04-10-2013, 08:05 AM
The Assassin's Creed series.
I gave the games a chance, because the first one wasn't that bad. I beat and then thought of ways they could improve the game overall, making the experience more fun rather than just this dull linear point A to point B, kill target X thing. Then, the sequel came out. It was...ok. I thought they improved on the combat, but the story was still dull and pretty linear. Then they decided to whore out Ezio for two more games for no reason. AND THEN the third (though really the fifth) game came out. Just no. All of my no. They made the story completely batshit stupid, more so than the previous games, which that in itself is an accomplishment, but not one to proud of. They also took away the one aspect of the game that was kinda fun: free-running. By putting the character in an environment that does not have a bunch of houses or interesting buildings placed so close to each other, it limits the ability to run on the rooftops and have fun. I mean, sure, the towns had houses next to each other, an the wilderness had trees, but it's not the same. In AC2, everywhere you went, there was a way to climb the rooftops and spend all day running atop all the buildings. In AC3, you can only do that in certain towns, and even then, the buildings do not look very interesting. And now, they're making another game based entirely around the one aspect of AC3 they kinda got right: ship combat.
The worst part about the whole series, though, is the main character. Desmond is the most uninteresting guy I've ever had the misfortune of playing as. He is so boring, and his segments take away from the parts of the games you actually like. No one plays the games for Desmond, because he does nothing. Almost every plot point was discovered in the past, not in Desmond's time. He's just kinda useless to the story. If they had taken away Desmond and taken out the stupid alien bs, the games would be more tolerable.
And then we have the 'war' between the Assassins and the Templars. In the first game, the Templars were kinda understandable, as you could see their point of view on how the human race is too violent and chaotic and needs someone in control of them. That's perfectly understandable, but of course they have questionable methods, which makes them kinda the bad guys. But then AC2 came out and the Templars were magically changed into this organization that is hellbent on controlling and subjugating the entire planet in order to rule the world. Why were they changed? Why? And of course the Assassins weren't changed. They were and still are the 'good guys' who believe humans should be free to do whatever they want, and any form of authority is seen as evil and automatically corrupt.
I gave the games a chance, because the first one wasn't that bad. I beat and then thought of ways they could improve the game overall, making the experience more fun rather than just this dull linear point A to point B, kill target X thing. Then, the sequel came out. It was...ok. I thought they improved on the combat, but the story was still dull and pretty linear. Then they decided to whore out Ezio for two more games for no reason. AND THEN the third (though really the fifth) game came out. Just no. All of my no. They made the story completely batshit stupid, more so than the previous games, which that in itself is an accomplishment, but not one to proud of. They also took away the one aspect of the game that was kinda fun: free-running. By putting the character in an environment that does not have a bunch of houses or interesting buildings placed so close to each other, it limits the ability to run on the rooftops and have fun. I mean, sure, the towns had houses next to each other, an the wilderness had trees, but it's not the same. In AC2, everywhere you went, there was a way to climb the rooftops and spend all day running atop all the buildings. In AC3, you can only do that in certain towns, and even then, the buildings do not look very interesting. And now, they're making another game based entirely around the one aspect of AC3 they kinda got right: ship combat.
The worst part about the whole series, though, is the main character. Desmond is the most uninteresting guy I've ever had the misfortune of playing as. He is so boring, and his segments take away from the parts of the games you actually like. No one plays the games for Desmond, because he does nothing. Almost every plot point was discovered in the past, not in Desmond's time. He's just kinda useless to the story. If they had taken away Desmond and taken out the stupid alien bs, the games would be more tolerable.
And then we have the 'war' between the Assassins and the Templars. In the first game, the Templars were kinda understandable, as you could see their point of view on how the human race is too violent and chaotic and needs someone in control of them. That's perfectly understandable, but of course they have questionable methods, which makes them kinda the bad guys. But then AC2 came out and the Templars were magically changed into this organization that is hellbent on controlling and subjugating the entire planet in order to rule the world. Why were they changed? Why? And of course the Assassins weren't changed. They were and still are the 'good guys' who believe humans should be free to do whatever they want, and any form of authority is seen as evil and automatically corrupt.