Assassin's Creed has been my favorite child hood game, but how it's been going latey in a RPG style, but to me it's never been an RPG style game. I always thought it was a fullfilling story type of game with history and stuff behind it. I could go back to this day and watch the beginning cutscene of Assassin's Creed 2 and feel like I'm about to have an amazing experience. I just want to know if you guys think that the older games are better than the new ones.

Ok me first...

Unity is atleast in my top 5-4 AC games (depending on my mood). I don't know about this community, but in my experience and from what I've heared Unity was wildly underappriciated. You know because of bugs, story etc. For me it was my first game I got for the PS4 late 2014 and I had a blast. I didn't have many (barely any for that matter) bugs or glitches, the gameplay was fun, the city and graphics where STUNNING (even 8 years later) and the story was atleast good. Even the co-op was fun, while it lastet. Arno was properly introduced, he was charming, whitty and got a full character arc (with the DLC that is). All in all a great game 8/10 would play again. Let me know, what you guys think about Unity.

You only get 3 to play as many times as you want forever but never any of the others. Which ones do you choose?

The most annoying guy ever from AC1:
"Altair, it seems my students do not fully understand what it is to wield a blade. Perhaps you can show them what you know! "

The last game I finished was Unity and after that I tried Syndicate as well but never completed it.

Was a fan of the older games mostly for the atmosphere (though I loved the more character driven story in Black Flag) so I'm not sure if the new games will feel "right".

One thing I remember really disliking in Syndicate was the stealth ability where you could turn invisible via animus magic. I'm fine with supernatural abilities as long as there is an in universe reason (apple of eden in brotherhood, eagle vision, etc) but that just took me right out of the experience since Eve herself would not have been able to turn invisible.

I heard there is a sort of chain kill teleport ability in Odyssey which gives me similar vibes. Is this forced upon the player or optional? And can anyone tell me if there are any other such abilities?

Given Ubisoft’s apparent desperation to stay on top of gaming trends and therefore mold AC to accommodate said trends (as seen with the RPG fixation in the most recent three games), we have seen that it has alienated long-time fans of the series who claim that the franchise has “lost its identity”. Others will claim that the rpg-style mechanics are exactly what the game needs, and brings in new players from other rpg titles.

However, as we have seen in the gaming industry, trends do not last, and when the inevitable fatigue with rpg titles sets in, Ubisoft will once again change course and alter the franchise. This presents the issue where now not only long-time fans of the series will be alienated, but also fans of the most recent rpg formula. While inevitably the franchise will attract players from whatever trend they gear the next games towards, this leads to an ever-shifting player base with no incentive of loyalty. After all, if the game changes genres every so often, why would I be inclined to buy in to a genre I don’t like? If I am a fan of Ark and it’s genre, why would I buy a sequel that’s an fps?

I've not completed any game past Black Flag so would be unfair for me to rate them but I really liked what I played of Unity!

• AC1 - 7.5/10
• AC2 - 9.5/10
• ACB - 8/10
• ACR - 8.5/10
• AC3 - 9/10
• AC4 - 10/10

I understand that the devs didn't bother changing any of the kill animations for using kills with knuckles and the finisher for the fight club but it's painful watching them considering the enemies in the fight club are just ordinary guys trying to earn extra money. On that note, Evie is more brutal than Jacob.

So I was wondering since in almost every AC game you can unlock Ezios clothes in one way or another. Why does it always have to be the robes from Brotherhood? Is it because most people think it's the best looking one from the Ezio Trilogy or is there something else? IMO Ezios clothes from AC2 look way better and I'm always kinda bummed that we were never able to unlock them in any game down the line. What do you think?

They recently showcased a new rogue-like mode for AC Valhalla, and I just can't wrap my head around the way they think. Assassin's Creed was originally supposed to be "an assassin simulator". The first game made it very clear with systems like silent assassinations with the hidden blade, blending in the crowds by pretending to be a monk or jumping across the rooftops and parkouring your way to the objective above the ground to avoid the guards.

