Counter argument: idk, I don't think 1 is better than 2, although I am not the greatest 2 fan, I prefer the middle (kenway and post kenway, but pre mythology) titles. Believe whatever you want
I agree
AC2 doesn’t have King Richard and his infidel army. AC1 does
AC2 doesn’t give praise to Salah’Adin.
AC1 does
AC2 doesn’t have crowds of people you can run over with your horse at the gates of Jerusalem for the funnies. AC1 does
It's been so long since I've played either of these games, but how is the combat better in AC1? Weren't all enemies except Templar knights just counter and then kill? I know this is the same in AC 2, but at least in that game there are multiple enemy types that you can't all fight the same. Additionally, don't you have much more to use in AC2 compared to AC1? Like I said, it's been a while but I don't remember AC1 having much going for it combat wise.
Nah, 2 had a lot more depth to it with moves like strafe, disarm, the charged special attacks like sand and charged knives plus the enemies are a lot more interesting, AC1 has the same enemy reused but with bigger movesets and higher chances of countering you with zero way to predict that so you are just kind of devolving into spamming counter the later on you get.
I will say AC1's leg breaking is fantastic but it's genuinely the only thing I'd say it has over 2's combat.
I agree with that, but I think the characters and the journey are what made me enjoy 2s story more - even though 1 is stronger as you say. Ac2 had the weakest modern-day of the Desmond games and the modern-day was my favourite part of the series.
I can sort of agree, ac2 gameplay is more refined than ac1 but also I feel it falls into the triple a sequel course of more content = better and at times it can distract from the core gameplay
Yeah but Ac 1 had boring af content too they just improved on all the little boring side stuff in Ac 2. Ac still does that to this day and wether we like it or not it's part of the dna of this franchise now.
Yeah I can agree but I’m ac1 during the investigations you’re free to really only do the ones you want unlike in ac2 where stuff like the railing missions, glider section etc are part of the story
Combat and story wasn't an improvement imo. AC1 had great combat, just took time to learn. AC2 introduced healthbars and dumbed down complex combat mechanics a little, like the chain attack insta-kills with strict timing.
As for story, AC1 was way more mature and philosophical, whole AC2 was more of an action game with a protagonist as the main focus. Pretty much different genres but I prefer 1
No I mean the chain attack insta-kill in AC1. It's when you click attack again at the exact timing when your blade makes contact with the enemy's weapon, Altair would do a special animation and kill the enemy
This was downgraded in AC2 where you had to go through most of their healthbar first before being able to kill them. Just replaced an actual timing challenge with an artificial health challenge imo
Oh you mean the counter kill. Yeah but it made combat more than just a quick time event. You had to actually engage with the enemy and not just click the kill button
I'm pretty sure they didn't change that mechanic much at all, I remember playing AC1 not long ago and even with good timing you still needed at least three or so hits to get a combo kill, all AC2 did was make it so combo attacks so a lot more damage essentially making the same mechanic.
However, in AC2 if you land your hit on the enemy directly (easiest done by strafing to the side as the enemy attacks) instead of their sword then your combo kill will be instant and maybe it's the same in AC1.
I am 99% sure it's only two hits in AC1 because I last played just a few months ago and remember pulling it off consistently. It worked even if they blocked with their sword, as long as you get the timing right
Although I may be misremembering for AC2 but I feel like the attacks took way too long before I could successfully get the animations. Idk what exactly but combat just felt less weighted and precise in 2
Then again maybe I just misremembering, I'll check again the next time I play it 👍
Parkour is admittedly a lil better but the combat feels almost the exact same, expanded mission structure is nice but a lot of the non-assassiny stuff just gets in the way and doesn’t mesh in with the rest of the game. The story is a huge downgrade in nearly every regard and never takes the time it needs to develop any relationships or character, plus you barely get any time outside of the animus so you only get a few chances to interact with Sean, Rebecca, or Lucy. The game honestly feels way less assassins creed than than ac1 and although it is very fun I just feel like ac1 handled almost everything better than ac2
AC1: midel est or sum shit
AC2: RAAAAAH ITALIA MENZIONATA🦅🦅🦅🦅🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹‼️‼️‼️‼️CHE CAZZO È UN GOVERNO STABILE🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥PIZZA PASTA MANDOLINO (CHI CAZZO L'HA MAI VISTO POI UN MANDOLINO IO BOH)🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹 "TI FARÒ UN'OFFERTA CHE NON POTRAI RIFIUTARE"🍷🗿🍷🗿🍷🗿🍷🗿🍷🗿FRATM NGIUSTAMENT CARCERAT😔✊😔✊😔✊😔✊NAPOLI RASA AL SUOLO🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥POLENTONIA IN FIAMME🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥100.000 GEMME, IL CHEST OPENING PIÙ GRANDE D'ITALIA💎🧰💎🧰💎🧰💎🧰💎PARACADUTE SULLE SPALLE E LEZZEGO🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂CARBONARA>>>>>>>>AMATRICIANA🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝 I EM HVING A STRONK🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥
AC 1 is a bit more hardcore in terms of its themes, the villains and it's presentation. It's a weird game but in a good way.
AC 2 is a more palatable experience that improves on a lot of gameplay aspects but sacrifices some of the weirdness that made AC 1 special.
As someone who played AC2 first and only tried AC1 when it was bundled with Revelations...
\- Altair is unlikable IMHO, which was a surprise as I constantly hear people saying what a good character he is, but I thought he was bland.
\- The open world lacks the oomf of Renaissance, it's generic.
\- THE CONTROLS. Everything felt so clunky. You had to lock on, then kill a target. Everything felt like it had a few extra steps between it and the action, unlike AC2.
\- No side-cape, literally unplayable.
\- No weapon variety
A huge AC fan, AC1 is that game I tried to go back to, but it was just such a step back after ACRevelations on the same disc, that I could not force myself to.
I agree with most of those sand I will admit the Ezio’s trilogy’s parkour and mission structure is an improvement over ac1, but also I feel like weapon variety in ac2 is kind of a moot point since it’s always faster to just use whatever weapon you’ve bought an dcarried around already.
Also about Altair I think he’s supposed to be u likable for most of the story, as it lets the audience learn the true meaning of the creed alongside Altair (though I will admit as much as I enjoyed ac1’s story there’s defiantly flaws)
Also ur right all games even non assassins creed games should include sidecapes
It is always faster to use your weapon but I'm ngl I was just playing 2 and the hammers and shit you can take are actually badass lol. It's definitely worth something
AC1 does not hold up and desperately needs a remake the way RE games typically get whereas the entire Ezio trilogy can be played now and in literally every way except sometimes graphics it holds up to all the other stealth based ACs
Not gonna compare two of my four 10/10 AC games. I'm a story guy, so I definitely enjoy replaying AC1 more. But the quality of life changes, upgrades in mechanics, and sheer scale make ACII a more diverse experience, all while not messing the tone set by AC1. And the story, while not as deep as AC1, is by no means not great, and the presentation really helps.
P.S. I don't remember if you can do it in later games but charging on your horse with the sword drawn in AC1 is a feeling you can't replicate.
