I wanted to give this franchise a chance after avoiding it for over a decade now. Are there any titles worth playing? I can't tell what's shovelware and what isn't
I wanted to give this franchise a chance after avoiding it for over a decade now. Are there any titles worth playing...
Other urls found in this thread:
arch.b4k.co
arch.b4k.co
twitter.com
AC 2
AC Origins
Take it from someone who has played AC, AC2, AC3 and AC:Odyssey, there are no titles worth playing
I played 1 & 2 back in the day.
Recently picked up Odyssey for the greek setting, its a great game if you pretend it's not an AC title.
if you play 1 of them you've played all of them
AC Black Flag
if you are a serious gamer and not an incel that cant play a game for more 10 minutes cuz his ADHD and serotonin receptors have been destroyed beyond repair so you go back to csgolol garbage, then the serious answer is play AC1, AC2 trilogy, AC3 in ORDER after that if you like more follow with black flag and so on, if not then fuck off
true
AC2, AC Brotherhood, AC3, AC Revelations, AC Rogue, AC Syndicate and AC Unity are all the same games.
I'd recommend playing AC1 and Black Flag, after that just forget about the series ever existing.
>just play demons souls and dont bother with other fromsoft games
Here’s what I played
1
>cool atmosphere, more serious and mysterious than the later ones
>AWFUL mission structure, repetitive as fuck and only the main assassinations are good
2
>basically birthed the modern AC and most of Ubisoft’s open world tropes
>much better story and gameplay flow than in 1
>loved this back in the day, but I wonder if it would feel as fresh now that Ubi copied so much stuff from it to its later games
Brotherhood
>2 but in Rome, more of the same
Revelations
>2 but in Istanbul, more of the same and getting a bit tiresome by now
3
>ditches big, old historical cities for frontier towns and nature
>awfully slow start
>rather unlikable main character for most of the game
>personally hated this, recommend skipping unless you really love the era
Black Flag
>doesn’t feel very Assassin’s Creed-y, more like a pirate game most of the time (not necessarily a bad thing)
>focus on ships
>rather refreshing after 3
Syndicate
>really cool rendition of London
>god damn boring plot, underutilizes the historical characters in the main plot and it really doesn’t go anywhere
unironically agree. Dark Souls is shit
only worthwhile games are Demon Souls and Bloodborne
The main story ended with AC3.
Just play them for the historical setting now and you'll have a good time.
I made a similar thread not too long ago asking which one is the best, what to start with etc...
53 replies, all good advice: arch.b4k.co
I downloaded the original and loving it. Very immersive. Then will play AC2 and brotherhood and so-forth in order. Don't play later ones than older ones, it'll ruin the experience as it'll be a downgrade (though, ironically, some of the older games are much better than the newer ones and are actually 'Assassin' games)
From one of the replies on that thread:
>if you actually want to play an asscreed game then 1
>if you want to play renaissance batman then 2, brohood, and revelations
>if you want even more open world busywork and a six sequence tutorial then play 3
>if you want to be a pirate with a lot of annoying assassin bullshit like tailing missions you don't care about because you just wanna be a fucking pirate then 4.
>if you want a pretty city with okay combat in an entirely forgettable game then unity
>if you want to waste your time then syndicate
Though I did hear syndicate was quite good so make your own mind by playing it and this user said unity was amazing - arch.b4k.co
read the thread
The very first game is alright, anyone telling you to skip it is a dumbass.
You waited too long. AC1 came out 13 years ago. Do you know how long ago that was in vidya years? That's like finally trying Super Mario Bros in 1998 and expecting to be blown away.
Great stuff user, but I think you need to update it with some Origins/Odyssey advice.
>better story flow than 1
Not really, no. The entire Venice segment feels like a postgame adventure with no buildup, and that's what it really is. The pacing in 2 is fucking all over the place and the writing feels way more Hollywood than in the first game.
Why are all the good settings in the Assassins Creed games set after the actual cool shit.
>Brotherhood
Set in Rome but after the Romans.
