Assassin's Creed

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I will now apply my powers of creating controversial statements to
VIDEOGAMES!!

I have nothing else to do right now, so I guess this is the right time to write this.

The newest Assassin's Creed game today is diferent from the oldest one, I want to highlight these diferences and prove that AC1 was much better than the others that came after it.

In Assassin's Creed 1 you play as Altair Ibn-La'Ahad, who works for a brotherhood of assassins operating in the middle east (in the XII and XIII centuries), which has the goal of ending opression by assassinating the opressors. This Brotherhood has a set of rules all assassins must abide to, they call them "the Creed". There are 3 main rules of the creed: "Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent", "Hide in plain sight", and "Never compromise the Brotherhood.
The Creed demands you show respect to the one murdered, whoever it was, this means you also cannot use poisons and ranged weapons to kill your target, you are required to use the main weapon of the assassin: the hidden blade, of course if you are involved in a fight with many people there is not time for cerimony so you should draw your sword.
The maxim of the creed is "Nothing is true, everything is permitted.".

Assassin's Creed 1 is full of symbolism, the colours they wear, the enemies of the assassins, the hidden blade, the hood, etc.

In AC2 there is absolutely no symbolism, only one rule of the creed is followed, show respect to your dead target (only to the target, and you can kill him in any way you can), yet the maxim "Nothing is true, everything is permitted" is still used".

In the games that followed AC2 they ignored the creed completely, now you can run towards your targett, kill him with a war hammer, combo kill everyone in sight and escape untouched. This for me is one of the things that makes me think Assassin's Creed 1 was much better than Assassin's Creed 2 and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood.

This for me seems like a good multiplatform game being turned into a console game, because all should be aware that console gamers (those who prefer console over pc) are generaly dumber than pc gamers, therefore gory combo kills atract more to them, and symbolism atracts pc gamers more (at least it does with me and one of my friends).

[wsg1991]

the actual Hashashiyyin use poison , use ranged weapons , have a special fighting style .

and most importantly they use Hashish , a local cannabis type ,

they have nothing to do with this Assassin creed

[Althusser]

Interesting. I never got into the Assassin's Creed games, but ubisoft is one of my favorite game developer/publishers. 1st place will always go to Rockstar Games though.

I remember reading Lenin and Stalin's wikipages on the Assassin's Creed wiki and having a good ol' laugh. There's a suspicious amount of backstory for the Bolshevik Revolution and those involved. If they ever make an Assassin's Creed having to do with the Russian Revolution, I'll be sure to get it.

Lenin's Assassin's Creed wiki page:
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924) was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and communist politician who led the October Revolution of 1917. As leader of the Bolsheviks, he headed the Soviet Union during its initial years (1917 – 1924), as it fought to establish control over Russia in the Russian Civil War and worked to create a socialist economic system.

Though not an Assassin himself, Lenin was affiliated with the Russian Assassins. His brother, Aleksandr Ulyanov was an Assassin, as was their close friend Nikolai Orelov. During the October Revolution, Lenin sent a letter to Nikolai urging him to kill Tsar Nicholas II, even if the Order itself no longer saw him as a threat.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

Stalin's Assassin's Creed wiki page:
Josif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, later known as Joseph Stalin (18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953), was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953, when he was killed by the Assassins.

He was secretly a Templar puppet who, along with other Templar-influenced leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Adolf Hitler started World War II. After Hitler was killed by the Assassins, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill crafted the peace after the war.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Joseph_Stalin

[Positivist]

the actual Hashashiyyin use poison , use ranged weapons , have a special fighting style .

and most importantly they use Hashish , a local cannabis type ,

they have nothing to do with this Assassin creed

I am fairly well read on the assassins and these statements are unlikely. The hashish accusation is purely an allegation mounted by their enemies and promoted in legends and their is no evidence of assassins using anything other than daggers on assassination missions or of them even trying to escape after an assassination.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

the actual Hashashiyyin use poison , use ranged weapons , have a special fighting style .

and most importantly they use Hashish , a local cannabis type ,

they have nothing to do with this Assassin creed

Good work!

