Originally posted by WickedDynamiteNumber one didn't really "fool" me. it gave me everything It said it would, it just did it ALOT, and ALOT.
Assassin's Creed II"BUT BUTT BUT WD IT GOT GOOD SCORES!!!!!! NOW WAI!!!"
So what? All it did was to get a free pass from the reviewers just like Metal Gear Solid 4 last year.
I'll never play another AC game. I'll take my chances with the "new" design PoP than a AC game ever again.
Fool me once shame on me. Fool me twice...
It offered planned assassinations with multiple entry points for different styles of gameplay, and brought us an amazing and wonderful free run style that really added a level to previous "sword games" which were primarily 2d hack and slash games or very boring turn based games.
In AC1 I love the terrain, the maps, the graphics, and the style; it just repeated itself over and over and over again.
But hey, legend of zelda has slid by with constant repetition of the same basic minigame for a hundred games and people still love it. I think its just because AC is new and popular that everyone wants to diss it.
Also, if you never actually played it and are basing it off of the first game, it's not really a fair review as the reason sequels are made (ideally) is to expand on and improve the previous product.
Originally posted by Smasandianlurn2read.
I haven't played the second Assassins Creed but comparing the first one to Zelda is retarded.Everything about the first was repetitive.
Kind of speculating on how much whining people do when something new has one minor drawback. Assassins creed brought a lot to the party. Due to the revolutionary game play and excellent controls, I consider it an instant classic, regardless of repetition. I went in expecting ALOT of bouncing across jew's rooftops and got ALOT of it. GOOD. That's what I wanted. Could have mixed it up, but you gave me what I wanted, and I thank you.