Google+

We Recommend By ZergNet

38 comments

  • ObliqueZombie - October 24, 2012 2:45 p.m.

    Completely agree, on all points. I bought the series (up until Brotherhood) since they were cheap at GameStop and I was late the party as it was, and I powered through the first after stopping halfway through so long ago. After booting up Assassin's Creed II, I was so glad I did. To this day and playing all of the Creeds save Revelations, I can still say Assassin's Creed II was one of my favorites. It innovated and improved on so much, that the first one was a mere tech demo of what was to come. While I can't say I have a lot of love for the Assassin's Creed series, though I do enjoy it, Assassin's Creed II was one of the best experiences I've had in modern gaming.
  • PBC13 - October 24, 2012 2:09 p.m.

    Absolutely agree. Assassin's Creed II is a masterpiece. And Ezio is comfortably among my favourite characters in, not just gaming, but all fiction. He has a charisma and genuine personality in a world where so many leading action-based characters are just generic 'bad asses'. Don't get me wrong, he IS a bad ass, but he also has so much more. His relationship with Leonardo Da Vinci in particular I think was brilliant. And, as the article pointed out, the sheer amount of his life we see allows you to really invest in him and take his journey to heart. I just wish the end of his story had been shown in Revelations; it would have been nice for his life to begin and end in game. All in all a fantastically written and realised character. Connor has big boots(or should I say robes) to fill.
  • Clovin64 - October 24, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    AC2 is possibly in my top 5 for this gen, and I'm darn excited about AC3. For my money, AC2's first hour was a bit slow for my taste, but at least it got me more attached to Ezio as a character in the long run. You can really feel his anger and helplessness as his family is killed as part of a massive conspiracy he doesnt understand.
  • Ronnie-_- - October 26, 2012 5:55 p.m.

    Spoiler Alert? Granted, this is an in-depth article about Assassins Creed 2, but you should maybe put one before getting yelled at. (I, totally, did not just yell at you)
  • Z-man427 - October 24, 2012 1:12 p.m.

    As excited as I am for ACIII, I'm not expecting it to be better than ACII. Everything about it says it should be, but I'm just not sure. It's kind of like how I felt with The Dark Knight Rises vs The Dark Knight. My expectations were impossibly high and I got let down. All I'm asking is that it's better than Revelations and Brotherhood, which I see no reason why it won't be. But yeah, ACII is my all time favorite game.
  • GoldenEagle1476 - October 24, 2012 1:07 p.m.

    Definitely in my top five favorite games of all time. I don't even mind the ending. It didn't bother me nearly as much as some game endings have.
  • Talvari - October 24, 2012 12:40 p.m.

    Was never a fan of AC2. I really enjoyed the first one despite its flaws and was sceptical of AC2 so i borrowed it from a friend and kinda got bored after a few hours. Might have been the AI once again being terrible >.> Still, it's easy to see why the vast majority enjoy it. Perhaps i'll give it another try one day :D
  • Moristhecat - March 16, 2013 1:04 p.m.

    Me too. It was painful to play through the second because it was so inharmonious.
  • BladedFalcon - October 24, 2012 12:18 p.m.

    I really do like ACII a lot, and it is definitely far superior to the first one. Only main gripe I have about the game is one that seems to be inherent to the series so far: Those cheap cliffhanger endings. And you can't really excuse it either as a way of leaving people excited for the next games, a good ending is one that provides proper closure to the game's current story while leaving enough open ends to explore later. Lords of Shadow's ending exemplifies this the best, methinks. Leaving it as a cliffhanger is just lazy, specially when you make it a tradition >_>
  • Sjoeki - October 24, 2012 12:53 p.m.

    Pretty much agree with everything you said, it's streets ahead of the first AC but that stupid WTF ending to the game sucks.
  • Z-man427 - October 24, 2012 1:06 p.m.

