Comments on: Review | Assassin’s Creed II

By: Christos Reid

Christos Reid — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 20:10:35 +0000

Have now played the entire game, and I have to agree, you do find yourself using fast-travel later on, though I did ride around occasionally for the sheer enjoyment of the horse-riding. At the moment, finding feathers and glyphs. Game of the year, for me.

By: andy

andy — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:02:26 +0000

i agree, whats the point of having a massive world and jumping from place to place just to save time

By: Mike Suskie

Mike Suskie — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:30:16 +0000

Lewis: My own review will be up on HG shortly (Jason seemed pretty eager to get it posted), and hopefully that will address your concerns. Was it the narrative you found pretentious, or the design itself? I’d say “interesting premise, but handled poorly” applies to pretty much every aspect of the original game, whereas AC2 in my mind hits all of the right notes.

I disagree with the assertion that nothing’s changed, to the point that I think it does an injustice to all of the complaints Ubisoft addressed in the sequel. The mechanics are mostly unchanged, but were they ever the problem? For me, it was the monotonous, unimaginative design the turned me off the original AC, whereas I finished AC2 a couple of days ago and I STILL want to go back and play it right now. It’s honestly one of the best sequels I’ve ever played, because it rights nearly all of the wrongs of its predecessor without undermining the elements that make THIS franchise distinct from any other.

By: DH

DH — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:00:31 +0000

The fact still remains however that when you put it up next to a majority of other titles, it is a better looking game, with better game play. I would play this any day over the clunky and dated gameplay of L4D2, which for all intents and purposes, is the same game…and just awful.

By: Greg Giddens

Greg Giddens — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:29:33 +0000

I make mention of the villa and the economy involved with the renovations but you right in saying I didn’t mention the weapons upgrade system, mainly because although it sounds like a great addition, it didn’t really effect the game in any tangible way. Combat remained the same regardless of weapon and although health was upgraded along with armour, it still didn’t matter that much because your enemies didn’t have a clue how to hit you.

Thanks for the support with the score guys, I genuinely can’t understand why so many other publications are scoring it so high. Don’t get me wrong it’s still good, but not enough has changed.

By: Greg Giddens

Greg Giddens — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:20:46 +0000

I think you’ll enjoy this one a little more than the first one Lewis. As far as “brick-wall-fist-in-mouth nonsense” goes (awesome phrase by the way) the narrative whilst inside the Animus is much better, and much more very believable, a lot of effort seems to have gone into it this time around, but it’s still based on the same core elements of the original, so with you disliking the first one it’s hard to recommend this one.

By: Christos Reid

Christos Reid — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:50:36 +0000

I’m curious as to why you didn’t mention his villa. I thought having a customisable mission hub and upgradeable weapons was a big, much-needed addition to the game, with the pointless weapon choices of the first relegating most players to the sword fairly rapidly.

I also think the fast-travel system should be removed altogether. I understand it’s convenient for a lot of people, but I don’t understand players who want an open-world game environment and then refuse to actually travel through it. Why have it open world? Why not simply have linear levels instead? The two wants/needs contradict eachother, I think.

I grabbed this at the duty-free on Saturday, and I’m due to play through it tomorrow, so we’ll see how it plays out, but I commend you for being honest. I played the original countless times and loved it, personally, and I look forward to seeing it again, but thank you for not following the IGN route and giving it a nine whilst saying it has a long way to go. Nice writing, Greg :).

By: Lewis Denby

Lewis Denby — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:46:19 +0000

I deeply disliked the first game. Found it to be more pretentious and inpenetrable than any art game you care to offer. How’s this one in the brick-wall-fist-in-mouth nonsense stakes?

By: Daniel Lipscombe

Daniel Lipscombe — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:59:28 +0000

I agree with Greg 100% on this review.

One of the things that has been bothering me since I got a few hours into the game was how everyone else (other sites) have rated it 9’s and 10’s, these being the same sites that rated the first game poorly. Yet hardly anything has changed!

I’m a huge fan of the series, having finished the first game on four separate occasions and other than it being set in Italy, having a few more collectibles and better construction in the story, it’s the same game. While not really a bad thing, it has had me confused on reviews, but Greg nailed exactly what I was thinking.

By: Nice

Nice — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:58:26 +0000

Wow! Someone didn’t have time to play this game properly, then.