Originally Posted by Ninersfan4926
I completely disagree. In fact going back to AC1 I found impossible after playing AC2. It is a steaming pile of turd compared to AC2. Here's why
-absolutely terrible characters compared to AC2, an absolute joke, every character in AC2 is 10000x better than those of AC1
-long, boring cutscenes
-extremely limited assassination techniques
-open fights are incredibly boring, only counter-fests (AC2 fixes this with smoke bombs)
-you can hardly even stealth-assassinate any of the main targets (goes hand in hand with the limited techniques)
-there's almost nothing to do in the cities
-zero variety in gameplay
-and the general progression of the game is long boring cutscene (which is boring because the characters are incredibly uninteresting in this game), horse ride to the city (which is nice maybe the first time but gets old quick), another long boring cutscene with more boring characters, a few incredibly repetitive and boring tasks to get info on your main target, and then some form of "stealth" to get to the target, except it's nearly impossible to stealth-assassinate any of the main targets, so you end up in a long, boring open fight with your one sword, which is really just a counter-fest. Then you go back to the long boring cutscene and repeat.
Within 10 minutes of starting up the first for the second time, after playing ACII, I was enraged at all of this. All of that said, AC1 can be somewhat enjoyable if you play it before ACII, mainly because you don't know any better. It does have very nice, historically accurate cities, something Ubi nails in all the games. Also, the story content is actually good, but because the characters are incredibly dull, you probably will not care at all about the story. I fully recommend skipping the first game, though if you like the time period (Jerusalem is awesome), I would say $5 is fine. Assassin's Creed 1 is the worst game I have ever finished. Assassin's Creed II fixes all the problems I outlined above, and the only problem you might have is that it's too easy. I've always been more about being fun than whether it's difficult enough, and ACII is certainly fun. I think Brotherhood is the best in the series (close though with ACII), with Revelations being a major step back (though still far better than AC1).
Spot-on review. I'm one of the people who said that I enjoyed AC1, but I agree with everything you say here. In my case, it was more of a "willful igorance" - I knew going in that AC2 is considered a better game, but the completist in me wanted to start and the beginning so I played the game with limited expectations, and standing on its own, it was a good time.
But the cutscenes were interminable, as was riding around to get to the cities (fortunately there's fast travel, eventually). The events you need to accomplish to advance your missions are just a loosely structured set of minigames. To be honest, though, these are things I expect from console-first games: never-ending cutscenes and artificial lengthening of the game are normal features from games like these, and I just accepted it because I was having fun.
I found that I could accomplish more stealth assassinations if I took the time to eliminate the rooftop guards all over the cities. Unfortunately, I didn't figure this part out until near the end of the game. It makes rooftop travel much easier.
Anyway, looking forward to AC2.