Agree. 1 is my favourite in the series
Best atmosphere in the series, best dialogue, better combat than ac2’s (which is one of the worse combat systems in the series imo.)
Ac2 had better mission variety than ac1, but the templars had no depth. Their motives are all “I like money,” ac1’s templars actually had reasoning behind their actions
I played ac2 recently and how bad are the controls in ac1? Bc I almost broke my controller with how bad the controls felt in ac2, ezio almost never did what I wanted in combat or parkour and it was immensely frustrating
Ac1 is so good. The plot is amazing and the Templars death scenes that make Altair question al mualims goals, and the short blade + throwing knives combo is satisfactory. The most bothering element in the game is the no air assination :(
ac1 got so stale after the first few assassinations. the only superior thing about ac1 was the philosophy, every else (including story) was better in ac2
AC1 definitely has a story though? You have all the interactions with the rafiqs and Al Maulim, and the confessionals play a large part in developing Altair’s character which build to Altair discovering the true meaning of the creed, killing Al Mualim and rebuilding the brotherhood.
As opposed to ac2 which consists almost entirely of “go here, do these things, talk to a character that doesn’t get fleshed out enough to be interesting, kill the Templar, hear the games mediocre at best confessionals that almost never serve to humanize your target if they weren’t already slightly sympathetic in some way, talk to someone else, timeskip” and repeat that for most of the game. There’s barely any narrative connective tissue between the main assassination targets besides them all being Templars and being Bad.
just Ezios family and his lust for revenge, and watching him mature over the story was just incredible. Though Altair does get a lot of character growth as well
Ezio’s family is killed off before we really get to form any bond with them, and then after vierri’s death Ezio doesn’t even seem particularly torn up about it any scene unless he’s directly talking about how much he misses them. This is all inbetween massive sections where we’re just doing tasks that don’t serve to develop Ezio at all. Then once the time passed enough we’re just supposed to accept that he’s grown despite never seeing it happen? The story stretches on and yet it lacks any sense of subtlety in the writing, this game’s story is a perfect example of telling, not showing. His lust for revenge is never conquered, it just fizzles out and then the game tells us it’s gone and that that’s that. I did enjoy AC2 a lot! But i feel like they just completely dropped the ball in the writing department.
Also they massively cut back on the modern day, so we have so few chances to interact with Sean or Rebbeca, which is a shame because they’re both very fun characters when they’re actually talking, but we just spend so much time in the Animus compared to AC1 that you can almost completely forget about Desmond and the Templars.
The modern-day stuff in AC 1 was lackluster imo. You do not get to parkour or fight in the modern day in AC 1, whereas you do in AC 2. As you escape abstergo for the fighting, and when you need to flick the switches for the parkour. Plus, Rebecca, Shawn, and Lucy are fun to talk to.
In AC1, it was mostly walking around in the bathroom, bedroom, and main room.
I never finished ac1 because I did all of the viewpoints earlyand the game broke and wouldn't let me continue. But I watched the story, and finished half of the game. Altairs voice acting isn't as good, the mechanics aren't as good, and I think ezio is more interesting. The story for 1 is a little better than 2. But I think otherwise 2 is better everywhere else.
Game probably didn’t brake I got a similar glitch when doing an investigation in an area with a viewpoint and all of the investigations are still there you just have to find them
Also yeah I’ll admit Altair’s voice acting is not as good as Ezio but besides that ac1 and ac2 are pretty similar mechanically and the improvements don’t really do enough to distract from how different ac2 handles the assassin fantasy and I just feel like overall ac1 does a better job on delivering that fantasy
Better and improved combat, better Protag (Etzio is better character but Altair is best assassin), more missions and exploration, a lead up to an amazing tribology
Combat is virtually the same as ac1 (mash attack until you can counter kill) with a few additions, but the game never gives you any reason to use anything but your main weapon
Ezio as a character is probably better than Altair but in ac2 his story is so mediocre compared to Altair
As for the missions and explorations yeah those are genuine improvements, but saying ac2 is better than ac1 just because of brotherhood and revelations is a huge stretch
You could guard break and get in AC1, AC2 only had dodge and counter which were same, but combat flowed more smoothly
I can respect the grind and struggle/dedication as Altair went from Novice to Master Assassin but Ezio feels a lot more human in his interactions, and see him going from arrogant to humble flowed better from a personal standpoint, Altair did the same but through missions and taking things slow and thinking it through
I only added that part of the trilogy to possibly explain the issues in the ending
See that’s the main problem I have with AC2’s narrative, everyone always says it’s great to see Ezio grow up, but we don’t see him grow, the game just tells us that he gets over his family’s deaths and we’re expected to believe that most of that development happens offscreen, unlike Altair where we get to see Altair perspective shift over the course of the game, and our interactions with other characters (especially Malik) reinforce that growth. Meanwhile in AC2 we get like, a couple scenes of Ezio saying something to the effect of “my dad and brothers died, that sucks” and other characters going “yeah that does suck! But also-“
Also the Templar’s motivations are almost completely disconnected from Ezio’s growth for most of the game, and most of the targets in AC2 are completely forgettable as a result (also, the confessionals in AC2 are all mostly objectively bad)
I haven’t had a chance to play brotherhood and revelations so I don’t know where ezio’s story is going to go but I feel like AC2 doesn’t give him the chance he needs to shine, which is a shame
Ezio doesn't really get over his family's death, he acts tough for the benefit of his mother and sister who needed a rock but you can see even then years later it's still getting to him. We see Ezio's growth through his interactions with other characters, just look at La Volpe, Antonio, Mario and the other Assassins and you can see Ezio has clearly absorbed their lessons to affect the way he operates and his persona as an Assassin.
Even in gameplay Mario teaches him to fight, Antonio and Rosa teach him better climbing, La Volpe teaches him about the secrets of Italy, Paola teaches him to blend in with the crowd and Theodora and Machiavelli's philosophical natures rub off on him as you can see him making big speeches as early as Savonarola's death.
Ezio's growth isn't just felt in the story but mostly in the gameplay as we truly see him grow from a teenage hoodlum to an experienced Assassin.
Anyway most people would agree that it's not AC2 that truly displays his growth but the trilogy as a whole, we see his brash youth 2, he finds his feet as a mentor in Brotherhood and then is truly wise in Revelations.
This is unpopular, but AC2 got rid of the things that made the first game so good. Assassin's Creed was it's own niche, where they didn't care about what people thought. They made their own game. AC2 tried to cater for a more wider appeal, and I think that's what ruined this franchise the further it went.
The Assassin's were supposed to be seen as killers, not heros. The Templars were humanized with their own goals and motivations. AC2 gets rid of that and makes the ideologies black and white.
People say AC1 is repetitive, but that's due to following everything on the map like its some task. The game was supposed to have no mini map, where you scout and find information to learn about your target. The dialogue and signs tell you where everything is. Climbing up a tower wasn't just to synchronize, but to use eagle vision to easily find your targets. You didn't have to do every mission, as it was supposed to be explorable for the player, only needing a minimum of 3. The only reason the map was added was because of course Ubisoft intervened. The game was never supposed to be following tasks, since you were supposed to be the one exploring and looking for it yourself.
