
LOL
I didn't say it was a sandbox game, I was just using it as your example as the good outweighing the bad in a game.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
LOL
I didn't say it was a sandbox game, I was just using it as your example as the good outweighing the bad in a game.
See i got bored about 3/4 way through the game, Dark Sector that is, and felt the glaive was a gimmick. The boring story destroyed it for me. Dark Sector would be way better on Sixaxis like what Heavenly Sword did with the throwing mechanic.
Dan
Makhulu Silverback
Why add them if they're boring and repetitive then? As for the second bit, I think Ezio could've done a LOT more: How about set up some explosives to wipe out a mark? Slip poison into someone's drink? Snipe a guy from afar? Burn down a target's house? Use disguises to infiltrate a meeting? Ubisoft could've included a hundred different mission types. (The Hitman series in particular comes to mind here).
But why repeat the exact same mission three times? Copy/paste missions are just lazy considering the huge potential the assassin genre has.
I don't believe anyone finds holding up & R1 over sixty times in a game to be exciting or inventive. The tower thing was one feature I had hoped they'd dropped in AC2 as it's just another thinly disguised way of making the game seem longer.
And what about games like GTA? Granted GTA4 (or as I call it, The Sims: Russian Immigrant Expansion) was rubbish, but look at the variety of tasks in Vice City or San Andreas. The number of things you could do was insane, and side missions were specifically designed rather than just plonking another assassination contract or tower at a random map location.
Overall I won't deny that AC2 is a vast improvement over the original, but there are no grounds to say that it's any less repetitive than its predecessor: take away fluff like the villa, feathers, weapon/armour upgrades, etc. and there's very little in the way of advancement.
I suppose everyone has their own tastes though, but personally I feel cheated after seeing all the carefully edited trailers and screenshots that were fed to us before the game was released. I'll definitely be borrowing AC3 before I decide to fork out cash for more of the same thing.
Dude, you should be working for Ubisoft. Thats what I am talking about. Some good ideas you have there. Although they did use the disguise one to infiltrate a meeting.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Granted and all good points, but the more features you build in the more potential it has to fail miserably and especially considering the melting pot of idea's already in AC2. I personally have a fantasy of a hitman style game where i can climb like Enzio, fully destructible enviroment and am able to craft tools for destruction from anything i find in the world, unfortunately the technology doesn't always allow for this.
I think its mostly due to every different side mission requiring a vast amount of code. Lazy maybe but if your focus is on the main quest then why bother with stupious (Spelling) amounts of side missions.
I think climbing the towers to reveal the map is a good mechanic. Im glad u no longer have to do that to get more health.
I never played the other GTA's so i can't really comment on that. I found AC2 less repetitive than its predecessor and as i mentioned in the review the parts that are repeated are actually hidden to make them feel a bit more original. Since no publication to my knowledge gave it anything under 80/100 it can't be that bad. But like you said everyone has their own likes and dislikes about things and its impossible for any studio to keep everybody happy.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Its worth a play through, that i stand by tooth and nail. Feel free to read the review. I didn't put in any spoilers.
It is worth a play through but not a new purchase IMO. Get it 2nd hand off the marketplace & then it will be more value for money.
Dan
Makhulu Silverback
I thought the same until a quick Google search uncovered this review from GameCritics.
Probably the most unbiased, honest review I've read for AC2 thus far.
Oh, and read the comments after the review too.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
I think it comes down to personal preference. Some are going to love it, others are going to hate it. Like the guy at GameCritics said "Its better" which it is. Sure its not Epic but so what.
lilDeath
New member
Not just Hitman, but the Thief series as well - I really enjoyed this in the game... there were many ways to skin a cat (figuratively).
I hate it when you can only do something a 1-2 ways. The AC series can improve on this a bit more.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Neither one of them where sandbox titles. Yes you could try multiple different ways but it remained a linear experience. When having smaller levels its much easier to create multiple ways to achieve the goal. Now imagine trying that with the wide open world from AC or GTA. It would take the level designers and artists years to create the city and then players will complain that the buildings are copy/pasted.
Yes Hitman and Thief where brilliant games but remember they where Stealth games, AC is pitched as an action adventure more akin to Prince of Persia than Hitman.
Dan
Makhulu Silverback
Nonsense. AC2 is full of set areas and missions, how hard would it have been to include some variety in these specific areas?
The Assassin Tombs are a perfect example: they were fresh breaks from the monotonous gameplay, even if they were just a few jumping puzzles and such. The point though was that they introduced some variety, and it's a shame that this wasn't capitalized upon.
It's a bit of both really. IMHO you have to look at the hard facts of the game, and offer your personal take on it.
I'm just confused as to why you mention things like the 'lacking technology', lazy mission design, and the purposely disguised repetition, and yet still defend the game so vehemently? Why not mention these in the review?
Also note that I'm not having a go at you here at all, I'd just like to offer my opinion for those who are considering buying it. There's probably little point in debating personal opinions, but hopefully both sides of the story give others a more balanced view on things
Last edited:
I hardly done any of the side missions. Once you get your village up it generates all the money you need. You can spend your days on the main mission, looking for glyphs and tomb raiding.
Just out of interest I noticed on the map they have a key for templar tombs but I did not come across any ... I expect some DLC extra challenges.
Just out of interest I noticed on the map they have a key for templar tombs but I did not come across any ... I expect some DLC extra challenges.
Last edited:
the17thgeyser
New member
I can't wait to get this. Still playing 1 until I have a enough resources to get 2.
lilDeath
New member
Sandbox or not, they could still have done it.
Also, stealth has been introduced into AC, which can be used as your method of gameplay... so, it has more in common with Hitman / Thief than you care to admit.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Nonsense. AC2 is full of set areas and missions, how hard would it have been to include some variety in these specific areas?
The Assassin Tombs are a perfect example: they were fresh breaks from the monotonous gameplay, even if they were just a few jumping puzzles and such. The point though was that they introduced some variety, and it's a shame that this wasn't capitalized upon.
It's a bit of both really. IMHO you have to look at the hard facts of the game, and offer your personal take on it.
I'm just confused as to why you mention things like the 'lacking technology', lazy mission design, and the purposely disguised repetition, and yet still defend the game so vehemently? Why not mention these in the review?
Also note that I'm not having a go at you here at all, I'd just like to offer my opinion for those who are considering buying it. There's probably little point in debating personal opinions, but hopefully both sides of the story give others a more balanced view on things
Dont worry i enjoy this debate, its nice and i know your not having a go at me.
As for why i defend the game, simple i really enjoyed it. Like i said before i prefer looking more at what the game does right than what it does wrong. Unless those wrong bits broke the game for me. Ask me about Brutal Legend and ill tell you not to waist your money while other rave about the game. When i play a game and it makes me forget to think like a reviewer then its a good game, in my opinion, where as if i play a game and the flaws constantly poke you in the eye then its a crap game, again in my opinion. Also coz i really think Ubisoft's design team went and listened to what the fans said was wrong with AC1 and improved there on.
Sometimes a game can be alot more entertaining if you forgive its fualts and just enjoy its bright shining moments.
OmegaFenix
The Legendary Troll Hunter
Only the most very basic concept of stealth is brought into AC or AC2. You can try as hard as you might but walk across a rooftop and those guards will spot you. Also no matter what you do, as soon as you get close to your target they recognize you as an assassin. So yes if you count walking up behind him in broad daylight and stabbing him in the back of the neck stealth then i guess your right. In hitman or thief if your discovered your screwed and its back to the last save.
