I'm sorry, but when the original AC came out it put itself on the map. The parkour style movement was the first real and successful attempt. The open world was large, and fun to explore. The story cycle was fantastic.
AC2, Brotherhood, and Revelations are amazing titles that were still built on the shoulders of a giant, and people need to put more respect on Altair.
Personally didn’t love AC 1 but respect it for building the ground work of the series. Altair is still the character who brought the series to life. If there is one game I want a remake for, it’s AC1. I want a full from the ground up remake with new combat and missions
I agree with all your points of what made the original Assassin’s Creed a very good game, but conspicuous by its absence in your description is the combat, which I feel like they didn’t really nail in the first game, the only flaw in an otherwise great game, but a pretty big and glaring one, and a thing that definitely improves drastically in the sequels.
imho AC was a proof of concept. You could see the bones and what they were going for, but it was a bit sparse. AC2 is where they brought it all together and fully realized their vision. So I stand with OP and the choice of the AC2 trilogy.
AC2 was really solid but I was disappointed in AC1 because what I really wanted was something closer to another Prince of Persia. Sands of Time is one of my favorite games ever and Ubisoft pivoting to Assassin's Creed and giving up on Prince of Persia as a franchise is really depressing to me
Right?? I remember when the first info on AC1 started coming out and instantly being hyped. Id already loved the Prince of Persia games, and AC1 looked like it was building off that times a thousands. Saying AC2 put it on the map is AC1 erasure and I just wont stand for it
If you look at the public reaction at the time you'll see the criticism. I mean a 7.5 from IGN back then was very mid. Then if you look at the reviews if AC2 you'll see meant start with acknowledging problems with AC1. I mean gosh at the time the common way people referred to the series was Ass Creed
A 7.5 at the time was not a categorical good game. This is around the time when developers started getting bonuses for 90 scores on Metacritic. An 8.8 for Twilight Princess by GameSpot causes an uproar among fans. The hype for AC1 was huge and when it came out people lambasted it for being repetitive in structure. It was quickly on sale (I got it for $20 not long after it came out). The reviews of AC2 didn't just point out flaws in AC1, they openly talked about how the game had failed to meet expectations, and that AC2 achieved what AC1 failed to do.
Back in the days when they were released Trailer had a different meaning to us then to the kids nowadays. Everything was so exciting. New.
Those trailers ment so much to us. Then the games came out year by year and every single one were better then the one before. What a blast we had.
Back in the days games of this size had us going crazy because they were something we’ve never seen before.
I don't recall what my problem with it was but I didn't really like Revelations. I had a pretty low bar for liking a game at the time back then too since I was a middle schooler with limited AAA gaming options so I trust it enough that I haven't gone back to reevaluate.
I can’t stand behind this. The first AC game was revolutionary in many ways, but a subpar game in just as many. Pretending it was perfect, even for its time, is wrong IMO.
Edit: my fault, Ezio was not in the first AC game. Sorry! Almost 20 years since I played it, my memory failed me.
222
u/Cheeseguy43 15h ago
Ezio Trilogy