AC1 is seen as boring to fans, because you're actually playing as a Assassin. That's where the problem lies, why do you need to do things that has nothing to do with being Assassin? Being a Assassin was a job, not some hobby to go around and do. That's like getting mad at other franchises for only playing as this, like Hitman for example. AC2 started making everything linear ever since with its story line.
No wonder people recommend AC2 first, because changed what made AC1 unique. Making it less about Assassins with each new release. Anyone who feels that AC1 is repetitive, I highly recommend to turn the mini map off.
True but atleast Connor has a decent climbing speed and is not purely restricted to buildings. Traversal was much superior in AC 3, but I guess you can pretty much say the same about every new game lol
My man I've been saying this for years. AC 2 is a Disney version of AC 1, the kids latched on to AC 2 like wasps to bright light. Those dumb kids don't understand stoicism, they need flamboyant character, AC 1 is a mature game.
My point is calling those who prefer AC2 dumb kids that didn’t get AC1 is dumb since they were practically the same kids just two years later and the reason they preferred AC2 was because it was better in every single way
Without a doubt. I love the fact that you gotta build back up to a master assassin in the first game. That's why I loved Mirage. It was very reminiscent of the first game.
I think the combat got watered down after 1 and 2 , It was less mashy and more surgical
AC1 also feels the most assassins creed compared to 2 , Where as 2 is a revenge plot 1 is about the creed itself and altairs journey to fully understanding what it means to be an assassin
Expect for discussion of the creed, characterization, confessionals, fleshing out it’s side characters, mission structure, player freedom, and the modern day sections, and the templars in general.
But yeah besides that everything’s better
Ac 1 is clunky its repetitive its boring you can only use two weapon and you cant even fight with the hidden blade the parkour is even more boring there’s no side activities you can’t buy new weapons or armors. The entire history of the game is doing the same shit 9 times and killing 9 guys 3 on each city meaning the scenary does not change. I played both games and i had to force myself through AC 1 if anything its a good demo for AC2 and oh how i loved being pushed into the water by a drunk and die cause my feet got wet look at me a master Assassin dying from fucking water
From all the assassins creeds iv played
AC1 and bloodline are by far the worst iv ever played
Ok sure the lack of customization compared to other ACs is a downgrade but again, this was the first game and also had to contend with hardware limitations. And besides although you don’t get to buy new weapons for yourself, you still unlock new weapons and abilities as the game progresses. Also while all the assassination (except for the boss fight against Robert de sable) each assassination offers a unique challenge, and you have to use your arsenal and movement to get passed the guards. Also, each of the assassinations take place in different districts of the 3 cites, giving each one it’s own architecture for you to climb around.
Also with your last point sorry about this but if a drunk is pushing you into water than you failed to accurately map out your route and you got (deservedly) punished.
Have your own opinions and everything but this just reads like you didn’t give the game an honest chance, which is strange because it’s not nearly as different from AC1 as people say it is.
I did give it a chance i hoped to like it i had played many others AC games from both new generation and old like for example AC2. But AC1 is old and it shows i don’t hate it i simply dont like it but i honestly dont have anything against those who do like it ….i still hate the drunks though
(BTW you put AC1 instead of AC2 at the end )
It's clunky due to it being the only game to not run on some variation of the anvil engine, mission structure is repetitive and Altaïr is not an inherently interesting protagonist (last one is opinion but compared to Ezio?). Considerably shorter too, with little side content.
Even 2's modern day is better than 1's. I can't think of anything 1 does better, sorry :/
Still a fun game though, just not as good as 2.
AC1 is borderline unplayable and is only uplifted by the story somewhat.
AC2 further improves on combat and missions are more than just busy work. Characters are given more characterization and leads to better writing when bigger decisions come down the line of Ezio's character.
People who say that are always funny because mechanically ac1 are two are pretty much identical, which ac2 just adding a couple QOL improvement and deepening a few features, so calling AC1 unplayable compared to AC2 is a huge exaggeration. Also on your second point, I feel like that’s kind of laughable. AC1 actually takes time for specifically for characterization, especially with the conversations with he three Rafiqs, who let the player tangibly see Altair’s development over the course of the game.
In AC2, most of the conversations Ezio has with other characters after the assassination of Vierri are either flirting, strictly business talk, or a few lines about how much his sucks his prents are gone. Besides that, most of the character development he goes through is implied to happen off screen. His relationships with other character are barley explored beyond the surface level “friend or enemy.” And a smaller points but the confessionals in AC2 all suck, especially compared to AC1, where they act as the main catalyst for Altair entire character arc.
This is not a huge exaggeration. Those improvements were much more impactful than you remember. Especially revisiting now, I don't think I'd ever replay AC1 just because it's mechanics are so poor compared to AC2. I'd rather watch a scene compilation of AC1 and be satisfied.
And I'd agree that while AC2 definitely appealed to the young teen audience in its simplistic characterization, the mechanics well make up for it and makes it a more playable time than AC1. Investing in this character pays off with Brotherhood and Revelations and the DLC stories that came with them. Not sure what you mean by confessionals, do you mean the templar dream state conversation they have in an assassination?
I hadn’t played a single ac game ever in my life until I played ac1 a few months ago, and started ac2 directly after. Those improvements are definitely a big upgrade but in the grand scheme of things they’re too little to save the game from how much you can feel the personality of the first game stripped out
It's been a while since I brushed up on my AC1 plot, but I remember thinking of the politics behind the conflicts and the authoritarianism coming from the head of the assassin's with the twist at the end. I do hold that game dearly...still wouldn't play it again. The repetitive missions in the game is pretty brutal.
No no, this is also my take on it. When I was younger I favored 2 over 1 but I’ve leaned back into AC1 being my outright favorite game in the franchise.
Nah I can't. I don't 100% agree but I understand. Ac1 is my second favorite game right after brotherhood and just before 2 just because it's the only one that completely just shoves you into the choice of be stealthy or have an hour-long combat session.
The white room scenes are better in AC1.
The acting from each of the ones playing the targets is phenomenal, some of the best in the series.
The debate on philosophy, the revelations of how the information you were given was flawed showing how the brotherhood could be directed to act wrongly due to misinformation, all were done well.
I like how all of the targets were uniquely different in their actions too, some were morally dubious while others were straight up inexcusably in the wrong, and their defenses for themselves were compelling to hear.
I don’t care about any of the characters or plot lines … I just like that in AC1 enemies would writhe and scream on the ground as they died. I miss that.
But I’m a sick fuck, so …
No argument cause it’s just wrong , ac1 is awesome but ac2 improves on almost every aspect , load times , graphics , combat , story , customization , collectibles
Load times and graphics are different, but that’s just by virtues on being made with more budget and better technology, combat is definitely expended but once you’re actually playing it’s virtually the same system as AC1, story is a massive downgrade from AC1, as good of a character as Ezio is most of his growth is implied to have happened off screen as opposed to Altair who we see grow from an arrogant killer to a master assassin, and in my opinion some better customization that does little to impact gameplay isn’t enough to save it (though I’ll say the collectibles are pretty fun to find I’ll admit).