The natural evolution for Assassin's Creed would be implementing ideas and gameplay features from games like Hitman, Dishonored, Ghost of Tsushima or Splinter Cell. Just take the core AC elements like flashy combat, advanced parkour, climbing, social stealth and silent assassinations and EXPAND ON THEM. Improve, expand, modernize. There was no need to completely change the genres 10 games into the series. The recent Hitman Trilogy proves that a game about an assassin WORKS. Now imagine how awesome AC could be if instead of copying The Witcher, Dark Souls and slasher games, it copied Hitman and stealth games. Everything would make perfect sense.

This is what they should have done: You take AC Unity as a base and you make everything better. Change combat to something a'la Ghost of Tsushima so it still looks flashy and badass but it's not too easy. Different stances, combos, special moves, enemies with different weapon types and weaknesses - this sort of stuff. Combat should be satisfying and cinematic but hard enough to not always be the best approach. It should be difficult enough to encourage stealth and social stealth whenever possible. You take parkour from Unity, add even more animations and make it tighter and less floaty. Make it more precise and maybe make the new city a bit less cluttered so it's easier to navigate it.

Social stealth should be a core element of the series and by now it should have been a major element, not something you do just for role-playing purposes once in a blue moon. This is where they could just copy what Hitman did. AC Unity and Syndicate had those "black box" missions devs boasted about a lot. They were basically semi-open assassination missions that offered a few different approaches you could follow to finish the mission in a unique way. You could unlock a new entrance, get rid of some guards blocking the way, kill your target in a cool and unusual way etc. They weren't perfect and this was clearly just a first step, but it was a good idea in principle. Hitman Trilogy is basically this but 100 times better. AC should just do the same thing. Every assassination mission (both main and optional) should be a Hitman-style mission. You have one or a few objectives and you are free to explore, experiment and tackle them however you want. There should be enemy patrols, multiple entrances and hidden paths, guard checkpoints, improved AI that reacts to what you're doing and that you can manipulate to your advantage, environmental elements you can tamper with and multiple ways you can assassinate your target. Similarly to Hitman, you should be able to kill the target in open combat, silently take them out and hide the body or cause some sort of fatal accident that doesn't immediately indicate it was assassin's work.

I know AI was never Ubisoft's strongest suit, but Hitman Trilogy proved you don't need super advanced AI to make a fun game. NPCs in Hitman can be easily fooled, they aren't very observant and their reactions are super predictable. And the game is still extremely fun just because you have a lot of options to manipulate NPCs. You can lure them to specific locations, subdue them, steal their disguises, hide their bodies, kill them, drop their bodies off a cliff, make noise to make them investigate, leave weapons out in the open so that guards collect them, you can plant objects for NPCs to pick up, you can poison people, make them die in weird accidents etc. All of that could work in an AC game as well. We already had stuff like smoke bombs, sleep darts, lethal poison, berserk poison, ways to lure guards, different bombs in Revelations etc.

I even think a disguise system would be a natural evolution of social stealth in previous ACs. Altair pretended to be a monk, Ezio was kind of a nobleman, Jacob wore a regular coat and Aveline even had literal civilian disguises. Think about it. It makes perfect sense. Agent 47 has a garrote and a silenced pistol to stealthily assassinate people and Assassins have hidden wrist blades to silently assassinate people. You can hide the blade in a sleeve of basically any outfit. Depending on the time period of the game, the Assassin could easily disguise himself/herself as a monk, scholar, guard, nobleman, priest, worker, soldier etc. Disguises would be a perfect addition to the series, at least within assassination missions, because they would allow the Assassin to infiltrate restricted areas and wander around places that would be otherwise inaccessible. AC series used to have those contextual hiding spots like benches, walls you can lean against in ACIII etc. Again, they could expand on it and copy Hitman. Different disguises would unlock different hiding spots. E.g. a worker can pretend to fix something, a priest can pretend to pray, a soldier can pretend to stand guard, a civilian can blend in the crowd with other civilians etc.