But this is not about reality, it is about !!!!!!VIDEOGAMES!!!!!!!

[TheRedAnarchist23]

Interesting. I never got into the Assassin's Creed games, but ubisoft is one of my favorite game developer/publishers. 1st place will always go to Rockstar Games though.

I remember reading Lenin and Stalin's wikipages on the Assassin's Creed wiki and having a good ol' laugh. There's a suspicious amount of backstory for the Bolshevik Revolution and those involved. If they ever make an Assassin's Creed having to do with the Russian Revolution, I'll be sure to get it.

Lenin's Assassin's Creed wiki page:
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin (22 April 1870 – 21 January 1924) was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and communist politician who led the October Revolution of 1917. As leader of the Bolsheviks, he headed the Soviet Union during its initial years (1917 – 1924), as it fought to establish control over Russia in the Russian Civil War and worked to create a socialist economic system.

Though not an Assassin himself, Lenin was affiliated with the Russian Assassins. His brother, Aleksandr Ulyanov was an Assassin, as was their close friend Nikolai Orelov. During the October Revolution, Lenin sent a letter to Nikolai urging him to kill Tsar Nicholas II, even if the Order itself no longer saw him as a threat.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Vladimir_Lenin

Stalin's Assassin's Creed wiki page:
Josif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili, later known as Joseph Stalin (18 December 1878 – 5 March 1953), was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's Central Committee from 1922 until his death in 1953, when he was killed by the Assassins.

He was secretly a Templar puppet who, along with other Templar-influenced leaders Franklin D. Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, and Adolf Hitler started World War II. After Hitler was killed by the Assassins, Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill crafted the peace after the war.

http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Joseph_Stalin


The Russian Revolution was one of the possible settings of AC3, but they thought it would have the word communism being associeted with good, so they opted for the american revolution.

This for me was something they should never have done, the Russian Revolution would be a great setting for the last Assassin's Creed game. You would see the assassin first sympathizing with communism, and then, when Lenin gets to power, his disapointment. (then maybe you would get to assassinate Lenin)

[Aloysius]

There's at least 100 years between the events of AC1 and AC2, and a further 200 between AC2 and AC3. Things change, kiddo.
I suppose necessity breeds dishonor.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

There's at least 100 years between the events of AC1 and AC2, and a further 200 between AC2 and AC3. Things change, kiddo.
I suppose necessity breeds dishonor.

You are right, but the only reason they changed the game was to make it more appealing to console gamers.

Once again the pc is left behind...

[bcbm]

the first game was way too repetitive

[MarxSchmarx]

The Russian Revolution was one of the possible settings of AC3, but they thought it would have the word communism being associeted with good, so they opted for the american revolution.




Really? Where did you read that?

I had assumed a big part of it was for the American market, because all the adventures had taken place outside the uSA and here was a historical time period ripe with masonic conspiracy crap that american consumers could readily relate to.

[Drosophila]

space marine

[L.A.P.]

I remeber when I used to play video games, Assasin's Creed was one of my favorites. I still would play today if I could. I also like how there is no controversy over a game that depicts a group of Muslim assassins as good guys fighting against evil Christians, you think conservatives would have had a ball with this one.

[o well this is ok I guess]

The Russian Revolution was one of the possible settings of AC3, but they thought it would have the word communism being associeted with good, so they opted for the american revolution.

This for me was something they should never have done, the Russian Revolution would be a great setting for the last Assassin's Creed game. You would see the assassin first sympathizing with communism, and then, when Lenin gets to power, his disapointment. (then maybe you would get to assassinate Lenin) I think it is better to mention that Moscow was an actual fucking city
Boston was fucking boring in the 1700s.

[La Comédie Noire]

I hate the story line, it's got that Dan Brown feel to it. But I love, love the set pieces.

I am disappointed though, I really wanted the setting to be the French Revolution.