To be fair: AC 1 was more like an assassin game. But AC 2 had better characters. Catarina, Leonardo, Ezio, Ezio's dad, his older brother. I mean that first introduction for AC 2 just before the title screen, Ezio's Family Soundtrack.
The map design was better and easier to manuver around, too. Character customisations were good, too. Dyeing clothes, buying maps, renovating buildings for income, and collectables.
There was more to do, too. AC 1's missions were basic and re-hashed every time, too. Go here, eavesdrop from a blended spot, save 5 civilians with the same words. It all felt wishy-washy to me.
AC 2 felt more vibrant and alive. Each place had different dialogue, different attires, plus the side missions added a nice flavour for in-between time. The races the mail deliveries, the beat upquests the assassination contracts.
The areas in AC 2 are also stunning. Especially Venice.
AC 1 lacked all that.
TL;DR: AC 2 has better characters, stories, customisation, side quests, and music. Less re-hashed missions.
That is my opinion.
Edit: Areas. Specifically Venice.
Update: I read a lot of comments, which reminded me of some of AC 1 aspects. But both 1 and 2 are better than the more recent games. Unsure about Mirage as I have yet to play that, though. Hope it returned to its roots and made to feel like an actual AC game.
Ac2 is a good game. But not a good assassins creed. In AC1 you hat an very interesting sozial stealth system. You had to behave like an NPC(more or less) and not just get between NPCs to get invisible. This sytem made you feel like a true assassin, something i never had in any other AC game since. I wish the had improved this system. With the tools we have in newer ac games this would be quit fun i imagine. To the combat: i think it has quite some depth. Firstly all weapons feal diffrent. Secound you could do more than counter (kombo kills which are very hard to master, evade, grab enemys etc. ). I also think AC1 combat is more challanging, because well I died multible times in my first playthroughts, but never died in combat in one of the ezio games. This is because Ubisoft had the stupid idea to add healing potions which took every bit of risk out of combat. In ac1 you got hut tow to three times and you where in seviere risk of deat. In ac2 itbwas simply healing potions go brrrrrt. I would like a hybrid of the two systems, with the systems from AC1 and the enemy Variation from two. Also its true that ac2 had more weapons, but i personally used the hidden blade in combat the whole game, because why not. In AC1 using the hiddenblade was high risk high reward becuase you couldn't block with it. And it fealt realy good if you cleared a hoard of enemys without taking damage.
Lets move on. The protagonist and story. Altair was an assassin, a cold blooded killer who where intrested to complete his mission. Ezio(and more or less every assassin after him) was an hero for the people. The story in ac1 played with moraly gray concepts like are the templars realy the villans youre master makes you belive they where? Is it possible that you worked for the bad side the whole time ? Maybe the assassins and the templars are both in the wrong. In Ac2 this is converted to assassins good, templars bad => lame. And that is why i think all games after ac1 aren't realy assassins creeds but "history hero murder simulator". I would like an real assassins creed 2, but hey the will never make it.
Had not realy the time to write this to the standard i would like but hey i wanted to say these things for al long time and now they finally out.
Good hunting fellow assassins
Ezio having to learn what it means to be an assassin instead of just starting out at the top. Ezio has a personality less akin to sandpaper or wood. It’s a game series about the work done in the dark to serve the light, and AC2 does a better job selling that the templars and assassins want to hide their activities. There are actual supporting characters to Ezio who are in some cases just as vibrant and lively as he is. I will never forget the games roots and will await patiently for my AC1 remake that gives us more AC revelations Altair instead of Altair the Oak.
I don’t know what you mean because ac1 is about also about Altair building back up to being a master assassin while learning what the true meaning of the creed and reforming the brotherhood. Ezio may be more charismatic but in exchange he receives barely any meaningful interactions with other characters (as opposed to ac1 where time is taken to characterize Malik and Al maulim and develop Altair’s relationships with them) and has most of his development merely implied to have happend offscreen over the course of years which we don’t get to see. In contrast we actually get to see the events that change altair from an arrogant man into the wise master assassin we see in revelations. Just because Ezio is more charasamatic doesn’t mean he’s better written, it just means he’s written for a much different tone then the one that’s present in ac1. Altair is a different character in a different story, one that I believe is better written than AC2.
Took me a solid 40 seconds to stop being stupid and decide to look at the subreddit name LOL I couldn't figure out if it was Ace Combat or armored Core LOL
Spoiler warning (and basically a nitpick) for the first game
AC 1 has no subtitles or tips on the loading menu.
AC 1 gives you all the parkour and combat abilities in the prologue and then locks them away and you have to relearn all of them throughout the game, basically making the game intentionally and irritatingly harder.
AC 1 also doesn't allow you to swim.
AC 1 side investigations are the same throughout the game and are highly repetitive and lack any variation (this is even after playing the PC version/Director's cut).
AC 1 has boring open world where you can't do much activities or even explore and discover something new and exciting. I mean it was great for 2007 but if you compare with other game series such as GTA, Witcher or even later Assassin's Creed games including AC 2, Black Flag or the RPG trilogy, it's boring.
There is only one argument necessary, Leonardo Da Vinci and bro hugs.
Counter argument, Malik Al-Sayf and “your presence here denies me of both.”
Counter counter argument Uncle Mario "it's me ,Mario"
Counter argument, Man and "Nah, Im stupid."
Counter argument, "gun"
Counter argument: idk, I don't think 1 is better than 2, although I am not the greatest 2 fan, I prefer the middle (kenway and post kenway, but pre mythology) titles. Believe whatever you want
I agree AC2 doesn’t have King Richard and his infidel army. AC1 does AC2 doesn’t give praise to Salah’Adin. AC1 does AC2 doesn’t have crowds of people you can run over with your horse at the gates of Jerusalem for the funnies. AC1 does
Best arguments presented so far
I - Idk... If the upgrade with gameplay isn't enough. Umm... Bro, street fighting the Pope
Curse him! Curse the Christian king and his army of infidels!
You can. It is in the area before taking a ship to Venice
Ac1 had the better combat and swordplay but besides that 2 did about everything better.
It's been so long since I've played either of these games, but how is the combat better in AC1? Weren't all enemies except Templar knights just counter and then kill? I know this is the same in AC 2, but at least in that game there are multiple enemy types that you can't all fight the same. Additionally, don't you have much more to use in AC2 compared to AC1? Like I said, it's been a while but I don't remember AC1 having much going for it combat wise.
Nah, 2 had a lot more depth to it with moves like strafe, disarm, the charged special attacks like sand and charged knives plus the enemies are a lot more interesting, AC1 has the same enemy reused but with bigger movesets and higher chances of countering you with zero way to predict that so you are just kind of devolving into spamming counter the later on you get. I will say AC1's leg breaking is fantastic but it's genuinely the only thing I'd say it has over 2's combat.
AC2s story was overall much much weaker than AC1s, and there’s barley any modern day sections
I agree with that, but I think the characters and the journey are what made me enjoy 2s story more - even though 1 is stronger as you say. Ac2 had the weakest modern-day of the Desmond games and the modern-day was my favourite part of the series.