There is nothing wrong in taking inspiration from other games and franchises. I'm just baffled Ubisoft decided to take inspiration from games that have nothing to do with the core ideas that made Assassin's Creed Assassin's Creed. Ghost of Tsushima has combat and stealth that is more AC than actual AC games we're getting nowadays. And Hitman has better social stealth than any AC game.

In my humble opinion, the AC series would have been infinitely better if creators had decided to take inspiration from Hitman, Ghost of Tsushima, Splinter Cell and their previous AC games like Unity, instead of trying to reinvent everything to the point there is no AC left in AC. Just watch this newest Valhalla trailer and then think about the original AC game from 2007. These are completely different things and you would never guess it's the same series if you didn't know. Whereas my idea would be a logical evolution of the core ideas from the first AC and the following games.

The game is currently delisted on Steam but it appears even players who own it will no longer be able to play it starting this September. The following notice appears on the game's Steam page: "Notice: Please note this title will not be accessible following September 1st, 2022"

It was previously announced that several Ubisoft games will have single player DLC access completely revoked on PC (for example the entire season pass for the original release of Assassin's Creed III), but in this case things seem to go a step beyond where a full single player game will no longer be accessible to owners.

Copied from this post in r/Games.

I know most fans including me don't care for Liberations but this along with us losing access to DLCs from AC2,Brotherhood, Revelations and AC3 sets a very dangerous precendant.

So basically now I am playong AC Odyssey and while I am on Reddit or YouTube I get a lot of Videos and Posts saying that this game is absolute trash and a offense to the original formula. But I don't understand why. I like this game a lot, Alexios (I play as him) is a badass mercenary and the whole ancient Greece setting is gorgeous. Don't misunderstand me: I have also played Black Flag and Syndacate and I can relate to the lack of a proper parcour system or a really fleshed out combat system but still, things like stealth, side characters, world design and main plot are really cool and elaborated. Also I need to point out, that Odyssey and Origins are both set before the Original game and so the conflict between Assassins and Templars has not begun yet. What is your opinion and why do you hate/love it?

This might be different if you're a native English speaker, but for us non-native English speakers it's not more immersive to play a game with English audio, rather it can sometimes feel out of place to always have English audio. I think it's a shame that AC Origins and the first AC don't have Arabic voice actors, and I just learned that AC Odyssey doesn't have a Greek option.

Currently playing AC II in Italian (with Dutch subtitles, since that's my first language) and I already finished playing AC Unity in French and it's so much more immersive for me personally to play these games in the 'native' language. Can definitely recommend.

So before the finale you get this mission to meet with Aya in Herakleion before you go to Alexandria, and she says something like "There's no going back from here", and then the game asks you if you're sure you want to proceed. Usually in video games this marks some point of no return, like maybe the open world ends at that point or you switch characters (like RDR2). But nope, you just go through a few missions then everything is back to normal. This wasn't the first time the game hyped up something dramatic and then let it fall to shit.

Then you sail to Alexandria, which for some reason you need to do with a fleet instead of just walking there, it takes like 20 minutes. Cleopatra keeps talking about the civil war and her armies and allies etc, yet she shows up with Apollodorus and one of his bodyguards and like nobody else. Then there's another shitty sea battle with those garbage boat controls, and that Greek captain is talking the entire time and refuses to shut the fuck up. There's this dramatic cutscene where it looks like the Greek crew has to make their last stand while Bayek and the rest jump ship. The captain even gets shot with an arrow and it looks like they all sacrificed themselves for Cleopatra, but then the captain just shows up later like nothing happened lol.

The four stooges arrive in Alexandria, and Cleopatra's plan is to get smuggled into the palace, then pop out and be like "surprise!" and...just hope Ptolemy or Caesar don't just immediately kill the intruder? I still don't know where her big army is supposed to be. So this borderline homeless goth sluts it up with Caesar and he just immediately sides with her over Ptolemy without explanation. Ptolemy is such a cuck that even though his greatest rival and two assassins infiltrated his palace, he doesn't order his entire bodyguard to kill them on the spot. He doesn't even throw a hissy fit or offer any kind of resistance, he just leaves to go wank off and play fortnite.

