I remember how in Viking times they would climb giant cubes in the sky to reveal memories. Disgraceful that they would have a black samurai.
Haven't played Assassin's Creed since the first one. Every other one looks like a rush job cash grab. Tend not to touch Ubisoft stuff for that reason.
2 and Brotherhood were both fantastic and built on the first one really well. The first one had a ridiculously limited gameplay loop that really needed fleshing out.
The reason is racism, it's that simple. People even started editing the Wikipedia article to add a Chat-GPT-esque "it's important to remember that he was never a samurai", which is a) not completely true and b) completely fecking irrelevant when you fist-fight the Pope in AC2 and George Washington has a magical Apple of Eden in AC3.
SilentWitness finally comes out as racistI remember how in Viking times they would climb giant cubes in the sky to reveal memories. Disgraceful that they would have a black samurai.
SilentWitness finally comes out as racist
This is why I never supported him.
SilentWitness finally comes out as racist
This is why I never supported him.
We already knew that. Look at his username, the victim wasn't a local.
Yeah, I have to admit it amused me when years later people were suddenly talking about the original Assassin's Creed as somehow pure, and how everything from then onwards was bloat - including AC2. I remember very clearly the discourse around it at the time being that it was good fun, and a great idea, but that AC2 expertly expanded on it and took it from a fun concept to a fantastic game.
Exactly. The first one quickly became a chore because it was so samey, and 2 and Brotherhood were clearly better games. I’ll also fight anybody who doesn’t like Ezio as a protagonist.
Has the best music as well.
Hell, the Ezio games even had the best trailers! Particularly Brotherhood and Revelations. The hype was incredible.
Can you really blame people for disliking a game you yourself say you 'really, really hated' at first, and whose core feature (combat) you thought was 'complete muck' several hours into the game?
Most people aren't going to play for hours and hours if they hate the game only to see if they like it later, particularly when it's such a massive game. That's the fault of the developer.
The combat was my own fault tbh, went in expected the same as other ACs (hadn't played origins or odyssey by this point) and the new combat was rough for me to get into as it just felt jarring to me. Once I realised it's a whole new thing it was fine. It was all down to combat why I hated it at first.
I actually think I hate most games to start with as hate getting used to new controls and mechanics, and the slow tutorial parts.I'm rather impatient.
That’s a strange take given the typical complaint about their games is that there is too much content/things to do.Haven't played Assassin's Creed since the first one. Every other one looks like a rush job cash grab. Tend not to touch Ubisoft stuff for that reason.
That’s a strange take given the typical complaint about their games is that there is too much content/things to do.
"Rush job" was a fair complaint in the post AC3-era, when they were releasing them on a yearly basis. Unity in particular was panned for being a buggy mess. But Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla are most definitely not rush jobs.
Can't believe I'm saying this, but to Ubisofts credit they were too ambitious in trying to realise their vision of Unity. Not a lot is made of this, but there isn't a single game out there in the gaming world that comes even close to what Unity did in terms of crowd density. It's absolutely phenomenal.............or at least would have been if they weren't trying to do more than the PS4 could handle. It was spectacularly overambitious, but for reference, look at Paris for crowd density. Nothing like it before, and still nothing like it now.
That's impressive, but how "real" are those NPCs? Hitman Blood Money did this in 2006 by making most of them very basic AIs.