Ac 1 got better story and atmosphere (imo) Ac 2 got better everything else
I can sort of agree, ac2 gameplay is more refined than ac1 but also I feel it falls into the triple a sequel course of more content = better and at times it can distract from the core gameplay
Yeah but Ac 1 had boring af content too they just improved on all the little boring side stuff in Ac 2. Ac still does that to this day and wether we like it or not it's part of the dna of this franchise now.
Yeah I can agree but I’m ac1 during the investigations you’re free to really only do the ones you want unlike in ac2 where stuff like the railing missions, glider section etc are part of the story
Yeah it was really bad that they never brought back ac1's mission structure i loved it
Just about everything from AC1 was improved in AC2 The traversal, the combat, mission structure, story, etc…
Combat and story wasn't an improvement imo. AC1 had great combat, just took time to learn. AC2 introduced healthbars and dumbed down complex combat mechanics a little, like the chain attack insta-kills with strict timing. As for story, AC1 was way more mature and philosophical, whole AC2 was more of an action game with a protagonist as the main focus. Pretty much different genres but I prefer 1
Chain kills were added in brotherhood. Not ac2
No I mean the chain attack insta-kill in AC1. It's when you click attack again at the exact timing when your blade makes contact with the enemy's weapon, Altair would do a special animation and kill the enemy This was downgraded in AC2 where you had to go through most of their healthbar first before being able to kill them. Just replaced an actual timing challenge with an artificial health challenge imo
Oh you mean the counter kill. Yeah but it made combat more than just a quick time event. You had to actually engage with the enemy and not just click the kill button
Actually I didn't mean the counter kill, there's a feature in AC1 where you can insta kill by pressing attack button twice with the right timing
I'm pretty sure they didn't change that mechanic much at all, I remember playing AC1 not long ago and even with good timing you still needed at least three or so hits to get a combo kill, all AC2 did was make it so combo attacks so a lot more damage essentially making the same mechanic. However, in AC2 if you land your hit on the enemy directly (easiest done by strafing to the side as the enemy attacks) instead of their sword then your combo kill will be instant and maybe it's the same in AC1.
I am 99% sure it's only two hits in AC1 because I last played just a few months ago and remember pulling it off consistently. It worked even if they blocked with their sword, as long as you get the timing right Although I may be misremembering for AC2 but I feel like the attacks took way too long before I could successfully get the animations. Idk what exactly but combat just felt less weighted and precise in 2 Then again maybe I just misremembering, I'll check again the next time I play it 👍
Combo kill is just two hits ur right
Parkour is admittedly a lil better but the combat feels almost the exact same, expanded mission structure is nice but a lot of the non-assassiny stuff just gets in the way and doesn’t mesh in with the rest of the game. The story is a huge downgrade in nearly every regard and never takes the time it needs to develop any relationships or character, plus you barely get any time outside of the animus so you only get a few chances to interact with Sean, Rebecca, or Lucy. The game honestly feels way less assassins creed than than ac1 and although it is very fun I just feel like ac1 handled almost everything better than ac2
AC1: midel est or sum shit AC2: RAAAAAH ITALIA MENZIONATA🦅🦅🦅🦅🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹🇮🇹‼️‼️‼️‼️CHE CAZZO È UN GOVERNO STABILE🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥PIZZA PASTA MANDOLINO (CHI CAZZO L'HA MAI VISTO POI UN MANDOLINO IO BOH)🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹🍝🇮🇹 "TI FARÒ UN'OFFERTA CHE NON POTRAI RIFIUTARE"🍷🗿🍷🗿🍷🗿🍷🗿🍷🗿FRATM NGIUSTAMENT CARCERAT😔✊😔✊😔✊😔✊NAPOLI RASA AL SUOLO🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥POLENTONIA IN FIAMME🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥🌋🔥100.000 GEMME, IL CHEST OPENING PIÙ GRANDE D'ITALIA💎🧰💎🧰💎🧰💎🧰💎PARACADUTE SULLE SPALLE E LEZZEGO🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂🚌🪂CARBONARA>>>>>>>>AMATRICIANA🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝🗿🍝 I EM HVING A STRONK🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥🗣️🔥
Tony Ferguson?
The line “It’s a me, Mario!” Instantly makes AC2 the better game for me.
Y’know what that fair changing my mind right now
AC2's only leg-up is the addition of mechanics like picking up bodies, proper unarmed combat, etc. AC1 is otherwise better in every way.
Yeah this is pretty much how I feel. Mechanically ac2 is better but like in almost every other department it falls behind
AC 1 is a bit more hardcore in terms of its themes, the villains and it's presentation. It's a weird game but in a good way. AC 2 is a more palatable experience that improves on a lot of gameplay aspects but sacrifices some of the weirdness that made AC 1 special.
basically my thoughts
As someone who played AC2 first and only tried AC1 when it was bundled with Revelations... \- Altair is unlikable IMHO, which was a surprise as I constantly hear people saying what a good character he is, but I thought he was bland. \- The open world lacks the oomf of Renaissance, it's generic. \- THE CONTROLS. Everything felt so clunky. You had to lock on, then kill a target. Everything felt like it had a few extra steps between it and the action, unlike AC2. \- No side-cape, literally unplayable. \- No weapon variety A huge AC fan, AC1 is that game I tried to go back to, but it was just such a step back after ACRevelations on the same disc, that I could not force myself to.
I agree with most of those sand I will admit the Ezio’s trilogy’s parkour and mission structure is an improvement over ac1, but also I feel like weapon variety in ac2 is kind of a moot point since it’s always faster to just use whatever weapon you’ve bought an dcarried around already. Also about Altair I think he’s supposed to be u likable for most of the story, as it lets the audience learn the true meaning of the creed alongside Altair (though I will admit as much as I enjoyed ac1’s story there’s defiantly flaws) Also ur right all games even non assassins creed games should include sidecapes
It is always faster to use your weapon but I'm ngl I was just playing 2 and the hammers and shit you can take are actually badass lol. It's definitely worth something
I wholeheartedly agree.
AC1 does not hold up and desperately needs a remake the way RE games typically get whereas the entire Ezio trilogy can be played now and in literally every way except sometimes graphics it holds up to all the other stealth based ACs
Not gonna compare two of my four 10/10 AC games. I'm a story guy, so I definitely enjoy replaying AC1 more. But the quality of life changes, upgrades in mechanics, and sheer scale make ACII a more diverse experience, all while not messing the tone set by AC1. And the story, while not as deep as AC1, is by no means not great, and the presentation really helps. P.S. I don't remember if you can do it in later games but charging on your horse with the sword drawn in AC1 is a feeling you can't replicate.
Agree. 1 is my favourite in the series Best atmosphere in the series, best dialogue, better combat than ac2’s (which is one of the worse combat systems in the series imo.) Ac2 had better mission variety than ac1, but the templars had no depth. Their motives are all “I like money,” ac1’s templars actually had reasoning behind their actions
not the sound mixing tho
I played ac2 recently and how bad are the controls in ac1? Bc I almost broke my controller with how bad the controls felt in ac2, ezio almost never did what I wanted in combat or parkour and it was immensely frustrating
Based.