[bcbm]

I hate the story line, it's got that Dan Brown feel to it.

yeah i think in the first one it started out promising and then just got carried away and ridiculous


But I love, love the set pieces.

sometimes i just turn off all the hud garbage and wander around aimlessly, its pretty cool

[#FF0000]

The entire game would be better without the Animus.

and that dumb ALIENS LOL FIRST CIVILIZATION bullshit

But I like the series overall. I liked Ezio a lot, too. I feel like each game perfects some aspect that the last didn't quite get right, while adding another feature that isn't quite fully realized. e.g. the buying things aspect in AC2, improved on in AC:Broship.

I'm kind of assuming the brotherhood of assassins thing comes more into play in Revelations though -- i haven't played that one yet.

[Positivist]

I hate the story line, it's got that Dan Brown feel to it. But I love, love the set pieces.

I am disappointed though, I really wanted the setting to be the French Revolution.

Same.

[TheRedAnarchist23]

I feel like each game perfects some aspect that the last didn't quite get right, while adding another feature that isn't quite fully realized. e.g. the buying things aspect in AC2, improved on in AC:Broship.

If by perfecting you mean destroying the Creed and all the symbolism in return for gory kills and being able to assassinate someone with a hammer, then yes it was an improvement.

You must notice that in one of the trailers for the first game it featured a crossbow, notice how he uses the crossbow to dispatch one of the guards, but does not use it on the target. This is because the Creed demanded he didn't.

I think the unlocking weapons as you progress is better than getting money and then buying the weepons (F#CK CAPITALISM!!), it gave you the feeling that you were actually acheiving something.

The repetitive in AC1 was the "side missions", things you had to do to get information about your targett, like pickpocketing, running, gettting flags, killing archers, etc, but with each of these done you recieved 1 point towards a bigger life bar (think you needed 7 so that it would grow), and information about the target. I allways did all the side missions to get all the information.

@bcbm

"yeah i think in the first one it started out promising and then just got carried away and ridiculous"


I know what you mean:

Altair: Master, you are hinding something from me.

Altair: Who are really our enemies?

Al Mualim: The Templars, a group of people who want to use the power of ancient artifacts created by a civilization who created humans, to control us.

Altair: Damn those authoritarians!

That is more or less it:D

@xx1994xx

"I remeber when I used to play video games, Assasin's Creed was one of my favorites. I still would play today if I could. I also like how there is no controversy over a game that depicts a group of Muslim assassins as good guys fighting against evil Christians, you think conservatives would have had a ball with this one. "


Conservatives are too dumb to understand the game, also notice that never once in the game is the word Allah pronounced, they allways say God instead.(as they should since Allah means God in arabic.)

@La comédie noire

"I am disappointed though, I really wanted the setting to be the French Revolution."


That was one of the possible settings along with victorian England, feudal Japan, ancient China, and the russian revolution.

[bcbm]

If by perfecting you mean destroying the Creed and all the symbolism in return for gory kills and being able to assassinate someone with a hammerso just dont use the hammer. i never have. the one thing i think shouldve stayed from the first one was the targets explaining their actions and planting doubt instead of just being like cartoon bad guys



The repetitive in AC1 was the "side missions", things you had to do to get information about your targett, like pickpocketing, running, gettting flags, killing archers, etc, but with each of these done you recieved 1 point towards a bigger life bar (think you needed 7 so that it would grow), and information about the target. I allways did all the side missions to get all the information.i did 3/4 of them but then couldnt take any more. even with 'rewards' and shit they were just way too repetitive.

[#FF0000]

If by perfecting you mean destroying the Creed and all the symbolism in return for gory kills and being able to assassinate someone with a hammer, then yes it was an improvement

I'm talking more about game mechanics, e.g. buying stuff and improving your estate which seemed kinda dumb and pointless in AC2.

I just kind of wish that there was just one good writer in all of the video game industry because the Assassin's Creed story got dumb real, real quick. And that's a shame because I love the concept.

Also AC1 had better villains and AC2 through Revelations had a better protagonist.

[GPDP]

Seems Obsidian is hogging all the good writers nowadays. Too bad they don't care to hog any competent programmers, though.