I like how inovative this game sequel was,seriously I was fed up with the same content with other storyline like in the Ezio trilogy. I also like the new main character even though he is not very likeable to the majority.He might not be charismatic and perverted like Ezio (I liked him too) but Connor went through so much shit just to learn that there is no fairy tale ending for him.You get attached to him.His relationship with Haytham was so damn funny and dramatic,it's too bad it had to end so fast.
What I did not like was the bugs and glitches,and those stupid objectives they give you at every sequence.In my first playthrough I tried to complete them,but damn I got very frustrated and just ditched everything to see how the story was ending. And obviously the writing was poor.Connor was left with nothing but another sequel with a pollished backstory for him, and let's not forget about Desmond's ending which was so stupid and anti-climactic.
I love how the gameplay was so much easier, like in the first game. I also LOVE the fact that your health automatically regenerates. (I didn't like the fact that you had to search for a doctor when you were low on health.)
Concerning the main characters, I was disappointed about the fact that Haytham and Connor left on a sour note. I wished they had the opportunity to reconcile and settle their differences.
There was just a glimpse of hope when they were working together. Like, what happened during their trip to the Caribe? A couple of months down there would have given them ample time to at least respect each other. (Maybe I would have liked to see Haytham made into an Assassin or maybe retire from the Templar Order. Gosh, I was so in love with this character.)
Another concern was that the game seemed to go downhill after Sequence 9. The chase scene with Charles Lee seemed anti-climatic, not to mention annoying, as oppose to the first two games, which gave us a final showdown with our former master Al Mualim and the Pope Borgia.
I didn't see any justification in eliminating Haytham and even Charles Lee additionally. I kind of wished that Connor had died from his wounds as well. (He probably already fathered some children somewhere.)
He was just stubborn in his beliefs and bent on what his people (from Kanatahséton) wanted. And, frankly, "his people" wanted to remain neutral and not be in any hostile situation. I'm glad they relocated at the end. In all, his story isn't as interesting as the first two assassins.
As the others had said before, indeed, the ending was vague. Why couldn't Desmond do his own thing?
Overall, I liked how the beginning recapped the earlier games and how it described a bit more of Desmond's and the Assassins' background. I also enjoyed reading the Animus' Info of the famous landmarks in Boston and New York. And, interacting with historical figures like Paul Revere and Samuel Adams was exciting.
I get what you mean about Haytham, I totally fell in love with his character, even though everyone else was hating on him because of his Templar allegiance.
The ending made me so angry that I actually cried, they HAVE to make a sequel. Oh god, WHY did they have to kill Desmond, I loved him!! And they never said what happened to Connor (the rest of his life), you kill Lee, then it's like 'WHAM' back to Desmond and game over! I was like " WHAT HAPPENED TO CONNOR!!!!????" It was a truly amazing game though, I loved it so much, definitely my favourite out of the whole series
Well, there kind of is more Connor after the credits. He's at his assassin house and burns all the Templar Paintings and he removes the weapon from the piller. From there, he sets off freeing those who are to be enslaved. I know it's not much, but there'll probably be some dlc.
Well,when I re-entered the game after the credits,I had 2 more missions in which you visit Connor's empty village and another one when you are witness to the Brittish leaving Boston.So they didn't really leave Connor out of the blue after Desmond's ending.
I diversify my reviews. But in this case his video here is more than a few nails in that game's coffin because when Assassin's Creed is less about killing people than buying items it's not Assassin's Creed. And hell, Assassin's Creed wasn't even that good when it was Assassin's Creed.
I don't know, but the game is incredibly glitchy. Horses are impossible to do, and missions like the Paul Revere and Lexington/Concord mission where you command the troops are nigh on impossible due to shitty horse mechanics.
Not only that, the freerunning is very glitchy as well, and there is literally no reason to go stock up on band-aids anymore, because you can fucking regenerate health DURING combat.
Horses are real dumbasses. And they really failed with the horses in general. I'm riding a black horse, then some animation comes along and it's suddenly white? Or when I call a horse the different one appears every time? And they always get stuck between the rock when they're running towards me. I don't like extremely hard games, I play them for fun, but this is just too easy. Don't get me wrong, I love the game, I would give it 8.5/10, but instead of making a game better and less glitchy, they add something really badass and ruin it with constant glitches.
I would give AC 2 10/10, it's the best AC, and it's really fun for me because I've been to all of those cities in the game And I actually DIED a few times
I would completely disagree with you. The combat was easy as shit in the earlier games and they actually made it more difficult in this game because the guards are actually offensive. You can't just stand in counter stance and wave around until someone jumps forward to attack you awkwardly.
There is no doubting they simplified the combat however.
But the guards didn't seem much more offensive to me, so I don't know where you are coming from. You still do the counter-stance and waiting game every time you get in combat with AC3. To make it marginally enjoyable, I go a blind berserker type of thing, and keep clicking the mouse until one of them seem fit to swing a sword, and then I just counter, and instant-kill chain my way out of there.
Assassin's Creed is my favorite game series, and I really enjoyed this one. I definitely thought it was a step up from Revelations. The cities were great, there's a ton of stuff to do (I'm a completionist when it comes to these games), and the story is interesting (though some parts are a bit riddled with plotholes). The combat was excellent once I got used to it. Because I was so attached to the combat from the previous games, my gut reaction was "Wtf is this?" but it quickly grew on me.
And Hatham was an awesome character. I don't get all the bitching about having to play as him in the beginning.
I thought Haytham was an excEllent addition to the game, i didnt give a shit about him being a templar cos he was still awesome! And very attractive for a video game character haha yeah i got muddled up in the new combat controls, i was so used to how the counter attack system worked in the others, i was like "whaaaatt is going on here!!!" haha
Wish they did something... I don't know DIFFERENT. I have tried and TRIED to play these games after beating the first one, but they all just feel too similar to play through. It's like, just re-skinning the houses and the people with different textures and graphics... dunno.
That's how I felt at first, now I love them. I went back and looked at basically every other video game series (call of duty, saints row blah blah) all those popular series' and they are all basically the same scenario where they are repetitive and lack variety in missions. I think it wouldn't make much of a game series if every one was totally different to its predecessor, they would feel like totally different games rather than part of the whole
I know, I was like, WTF, are they ALLOWED to do an awesome variant mission like this? YOu know, it is stuff like this that developers need to do, surprise us with different, well thought out, neat things, without changing the entirety or feel of the game!
Well, that's true... But it at least required you to press multiple buttons? Desmond was a poor main character, I think. I ended up caring more about Ezio's story more than his despite the game's insistence to occasionally remind the player that Desmond is the main character. They could have done much better with him...
The fact that people just cast advise Lucy after Brotherhood made me angry. She was a reasonably major character in the previous games and then BAM, she's dead and no one seemed to care. LUCY WAS AWESOME!!