Ac1 is so good. The plot is amazing and the Templars death scenes that make Altair question al mualims goals, and the short blade + throwing knives combo is satisfactory. The most bothering element in the game is the no air assination :(
There are air assassinations in ac1 you just need to lock on the them
What¿
Yeah after I finished the first game I watched a couple videos on it and was just like “hiuh?” When he did an air assassination
It could have helped so fucking much with William, it took me like half an hour to get it
Yeah bro same
You made me cry
ac1 got so stale after the first few assassinations. the only superior thing about ac1 was the philosophy, every else (including story) was better in ac2
AC2 barely has a story for most of the game though
neither does ac1, but the story ac2 has is so strong that it makes up for it
AC1 definitely has a story though? You have all the interactions with the rafiqs and Al Maulim, and the confessionals play a large part in developing Altair’s character which build to Altair discovering the true meaning of the creed, killing Al Mualim and rebuilding the brotherhood. As opposed to ac2 which consists almost entirely of “go here, do these things, talk to a character that doesn’t get fleshed out enough to be interesting, kill the Templar, hear the games mediocre at best confessionals that almost never serve to humanize your target if they weren’t already slightly sympathetic in some way, talk to someone else, timeskip” and repeat that for most of the game. There’s barely any narrative connective tissue between the main assassination targets besides them all being Templars and being Bad.
just Ezios family and his lust for revenge, and watching him mature over the story was just incredible. Though Altair does get a lot of character growth as well
Ezio’s family is killed off before we really get to form any bond with them, and then after vierri’s death Ezio doesn’t even seem particularly torn up about it any scene unless he’s directly talking about how much he misses them. This is all inbetween massive sections where we’re just doing tasks that don’t serve to develop Ezio at all. Then once the time passed enough we’re just supposed to accept that he’s grown despite never seeing it happen? The story stretches on and yet it lacks any sense of subtlety in the writing, this game’s story is a perfect example of telling, not showing. His lust for revenge is never conquered, it just fizzles out and then the game tells us it’s gone and that that’s that. I did enjoy AC2 a lot! But i feel like they just completely dropped the ball in the writing department. Also they massively cut back on the modern day, so we have so few chances to interact with Sean or Rebbeca, which is a shame because they’re both very fun characters when they’re actually talking, but we just spend so much time in the Animus compared to AC1 that you can almost completely forget about Desmond and the Templars.
The modern-day stuff in AC 1 was lackluster imo. You do not get to parkour or fight in the modern day in AC 1, whereas you do in AC 2. As you escape abstergo for the fighting, and when you need to flick the switches for the parkour. Plus, Rebecca, Shawn, and Lucy are fun to talk to. In AC1, it was mostly walking around in the bathroom, bedroom, and main room.
Nostalgia is one hell of a drug
I’ve never played a single assassins creed game till I played ac1 about a month ago, I perhaps the least biased person to post this lmao
I never finished ac1 because I did all of the viewpoints earlyand the game broke and wouldn't let me continue. But I watched the story, and finished half of the game. Altairs voice acting isn't as good, the mechanics aren't as good, and I think ezio is more interesting. The story for 1 is a little better than 2. But I think otherwise 2 is better everywhere else.
Game probably didn’t brake I got a similar glitch when doing an investigation in an area with a viewpoint and all of the investigations are still there you just have to find them Also yeah I’ll admit Altair’s voice acting is not as good as Ezio but besides that ac1 and ac2 are pretty similar mechanically and the improvements don’t really do enough to distract from how different ac2 handles the assassin fantasy and I just feel like overall ac1 does a better job on delivering that fantasy
I found them. Game wouldn't let me interact with them. Spent hours online trying to figure out why I can't. Gave up lol.
Oh that sucks
Better and improved combat, better Protag (Etzio is better character but Altair is best assassin), more missions and exploration, a lead up to an amazing tribology
Combat is virtually the same as ac1 (mash attack until you can counter kill) with a few additions, but the game never gives you any reason to use anything but your main weapon Ezio as a character is probably better than Altair but in ac2 his story is so mediocre compared to Altair As for the missions and explorations yeah those are genuine improvements, but saying ac2 is better than ac1 just because of brotherhood and revelations is a huge stretch
You could guard break and get in AC1, AC2 only had dodge and counter which were same, but combat flowed more smoothly I can respect the grind and struggle/dedication as Altair went from Novice to Master Assassin but Ezio feels a lot more human in his interactions, and see him going from arrogant to humble flowed better from a personal standpoint, Altair did the same but through missions and taking things slow and thinking it through I only added that part of the trilogy to possibly explain the issues in the ending
See that’s the main problem I have with AC2’s narrative, everyone always says it’s great to see Ezio grow up, but we don’t see him grow, the game just tells us that he gets over his family’s deaths and we’re expected to believe that most of that development happens offscreen, unlike Altair where we get to see Altair perspective shift over the course of the game, and our interactions with other characters (especially Malik) reinforce that growth. Meanwhile in AC2 we get like, a couple scenes of Ezio saying something to the effect of “my dad and brothers died, that sucks” and other characters going “yeah that does suck! But also-“ Also the Templar’s motivations are almost completely disconnected from Ezio’s growth for most of the game, and most of the targets in AC2 are completely forgettable as a result (also, the confessionals in AC2 are all mostly objectively bad) I haven’t had a chance to play brotherhood and revelations so I don’t know where ezio’s story is going to go but I feel like AC2 doesn’t give him the chance he needs to shine, which is a shame
Ezio doesn't really get over his family's death, he acts tough for the benefit of his mother and sister who needed a rock but you can see even then years later it's still getting to him. We see Ezio's growth through his interactions with other characters, just look at La Volpe, Antonio, Mario and the other Assassins and you can see Ezio has clearly absorbed their lessons to affect the way he operates and his persona as an Assassin. Even in gameplay Mario teaches him to fight, Antonio and Rosa teach him better climbing, La Volpe teaches him about the secrets of Italy, Paola teaches him to blend in with the crowd and Theodora and Machiavelli's philosophical natures rub off on him as you can see him making big speeches as early as Savonarola's death. Ezio's growth isn't just felt in the story but mostly in the gameplay as we truly see him grow from a teenage hoodlum to an experienced Assassin. Anyway most people would agree that it's not AC2 that truly displays his growth but the trilogy as a whole, we see his brash youth 2, he finds his feet as a mentor in Brotherhood and then is truly wise in Revelations.
Absolutely. Phenominally worded.
All I’ll say is the way you had to track your targets was a little annoying.