>Odyssey
Set in Greece but after the Ancient Greeks
It seems like greatly missed opportunities.
Nothing in the series beats Acre from 1. It FEELS right, it's everything that's appealing about the whole concept right there.
Whats the difference? Its a game and certainly not one bit real history. Its absolute fantasy.
>Are there any titles worth playing?
I don't know, how about starting with the first one? It's one of the best ones anyways. Play from 1 until you start hating the game's, which will probably be either III or Syndicate. Then stop, it's not worth going any further.
Just play the first two. Avoid everything else. End thread.
Well I think it would be cool to run around Rome with actual Romans. It's asthetic as fuck.
And Odyssey could have used its massive game length to play out the seige of troy and the Ilyad.
Syndicate is good for the assassination missions, the train hideout, the modern day stuff it has is great if you like modern day (Especially the Shaun stuff), the Lyra stuff, and it has the best DLC in the series (Jack the Rippe). I also personally liked the carriage racing but a lot of people don't.
Outside of that it has nothing much going for it. You constantly have to cross the Thames and even with the ropecaster that takes a while, it has barely any customization compared to Unity, it has less options in combat and stealth compared to Unity, there's no reason to ever play as Jacob unless you're forced to, the story is Saturday Morning Cartoon tier and Starrick makes the Borgias look like deep and intricate villains with complex motives, it looks far worse than Unity especially when it rains and the ground shimmers like everything has been massively greased up, and the characters are all pretty bad.
The AC2 trilogy is good. Black Flag is fun.
Start at the first one and keep going until you aren't having fun anymore.
i like 2 as an Assassin's Creed game and Black Flag for the comfy pirate ship gameplay
As actual AssCreed game : The 2 Trilogy
As a pirate game : Black Flag
As an RPG : Odyssey
AC 1 - AC 3 are the core of the franchise
AC 4 is a fun spin-off and probably the best of them all
Everything after that is a downward spiral and every game is more shit than the previous one
Ezio Triology, AC:Black Flag and AC:Rogue. If you liked those then AC:Unity. The rest aren't worth playing.
Syndicate was trash. I tried 3 times to beat that game, each time I couldn't be bothered to actually sit through and do it.
Following what the other user said
AC1 is good and is the most "Assassin's creed" out of all of them, AC2 is the high point, Brotherhood is a close follow, Revelations was alright but was just more of the same.
AC3 isn't too bad, and had some neat ideas. The setting is pretty lacking in verticality, due to America being undeveloped at the time. Still, it helped me pass American History in college since it came out at the same time as I was playing through it. I could remember events a bit better since I had played through them. No Asscreed game is gonna be historically accurate, I just found I could remember things a bit easier since it was something visual in my mind.
But yeah, AC4 is a great pirate game, but a bad asscreed game, even though a pirate and assassin's mentalities kind of align. Still, it's worth it for the shanties alone.
Didn't play Rogue, but I've heard good and bad things.
Unity I actually liked, but it definitely had some missteps. The parkour up/down system was nice imo when it worked, I liked the slower and heavy combat, and having different goals when approaching a target was nice. When the parkour failed though it was really apparent, the story was meh, and the protag was really forgettable.
Syndicate was trash
Origins I didn't really like. Less focus on parkour to the point where it felt like a checkbox, the combat was really shallow (even compared to how shallow the combat was before), you can assassinate a dude and not kill him because "dur you're not high enough level", and the pyramids are surrounded by cliffs for some reason even though they aren't irl and there's a desert where they could go right before you get to them. That being said, I liked the protag, and I love Egyptian stuff so that was cool.
Didn't play Odyssey though, but I don't think I'd be into it anyway.
/thread
The rest of you know nothing. I'd also add that Unity is the last "true" AC game. .
One thing AC3 has going for it is that it returns to the moral ambiguity between Templars and Assassins that was missing in the Ezio trilogy. The switcheroo they pulled at the beginning was pretty cool, and the villains make you actually question the Assassins' methods instead of all being like "I am ebil gib power"