Posts
Assassins Creed is a beautiful but flawed open world game, that leaves the player feeling both elated and annoyed in equal measure.
Pros: Beautiful environments; wonderful historic setting; free-running is fun; climbing is enjoyable; animations are superb; solid counter-based combat; assassinations are satisfying
Cons: Confused and confusing story with no coherent narrative; Sci-Fi feels tacked on; poor variety of missions; difficulty spikes; occasional control issues; flag missions are game breaking
Achievements: Fair
I managed to complete Assassins Creed in two separate play-throughs. I eventually completed the game following a break after hitting “the wall”, as described by many players, just after the first visit to Acre. I am glad I did eventually completed it, as I wanted to find out what was going on. It also cemented my view that Assassins Creed could have been a spectacular game if not for some curious design decisions and a lack of depth.
There is no question that Assassins Creed looks fantastic. The historic renditions of the middle east are truly breathtaking, especially when enjoyed from the many vantage points. One of the highlights of the game for me was simply climbing the tallest building and surveying the city scape beneath Altair's feet. Down in the city streets, the world feels alive with people engaging in various day-to-day activities. The whole sense of place would have been incredible if it were not for the cod-Sci-Fi intrusions that blight the landscape and take the player out the the exquisitely crafted world.
The actual assassinations themselves, when you reach them, provide a good intellectual challenge, and offer the player a number of strategies. Had Assassins Creed stuck to the cities and assassinations, this would have been a superb game along the same lines of Shadow of the Colossus.
However, Ubisoft tried to take the game one stage further by introducing side-quests and missions of questionable design & quality. Most ridiculous of which is the timed flag collecting mission. Never has the inclusion of a mini-game been so out of place, and been so successful at reminding the player that they are playing a by-the-numbers video game. A simulation of Medieval Jerusalem should not include Crackdown style timed collection missions- I'm sorry it is fucking stupid!
Finally, we have the completely unsatisfactory Sci-Fi sub-plot, which I will maintain was added late in the development. If you have completed the game, and found all the “clues” in the present, sit back and think about the game's story again. How much of the Medieval game had any relevance to the “future”,.....the answer is none until the very last chapter, and even then it is pretty tenuous. I am willing to bet a tidy sum that the game originally did not have any of the cod-Sci-Fi. In fact, previews as late as last August had none of the “DNA glitching”effects or reference to the sub-plot. From a story telling point of view, the game makes much more sense, and has better narrative cohesion, without the inclusion of the DNA memory stuff. I just don't understand why they felt the need to introduce it, unless it was to ensure they could engineer a sequel.
So, Assassins Creed: some people love it, others hate it. Personally, I found it to be a good and enjoyable game that suffers from some flawed concepts and crazy design decisions. I would definitely recommend the game to anyone, simply for the satisfying assassinations and recreation of a Medieval Middle East.
4/5
Pros: Beautiful environments; wonderful historic setting; free-running is fun; climbing is enjoyable; animations are superb; solid counter-based combat; assassinations are satisfying
Cons: Confused and confusing story with no coherent narrative; Sci-Fi feels tacked on; poor variety of missions; difficulty spikes; occasional control issues; flag missions are game breaking
Achievements: Fair
I managed to complete Assassins Creed in two separate play-throughs. I eventually completed the game following a break after hitting “the wall”, as described by many players, just after the first visit to Acre. I am glad I did eventually completed it, as I wanted to find out what was going on. It also cemented my view that Assassins Creed could have been a spectacular game if not for some curious design decisions and a lack of depth.
There is no question that Assassins Creed looks fantastic. The historic renditions of the middle east are truly breathtaking, especially when enjoyed from the many vantage points. One of the highlights of the game for me was simply climbing the tallest building and surveying the city scape beneath Altair's feet. Down in the city streets, the world feels alive with people engaging in various day-to-day activities. The whole sense of place would have been incredible if it were not for the cod-Sci-Fi intrusions that blight the landscape and take the player out the the exquisitely crafted world.
The actual assassinations themselves, when you reach them, provide a good intellectual challenge, and offer the player a number of strategies. Had Assassins Creed stuck to the cities and assassinations, this would have been a superb game along the same lines of Shadow of the Colossus.
However, Ubisoft tried to take the game one stage further by introducing side-quests and missions of questionable design & quality. Most ridiculous of which is the timed flag collecting mission. Never has the inclusion of a mini-game been so out of place, and been so successful at reminding the player that they are playing a by-the-numbers video game. A simulation of Medieval Jerusalem should not include Crackdown style timed collection missions- I'm sorry it is fucking stupid!
Finally, we have the completely unsatisfactory Sci-Fi sub-plot, which I will maintain was added late in the development. If you have completed the game, and found all the “clues” in the present, sit back and think about the game's story again. How much of the Medieval game had any relevance to the “future”,.....the answer is none until the very last chapter, and even then it is pretty tenuous. I am willing to bet a tidy sum that the game originally did not have any of the cod-Sci-Fi. In fact, previews as late as last August had none of the “DNA glitching”effects or reference to the sub-plot. From a story telling point of view, the game makes much more sense, and has better narrative cohesion, without the inclusion of the DNA memory stuff. I just don't understand why they felt the need to introduce it, unless it was to ensure they could engineer a sequel.
So, Assassins Creed: some people love it, others hate it. Personally, I found it to be a good and enjoyable game that suffers from some flawed concepts and crazy design decisions. I would definitely recommend the game to anyone, simply for the satisfying assassinations and recreation of a Medieval Middle East.
4/5
No comments:
Post a Comment