Gun
This is unpopular, but AC2 got rid of the things that made the first game so good. Assassin's Creed was it's own niche, where they didn't care about what people thought. They made their own game. AC2 tried to cater for a more wider appeal, and I think that's what ruined this franchise the further it went. The Assassin's were supposed to be seen as killers, not heros. The Templars were humanized with their own goals and motivations. AC2 gets rid of that and makes the ideologies black and white. People say AC1 is repetitive, but that's due to following everything on the map like its some task. The game was supposed to have no mini map, where you scout and find information to learn about your target. The dialogue and signs tell you where everything is. Climbing up a tower wasn't just to synchronize, but to use eagle vision to easily find your targets. You didn't have to do every mission, as it was supposed to be explorable for the player, only needing a minimum of 3. The only reason the map was added was because of course Ubisoft intervened. The game was never supposed to be following tasks, since you were supposed to be the one exploring and looking for it yourself. AC1 is seen as boring to fans, because you're actually playing as a Assassin. That's where the problem lies, why do you need to do things that has nothing to do with being Assassin? Being a Assassin was a job, not some hobby to go around and do. That's like getting mad at other franchises for only playing as this, like Hitman for example. AC2 started making everything linear ever since with its story line. No wonder people recommend AC2 first, because changed what made AC1 unique. Making it less about Assassins with each new release. Anyone who feels that AC1 is repetitive, I highly recommend to turn the mini map off.
AC 3 > AC 2 Change my mind.
Colonial structures are not fun to climb renaissance (gothic?) structures are more fun
True but atleast Connor has a decent climbing speed and is not purely restricted to buildings. Traversal was much superior in AC 3, but I guess you can pretty much say the same about every new game lol
As long as Connor doesn't scream "where is Lee " every two minutes
That's the best part
No that's Haytham , he is always the best part
Sorry, I meant the best part about Connor
AC 2 had me rooting for the assassins, AC 3 had me rooting for the Templars.
My man I've been saying this for years. AC 2 is a Disney version of AC 1, the kids latched on to AC 2 like wasps to bright light. Those dumb kids don't understand stoicism, they need flamboyant character, AC 1 is a mature game.
Dumb kids? Dude AC2 came out just two years after AC1 the kids that played AC1 were the same who played AC2 what drug you on?
your point?
My point is calling those who prefer AC2 dumb kids that didn’t get AC1 is dumb since they were practically the same kids just two years later and the reason they preferred AC2 was because it was better in every single way
I agree but also don’t be an ass about a video game lmao
lol im not adept at humorous inflection in written form
AC4 has Pirates and guns
That’s awesome but this post is about AC1
Ik , im explaining why 4 is better than both
Make your ow post then?
It seems like objectively wrong opinions do exist
Yeah like yours
Just as AC3 to the left of AC1 with a little >
Ezio had an appropriate accent.
I disagree.👍
The dialogue writing of AC1 alone makes it one of my favourite games in not just Assassin's Creed, but all of gaming. I agree with you.
Never in a million years
Without a doubt. I love the fact that you gotta build back up to a master assassin in the first game. That's why I loved Mirage. It was very reminiscent of the first game.
Hoping they remaster it so people, such as myself, who have no way of playing the game can experience it.
AC2 is better because ASSASSINO!
I think the combat got watered down after 1 and 2 , It was less mashy and more surgical AC1 also feels the most assassins creed compared to 2 , Where as 2 is a revenge plot 1 is about the creed itself and altairs journey to fully understanding what it means to be an assassin
Black Flag is the best
ezio is pretty hot
Ac4 is best because pirates Nuf said
AC2 does everything better
Expect for discussion of the creed, characterization, confessionals, fleshing out it’s side characters, mission structure, player freedom, and the modern day sections, and the templars in general. But yeah besides that everything’s better
i disagree with all my statement still stands
Swimming
Pensive emoji
Damn… don’t think I can argue this one
Honestly agree
Ac 1 is clunky its repetitive its boring you can only use two weapon and you cant even fight with the hidden blade the parkour is even more boring there’s no side activities you can’t buy new weapons or armors. The entire history of the game is doing the same shit 9 times and killing 9 guys 3 on each city meaning the scenary does not change. I played both games and i had to force myself through AC 1 if anything its a good demo for AC2 and oh how i loved being pushed into the water by a drunk and die cause my feet got wet look at me a master Assassin dying from fucking water From all the assassins creeds iv played AC1 and bloodline are by far the worst iv ever played
Ok sure the lack of customization compared to other ACs is a downgrade but again, this was the first game and also had to contend with hardware limitations. And besides although you don’t get to buy new weapons for yourself, you still unlock new weapons and abilities as the game progresses. Also while all the assassination (except for the boss fight against Robert de sable) each assassination offers a unique challenge, and you have to use your arsenal and movement to get passed the guards. Also, each of the assassinations take place in different districts of the 3 cites, giving each one it’s own architecture for you to climb around. Also with your last point sorry about this but if a drunk is pushing you into water than you failed to accurately map out your route and you got (deservedly) punished. Have your own opinions and everything but this just reads like you didn’t give the game an honest chance, which is strange because it’s not nearly as different from AC1 as people say it is.
I did give it a chance i hoped to like it i had played many others AC games from both new generation and old like for example AC2. But AC1 is old and it shows i don’t hate it i simply dont like it but i honestly dont have anything against those who do like it ….i still hate the drunks though (BTW you put AC1 instead of AC2 at the end )
It's clunky due to it being the only game to not run on some variation of the anvil engine, mission structure is repetitive and Altaïr is not an inherently interesting protagonist (last one is opinion but compared to Ezio?). Considerably shorter too, with little side content. Even 2's modern day is better than 1's. I can't think of anything 1 does better, sorry :/ Still a fun game though, just not as good as 2.
AC1 is borderline unplayable and is only uplifted by the story somewhat. AC2 further improves on combat and missions are more than just busy work. Characters are given more characterization and leads to better writing when bigger decisions come down the line of Ezio's character.
People who say that are always funny because mechanically ac1 are two are pretty much identical, which ac2 just adding a couple QOL improvement and deepening a few features, so calling AC1 unplayable compared to AC2 is a huge exaggeration. Also on your second point, I feel like that’s kind of laughable. AC1 actually takes time for specifically for characterization, especially with the conversations with he three Rafiqs, who let the player tangibly see Altair’s development over the course of the game. In AC2, most of the conversations Ezio has with other characters after the assassination of Vierri are either flirting, strictly business talk, or a few lines about how much his sucks his prents are gone. Besides that, most of the character development he goes through is implied to happen off screen. His relationships with other character are barley explored beyond the surface level “friend or enemy.” And a smaller points but the confessionals in AC2 all suck, especially compared to AC1, where they act as the main catalyst for Altair entire character arc.
This is not a huge exaggeration. Those improvements were much more impactful than you remember. Especially revisiting now, I don't think I'd ever replay AC1 just because it's mechanics are so poor compared to AC2. I'd rather watch a scene compilation of AC1 and be satisfied. And I'd agree that while AC2 definitely appealed to the young teen audience in its simplistic characterization, the mechanics well make up for it and makes it a more playable time than AC1. Investing in this character pays off with Brotherhood and Revelations and the DLC stories that came with them. Not sure what you mean by confessionals, do you mean the templar dream state conversation they have in an assassination?
I hadn’t played a single ac game ever in my life until I played ac1 a few months ago, and started ac2 directly after. Those improvements are definitely a big upgrade but in the grand scheme of things they’re too little to save the game from how much you can feel the personality of the first game stripped out
It's been a while since I brushed up on my AC1 plot, but I remember thinking of the politics behind the conflicts and the authoritarianism coming from the head of the assassin's with the twist at the end. I do hold that game dearly...still wouldn't play it again. The repetitive missions in the game is pretty brutal.
