TheresNoSolution.com

I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Halo was the same. But AC has consistently improved :P

But they realised the original AC2 just wasn't enough to tell the story of Ezio.

Jake wrote:

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Halo was the same. But AC has consistently improved :P

But they realised the original AC2 just wasn't enough to tell the story of Ezio.

So Connor could be the last Assassin...

Gregorovich wrote:

Jake wrote:

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Halo was the same. But AC has consistently improved :P

But they realised the original AC2 just wasn't enough to tell the story of Ezio.

So Connor could be the last Assassin...

Well, since there are 8 AC games. Most likely no.

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Tecnichally we only have 2, the others are "expansions", besides I think they said this one will be the end of Desmond's story, but that doesn't mean they won't do more games

Druska wrote:

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Tecnichally we only have 2, the others are "expansions", besides I think they said this one will be the end of Desmond's story, but that doesn't mean they won't do more games

Taking that into consideration. You've missed out Bloodlines, the Facebook game, the DS game and the iPhone game which are all full releases.

Boni Boy Blue wrote:

Druska wrote:

Boni Boy Blue wrote:I remember Ubisoft say there were only going make 3 assassin's creed games. Look at them now.

Tecnichally we only have 2, the others are "expansions", besides I think they said this one will be the end of Desmond's story, but that doesn't mean they won't do more games

Taking that into consideration. You've missed out Bloodlines, the Facebook game, the DS game and the iPhone game which are all full releases.

Right I forgot about bloodlines, there's a DS game??I didn't know about that one

Then it's safe to say the third main installment will have plenty of expansions and spin-offs as well. I could see Connor being the last assassin, but not Assassin's Creed 3 being the last game.

They're kinda running out of history to have any more assassins.

Bringing it much further forward would likely destroy the feel of the games.

The thing is it's all building up to Desmond being trained to become an Assassin and take on the Templars, but I can't see them doing a modern day game; so not sure how the series could end.

Jake wrote:They're kinda running out of history to have any more assassins.

Bringing it much further forward would likely destroy the feel of the games.

you kidding ? they could do a whole new story without desmond if they wanted to, I mean you have greece, rome, ancient egypt, america's discovery... they could write a whole new plot if they wanted to

Druska wrote:

Jake wrote:They're kinda running out of history to have any more assassins.

Bringing it much further forward would likely destroy the feel of the games.

you kidding ? they could do a whole new story without desmond if they wanted to, I mean you have greece, rome, ancient egypt, america's discovery... they could write a whole new plot if they wanted to

Yeah if they suddenly decided to go back in time...

Jake wrote:

Druska wrote:

Jake wrote:They're kinda running out of history to have any more assassins.

Bringing it much further forward would likely destroy the feel of the games.

you kidding ? they could do a whole new story without desmond if they wanted to, I mean you have greece, rome, ancient egypt, america's discovery... they could write a whole new plot if they wanted to

Yeah if they suddenly decided to go back in time...

I think we have all seen crazier stuff in video games than going back in time, even tho it would hurt it's storyline :/

Yeah boi!

Would I be alone in saying I was a bit disappointed in this game?

Spoiler: show

It started out pretty epic; playing as Connor's father for so long and then finding out he was a Templar. I felt like it would be hours of story mode, like 20 Sequences or more because it took so long to actually don the Assassin robes. There were parts in the story that just felt rushed and watered down. There were also lots of glitches, like passing through walls while jumping from buildings and grabbing onto ledges. One time I was swimming near the homestead and a random Achilles walking stick was floating in the air. Overall, it felt messy. The combat was weird for me too, like it took forever to kill someone. I'd counter then attack, but it took so many hits for Connor to actually finish the guy off. Like this guy would have taken four or five stabs already but you'd have to five him three or four more before just killing him. It's kind of hard to explain.

Also, they just seemed to breeze through the assassinations, like there was no drama or anything when you kill you friend or your father. Assassin's Creed 2 just seemed so much more taken care of and well-crafted. I miss the little spiels given to you about your targets.

I'd also like to point out that all I did was play through the main missions. I didn't bother doing anything on the side yet.

Jeremy Kill wrote:Would I be alone in saying I was a bit disappointed in this game?

Spoiler: show

It started out pretty epic; playing as Connor's father for so long and then finding out he was a Templar. I felt like it would be hours of story mode, like 20 Sequences or more because it took so long to actually don the Assassin robes. There were parts in the story that just felt rushed and watered down. There were also lots of glitches, like passing through walls while jumping from buildings and grabbing onto ledges. One time I was swimming near the homestead and a random Achilles walking stick was floating in the air. Overall, it felt messy. The combat was weird for me too, like it took forever to kill someone. I'd counter then attack, but it took so many hits for Connor to actually finish the guy off. Like this guy would have taken four or five stabs already but you'd have to five him three or four more before just killing him. It's kind of hard to explain.

Also, they just seemed to breeze through the assassinations, like there was no drama or anything when you kill you friend or your father. Assassin's Creed 2 just seemed so much more taken care of and well-crafted. I miss the little spiels given to you about your targets.

I'd also like to point out that all I did was play through the main missions. I didn't bother doing anything on the side yet.

Slight disappointment But it was a good game. Ended kinda wierdly. Is that now it for assassin's creed? or will there be more?!

I enjoyed the Naval missions, and yeah, some parts felt rushed. They could've easily added another sequence between him arriving at the homestead & leaving to kill the 1st templar... and such gaps as that. It felt extremely short compared to Ezio's story.

I think I'm gonna ask for the games for Christmas, but Samuel said the first game wasn't worth playing and I should just start with the second, but my friend says because its a series I need to play the first one even if it is repetitive.

Gutter Dreams wrote:I think I'm gonna ask for the games for Christmas, but Samuel said the first game wasn't worth playing and I should just start with the second, but my friend says because its a series I need to play the first one even if it is repetitive.

I'd play play it, your friend is right you should start with the first one

I don't know anyone who finished the first game. It was so repetetive that it was horrible experience. People who played first game didn't wanna pick up AC 2 in the first place and I was like that too. Then I gave in years after and AC 2 ended up being one of the best games I've played, so... You definitely do not need to play first game to stay in the plot, it just makes you hate the serie.

More opinions?

samueeL wrote:I don't know anyone who finished the first game. It was so repetetive that it was horrible experience. People who played first game didn't wanna pick up AC 2 in the first place and I was like that too. Then I gave in years after and AC 2 ended up being one of the best games I've played, so... You definitely do not need to play first game to stay in the plot, it just makes you hate the serie.

More opinions?

I asked the same question on another forum and they said the same thing, that the first one was boring and repetitive and one guy who heard the same stuff, googled the plot and started playing the second.