    I disagree with your opinion of endings, though I do see where you're coming from. Cliffhanger endings can be good if they evoke an emotional response. In the case of ACII, the cliffhanger was poorly done because it didn't do that. It was just kind of "huh?". Brotherhood, my least favorite in the series, did do that. It went from "what just happened?" to "why did that happen?" to "how could that happen?" to "I'm mad about that happening" to "I'm sad about that happening". I was really angry about that ending, but not at Ubisoft. I was mad at the in game world for it. That's the diference between a good cliffhanger and a bad one. Revelations, I think was alright. It was a cliffhanger, but not in the sense of "wtf?!". It was more of a "Here's where we're going to take this story. You just have to wait for it." Not a great ending to Desmond's side of it there, but it wasn't bad.
  • BladedFalcon - October 24, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    Well... thing is, I consider relying on cliffhangers like that to be bad or lazy writing. Because you're not bothering to tell a story properly: Which is having a beginning, middle and an end. The cliffhanger isn't really a proper ending, but a manipulative way to cut a story midway, and pass the rest of the story as a new story. But again, that's lazy writing. Also, just because it evokes an emotional response doesn't make it a good thing. Killing a character for the sake of killing it always evokes an emotional response, but if it's comes out of the blue and without any real explanation, then it comes across as cheap and manipulative.
  • Z-man427 - October 24, 2012 2:29 p.m.

    But if you follow the lore, it wasn't just to kill them off. The explanation came later. Take the show Alias, for example. Every episode ended on a cliffhanger because it was telling a much much larger story. Was that lazy writing? No, because every bit of it fit together. I'm not saying every little bit in AC fits together because the story isn't finished yet. But I am saying that it's far from lazy writing and the story is far far bigger than can be contained in 1 game.
  • BladedFalcon - October 24, 2012 4:59 p.m.

    First off, i wasn't talking about a specific example, if you want specific, I can think of several dozens in stories in which a character is killed off without any real need or reason. Also, you're comparing a TV-series with a video-game franchise, which isn't entirely fair. A TV series is always built and structured around a larger story at least per season, and each episode works as the chapter of a book, so in that case it's more acceptable to end in cliffhangers because since the beginning it was all supposed to form one big cohesive story. ...Which, let's be brutally honest here, is NOT the case with the AC franchise, or any new, unproven franchise in general. They might have had a general outline of the story in case the first game was successful, but i am pretty sure they never planned to divide the story in the way they've done, which is 3 main games along with two sequels of the second ones which were clearly made to capitalize on the success of the franchise, and not because they were necessary to the story. What I'm trying to drive home here, is that the story in this franchise wasn't laid out, or meant to be laid out the way a pre-planned series is, and unlike a tv-series, each entry here costs quite a lot. My personal feeling on these cliffhanger endings, specially those found in ACII and so forth, were done that way less because they were necessary or good for the story, and more because they wanted a hook and something to keep people wanting to see more of the story even though it wasn't completely necessary to create two games which are basically more of the same to tell it.
  • Moristhecat - March 16, 2013 1:06 p.m.

    It is not superior in any respect. It has more cartoony, quirky characters, more methods of assassination, and a storyline the twisted and contorted abnormally to meet plotline standards which did not blend well together. It sucked.
  • BladedFalcon - March 16, 2013 9:24 p.m.

    Yes, because the story of the first one, in which you awkwardly switched from the past to a boring future with bland characters, and then finish with the very cliched reveal that your master was actually the bad guy all along and possessed a magic apple wasn't silly, cartoony nor contrived at all *rolls eyes*
  • MD-Stranger - March 17, 2013 12:51 a.m.

    Not like the 2nd was much better in that regard, the future setting was still filled with bland, uninteresting characters (Not like the past was much better mind you), and every single plot turn bar the mandatory twist ending could be seen a mile away.
  • BladedFalcon - March 17, 2013 7:36 a.m.

    Sure, I don't deny that, but while not memorable, at least adding those extra resistance characters added some slightly more amusing banter, AND those future segments were much shorter and sparse, having only to endure them like.. 3 or 4 times at most, unlike the first in which you had to go back pretty much after every single assassination. And the past setting's story, while predictable, at least did a good job in making you CARE about what were you doing, firstly by giving Ezio and actual personality, and secondly by showing you his growth from a common man, to an assassin, and giving you a very strong reason for why would he turn to that life. Altair, on the other hand, was a generic, dime a dozen stoic, gruff silent videogame character who's only sole motivation for the entire game was to redeem himself from a screw up that was totally his fault in the first place. Not really a lot to care for, honestly.

Showing 21-38 of 38 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.