The "battle" sequence is the most pathetic thing I have ever seen, the cutscenes and music hype it up like it's supposed to be super dramatic, and it's just like eight soldiers fighting in the street.

For some reason Caesar's army is so large and powerful that he gets left alone with Bayek while both his soldiers go off to fight. This fifty year old man decides to hop into a chariot with Bayek clinging on for dear life, and they proceed to have the cringiest exchange in the history of "witty" battle dialogue. The writing here is seriously so fucking bad it's worse than the worst of Marvel quips. Bayek and Caesar are acting as if they haven't known each other for more than five minutes and throw back Seinfeld-tier lines. They get chased by the elephant, and it doesn't take any damage until the end of the level when Bayek throws a spear in its eye which somehow kills it instantly.

Bayek catches Septimius and Caesar stops him from killing him, then it's revealed that Caesar and Cleopatra betrayed Bayek and Aya. Caesar is apparently a member of the Order of the Ancients now? And Cleopatra is okay with this despite being the whole reason that Bayek is even aware of and fighting against the Order?

Apollodorus says that his hands are tied and he can't do anything, and even though Bayek and Aya have killed their way through most of the Order at this point, they don't bother to go and assassinate Caesar or Cleopatra. Then Apollodorus for some reason decides to take on Septimius himself, and he gets killed in a 5 v 1 against Septimius's bodyguards. Bayek and Aya are all sad about this even though 5 minutes earlier they threatened to kill him for betraying them.

The scene where Bayek declares the formation of the "creed" is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever seen. Bayek has spent the whole game pursuing nothing but revenge, disregarding idealism unlike Aya, yet he all of a sudden starts talking about a brotherhood and their creed blah blah blah. He also claims that pursuing Khemu's revenge was a mistake, and seems to go off the idea?

And he performs this whole speech in front of the side "characters", the Greek captain, Pasherenptah the Memphis high priest, and some other people I didn't recognize. Characters who have had like two cutscenes each, and most of whom I haven't seen in the game for like thirty hours.

Nobody has any reaction to Bayek's declaration of the brotherhood, except Aya who apparently doesn't like this and storms off. Bayek and Aya have another cutscene retreading the conversation they've already had fifty times in the story, where Bayek wants them to stay together and preserve the marriage but Aya wants to go off and hunt the Order. Aya never explains why they can't just go and hunt the Order together. I mean two assassins are probably better than one right?

Then in the middle of the conversation Bayek finally realizes that he and Aya can't be together for whatever reason, but he just comes to this realization abruptly. He pulls the name "Hidden One" out of his ass and throws away his bird skull necklace, and it makes the fucking Assassin logo in the sand (are you kidding me lmao).

Bayek goes back to Siwa where Flavius has begun his reign of terror with the Apple of Eden (I guess Flavius is the main villain now?). Siwa has been ravaged, and oh no Bayek's friend Hepzefah is dead! Remember that guy, who appeared in one cutscene at the beginning of the game, and who you last saw like eighty hours ago? Well he's dead, you have to feel sad now!

Bayek enters the vault and all it contains is a spinning golden globe or some shit, no treasure or knowledge. Why the fuck was the Order so interested in the vault? It's never explained why the vault is so important or what effect it had on Bayek after he found it.

I can't even remember the rest of the ending, Flavius is treated as the main villain even though he hadn't even made an appearance until an hour ago. The Cleopatra subplot is never resolved, for some reason Aya is still in Cleopatra's service even after she betrays her. She's so pissed that she actually threatens Cleopatra, but doesn't actually do anything about it.

The Caesar subplot is so hastily wrapped up, the game skips ahead to 44 BC and Aya just goes and assassinates him. No buildup or explanation what she was doing the past four years or why it took that long.

Then Aya and Bayek found separate Hidden Ones chapters in Rome and Memphis, for some reason this means they can never see each other again even though they know where they are. I guess Bayek is never allowed to leave Memphis or something.

Everything was so unsatisfactorily and hastily wrapped up. None of the climaxes felt earned or logical. You can tell Ubisoft tried so hard to make this seem like a "deep" and "cinematic" story. Like with those cringy fucking assassination cutscenes, where it cuts to the black animus world and the camera jumps back and forth between the villain standing up, and laying on the floor bleeding out.

