Assasin's Creed start at 1 or 2?

lbanks21

lbanks21

CAGiversary!
Feedback
145 (100%)
The title says it all. I bought a copy of AC2 from a fellow CAG should be here sometime next week. Thinking about buying the digital copy from on demand of assasin's creed 1. Just wanted to get the feedback if it was worth buying the first one before playing the second. I've heard mixed feedback from other forums saying that AC2 and AC1 have different storylines and that they only make 1 or 2 references of AC1 in AC2. If you've played both(as well as brotherhood which I might get) I would like your input before I spend 1600 ms pts on AC1.
 
I enjoyed AC1, but it's only mentioned a few times in AC2. AC1 really sets the ground work for the series as well as establishing some concepts that are used in AC2 (the Templar/Assassin war, Animus, ect). You can easily play AC2 without playing 1, but I'm glad I has the foundation from 1. I'm sure that didn't make much sense.
 
If you're big into the story of games, start at 1. However, if you're playing just for fun, start at 2, because I think Assassins Creed 1 might be one of the most boring games I've EVER played.
 
I do love the story of any game I play. I actually played AC1 at my friend's house when it first came out but the part where you weren't really playing as altair and you kept getting put in and out of the "dream" was kind of off-putting. I hated stealth games until I recently started playing splinter cell conviction so I've been looking at some must-play stealth/action games and AC1/AC2 caught my attention. I heard that AC2 fixed alot of the flaws found in AC1
 
I loved AC1 regardless of its shortcomings. At worst you got the least "good" of the series out of the way and it only gets better from there.
 
Assassin's Creed 1 is fucking baller, and I really have no idea why anyone complains about the game. I never found the "repetitive" missions un-enjoyable or tedious, but I actually enjoyed what they wanted me to do.

The only boring part of the game I might agree on is collecting all the flags for those achievements; if you do that it will take forever, as I think there's something like 500 in the game or something.
 
If you care about the story start with 1.If you don't just jump to 2 since 1 gets boring pretty fast and has a couple of annoying things in it(the drunks/lepers that push you come to mind) that will get on your nerves.Only 5 dollars for the first so it's still worth trying.
 
Yeah I think I will get it but I have alot of ms points that I seem to not even use unless a new map pack comes out so I'm just going to get it on demand
 
I actually liked AC1 better than AC2 as a whole. There was some nice gameplay features in AC2 (like the open world concept and repeatable missions) but the setting and story of AC1 I found much more compelling though. I'd highly recommend picking it up and playing it through if you have any interest in the time period/setting.
 
[quote name='lolwut?']Assassin's Creed 1 is fucking baller, and I really have no idea why anyone complains about the game. I never found the "repetitive" missions un-enjoyable or tedious, but I actually enjoyed what they wanted me to do.

The only boring part of the game I might agree on is collecting all the flags for those achievements; if you do that it will take forever, as I think there's something like 500 in the game or something.[/QUOTE]


I agree with this 100%
I would 100% start with ac1
The price you can get it for you would be a fool not to
 
AC2 is a much better game, but it's not like AC1 is terrible.

I'd play 1 first because if you go from 2 back to 1 at any point, 1 will seem a lot worse than it really is.
 
I wonder if people that label AC1 as boring went after the achievements? I gave up on the flag and Templar Knight hunting as they got tedious and could easily have taken more time than the main game plus side missions. I guess the world outside of the towns in AC1 was a bit bland and uninteresting. Something that was totally rectified in AC2. The towns and even the districts within towns were much more distinct in AC2 as well.

Still, I don't know if I'd pick one over the other. In AC2, I missed the information gathering from AC1. In general, there seemed to be less choice on how to take out the main targets in AC2 (although the optional assassinations were very open, they felt inconsequential).

If you think you'll dig into the mythology and story, definitely start with AC1. There's these codex pages you collect in AC2, which if you read through them, heavily reference AC1 and flesh out its Altair character a bit.
 
I only played 2 and loved it. AC1 didn't sound like my cup of tea from reviews so I never bothered with it. Figured I'd hate it even more after playing AC2 first anyway.
 
1 is very tedious, you can't even run in it unless you want a bunch of goons chasing you. Don't get me wrong I liked it. If you are playing it for story then by alll means I highly recommend it, if you are playing it for the fun of it skip it.
 
if there's any chance you'll ever want to play the first one, do it first. otherwise there's really no way to go back to it. in my opinion same with brotherhood to ac2. just go in order, even if you have to speed through to get it over with.
 
I pretty much agree that you can start with 2 without playing 1. You absolutely must play 2 before Brotherhood though or Brotherhood will make little to no sense. AC1 is worth playing though. It may have repetitive missions, but they were still the fun parts of the game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top