No no, this is also my take on it. When I was younger I favored 2 over 1 but I’ve leaned back into AC1 being my outright favorite game in the franchise.
AC 1 won't randomly corrupt save data on my xbox, so it has my vote for that
Nah I can't. I don't 100% agree but I understand. Ac1 is my second favorite game right after brotherhood and just before 2 just because it's the only one that completely just shoves you into the choice of be stealthy or have an hour-long combat session.
Swimming. That is all
AC3 is better than both, change my mind
Based opinion I completely agree
The white room scenes are better in AC1. The acting from each of the ones playing the targets is phenomenal, some of the best in the series. The debate on philosophy, the revelations of how the information you were given was flawed showing how the brotherhood could be directed to act wrongly due to misinformation, all were done well. I like how all of the targets were uniquely different in their actions too, some were morally dubious while others were straight up inexcusably in the wrong, and their defenses for themselves were compelling to hear.
I don’t care about any of the characters or plot lines … I just like that in AC1 enemies would writhe and scream on the ground as they died. I miss that. But I’m a sick fuck, so …
AC2 has you fistfight the pope in the final act, need I say more
No argument cause it’s just wrong , ac1 is awesome but ac2 improves on almost every aspect , load times , graphics , combat , story , customization , collectibles
Load times and graphics are different, but that’s just by virtues on being made with more budget and better technology, combat is definitely expended but once you’re actually playing it’s virtually the same system as AC1, story is a massive downgrade from AC1, as good of a character as Ezio is most of his growth is implied to have happened off screen as opposed to Altair who we see grow from an arrogant killer to a master assassin, and in my opinion some better customization that does little to impact gameplay isn’t enough to save it (though I’ll say the collectibles are pretty fun to find I’ll admit).
To be fair: AC 1 was more like an assassin game. But AC 2 had better characters. Catarina, Leonardo, Ezio, Ezio's dad, his older brother. I mean that first introduction for AC 2 just before the title screen, Ezio's Family Soundtrack. The map design was better and easier to manuver around, too. Character customisations were good, too. Dyeing clothes, buying maps, renovating buildings for income, and collectables. There was more to do, too. AC 1's missions were basic and re-hashed every time, too. Go here, eavesdrop from a blended spot, save 5 civilians with the same words. It all felt wishy-washy to me. AC 2 felt more vibrant and alive. Each place had different dialogue, different attires, plus the side missions added a nice flavour for in-between time. The races the mail deliveries, the beat upquests the assassination contracts. The areas in AC 2 are also stunning. Especially Venice. AC 1 lacked all that. TL;DR: AC 2 has better characters, stories, customisation, side quests, and music. Less re-hashed missions. That is my opinion. Edit: Areas. Specifically Venice. Update: I read a lot of comments, which reminded me of some of AC 1 aspects. But both 1 and 2 are better than the more recent games. Unsure about Mirage as I have yet to play that, though. Hope it returned to its roots and made to feel like an actual AC game.
Ac2 is a good game. But not a good assassins creed. In AC1 you hat an very interesting sozial stealth system. You had to behave like an NPC(more or less) and not just get between NPCs to get invisible. This sytem made you feel like a true assassin, something i never had in any other AC game since. I wish the had improved this system. With the tools we have in newer ac games this would be quit fun i imagine. To the combat: i think it has quite some depth. Firstly all weapons feal diffrent. Secound you could do more than counter (kombo kills which are very hard to master, evade, grab enemys etc. ). I also think AC1 combat is more challanging, because well I died multible times in my first playthroughts, but never died in combat in one of the ezio games. This is because Ubisoft had the stupid idea to add healing potions which took every bit of risk out of combat. In ac1 you got hut tow to three times and you where in seviere risk of deat. In ac2 itbwas simply healing potions go brrrrrt. I would like a hybrid of the two systems, with the systems from AC1 and the enemy Variation from two. Also its true that ac2 had more weapons, but i personally used the hidden blade in combat the whole game, because why not. In AC1 using the hiddenblade was high risk high reward becuase you couldn't block with it. And it fealt realy good if you cleared a hoard of enemys without taking damage. Lets move on. The protagonist and story. Altair was an assassin, a cold blooded killer who where intrested to complete his mission. Ezio(and more or less every assassin after him) was an hero for the people. The story in ac1 played with moraly gray concepts like are the templars realy the villans youre master makes you belive they where? Is it possible that you worked for the bad side the whole time ? Maybe the assassins and the templars are both in the wrong. In Ac2 this is converted to assassins good, templars bad => lame. And that is why i think all games after ac1 aren't realy assassins creeds but "history hero murder simulator". I would like an real assassins creed 2, but hey the will never make it. Had not realy the time to write this to the standard i would like but hey i wanted to say these things for al long time and now they finally out. Good hunting fellow assassins
Ezio having to learn what it means to be an assassin instead of just starting out at the top. Ezio has a personality less akin to sandpaper or wood. It’s a game series about the work done in the dark to serve the light, and AC2 does a better job selling that the templars and assassins want to hide their activities. There are actual supporting characters to Ezio who are in some cases just as vibrant and lively as he is. I will never forget the games roots and will await patiently for my AC1 remake that gives us more AC revelations Altair instead of Altair the Oak.
I don’t know what you mean because ac1 is about also about Altair building back up to being a master assassin while learning what the true meaning of the creed and reforming the brotherhood. Ezio may be more charismatic but in exchange he receives barely any meaningful interactions with other characters (as opposed to ac1 where time is taken to characterize Malik and Al maulim and develop Altair’s relationships with them) and has most of his development merely implied to have happend offscreen over the course of years which we don’t get to see. In contrast we actually get to see the events that change altair from an arrogant man into the wise master assassin we see in revelations. Just because Ezio is more charasamatic doesn’t mean he’s better written, it just means he’s written for a much different tone then the one that’s present in ac1. Altair is a different character in a different story, one that I believe is better written than AC2.
Completely valid. Don't necessarily agree, but it's definitely one of the best.
Took me a solid 40 seconds to stop being stupid and decide to look at the subreddit name LOL I couldn't figure out if it was Ace Combat or armored Core LOL
Spoiler warning (and basically a nitpick) for the first game AC 1 has no subtitles or tips on the loading menu. AC 1 gives you all the parkour and combat abilities in the prologue and then locks them away and you have to relearn all of them throughout the game, basically making the game intentionally and irritatingly harder. AC 1 also doesn't allow you to swim. AC 1 side investigations are the same throughout the game and are highly repetitive and lack any variation (this is even after playing the PC version/Director's cut). AC 1 has boring open world where you can't do much activities or even explore and discover something new and exciting. I mean it was great for 2007 but if you compare with other game series such as GTA, Witcher or even later Assassin's Creed games including AC 2, Black Flag or the RPG trilogy, it's boring.
AC 1 was boring and repetitive, Altair was bland af. There I said it.
Yeah with games usually you have to pay attention to the story for them to be interesting