Bayek tickling the villains with the feather before they Thanos into dust is the stupidest thing I have ever heard of, and the employee that thought of that deserves to be launched into space.

I liked Egypt as a historical/visual setting and an open world, I liked the combat and the core gameplay loop, and I liked the exploration. I still want to play the DLCs because they look like they'll expand upon these elements while leaving aside the shitty story. I'm a bit shocked because it's clear how much time and money went into the game, the game is fucking massive. I mean just look at the Rome map, which is so detailed even though it was only used for one level. The scale is enormous, and it's an incredible leap considering the previous AC game was Syndicate.

Edit: Also why the hell does Aya call herself "Amunet" at the end, in Egyptian mythology Amunet was the female counterpart of Amun, who is referenced multiple times in the story as a major god in the Egyptian pantheon. That's like if at the end of Odyssey Kassandra just said "call me Zeusette" or Bin Laden said "Call me Allah" when he went into hiding. She literally could have said "call me maybe" or some dumb shit like that and it would have made more sense than this ham-fisted "star-crossed lovers want to be together but need to split up because reasons" trope.

Syndicate has some creepy moments but something has to be scarier?

My best guess is that they would be highly disappointed at how the colonial brotherhood runs things. One big reason is that they violated all 3 of the Assassin's tenets.

They violated the first tenet (Stay your blade from the flesh of the innocent) by making Shay trigger the Lisbon earthquake, which killed tens of thousands of civilians. It wasn't with blades, but they still killed innocents.

They violated the other 2 tenets (Hide in plain sight and never compromise the Brotherhood) by creating gangs and flying flags that have the Assassin insignia on them at all their hideouts.

It's all seen in AC Rogue.

What do you think? How would Ezio and Altaïr react to how the colonial brotherhood did things?

{EDIT} I'm not just referring to the tenets, I'm talking about the colonial assassins as a whole. Should've elaborated lol

{2nd EDIT} I understand that all of the Assassins aren't perfect and they all made significant mistakes but I'm just using Ezio and Altaïr as an example since they're known as the best

I played AC1 through Syndicate straight and loved them. It was honestly my first ever “video game” experience as I just didn’t really game before this. I took a year off and didn’t start Origins because I was a bit intimidated by the map size and switch to the RPG style.

I started it a few days ago and damn do I wish I did it sooner. It’s definitely missing that true “AC feel” that you get the moment you become Altaïr for the first time, but I understand the reasons for that. I love Bayek and he actually reminds me a lot of Ezio so far. What is the general consensus on Bayek? I’m not super far into the story yet but have seen a few core memories and a bunch of side quests.

TLDR: I played AC 1 through Syndicate but never played the others because they were “too much.” Love Bayek. What’s the consensus on him?

Something that I've noticed on this sub is that whenever someone suggests an Assassin's Creed title in Japan, they are immediately flooded with "No because GoT did it better," and you can't imagine how much it gets on my nerves.

Look, I'm not saying that GoT is a bad game. I wouldn't know, as much as I would love to play it, I can't, because it's a PS exclusive. And that's exactly why I hate it when people say that kind of stuff. As opposed to AC titles, Tsushima, as a PlayStation exclusive, has not been checked out by many players, both the PC audience, as well as the XBox people.

As such, I find it ridiculous to use its existence to say that an AC in Japan is unlikely or unnecessary. Sure, you could say that you can just buy a console, but I'm sorry, asking someone to spend a couple hundred bucks for a console just to play two or three games is ridiculous.

Hey.

Always noticed that at the start of every Ezio game he is always hurt in a way and needs medicine to recover.

In Ac2 Ezio gets hurt by the stone Vieri throws at Ezio.

In brotherhood, he is hurt when Borgia invades Monteriggioni. Ezio falls after being shot.

And in Revelation Ezio hurt his right arm when the Borgia soldiers throw a bomb at his carriage and he falls down that cliff.

idk just something i noticed.