Assassin's Creed Series: What to play, what I can skip...

So I finally sat down and played to completion, Assassin's Creed II. Now without spoilers please, I want to know if I can feasibly skip some of the entries in the series and move straight to the third, or perhaps even the forth. The simple reason being is that there are so many and are they really necessary in terms of story arc.

I'm aware that I'm a little behind the times but in my defense, there have been a ton of games on my list that have kept me occupied; ACII has been gathering dust in my collection since I bought it back in 2010. I should mention that I did complete the first AC when it came out, so I am up on the story, until the conclusion of the second game, so feel free to discuss the plot points in those games. Just mark it as a SPOILER but don't reveal anything about the newer sequels.

Thoughts?

Play AC Brotherhood and jump to black flag, then watch the revelations story in youtube or something.

I don't agree with Krelian on that one. I would play through I, II, Brotherhood, Revelations, and III before going on to IV. Some of the games on the side don't really matter as much (the games that are portable), unless you want a more complete picture of the story. Brotherhood and Revelations take you through the last two parts of Ezio's journey after the second one, so I recommend those as much as the ones before and after it.

Play all of them except III and that Liberation HD.

I agree

Play them all except 3 and Liberation those 2 are the worst and should be forgotten.

You can if you wish thou jump straight to Black flag, which isent really a Assassins creed game except in name and a few plots.

well i don't know i disliked more revelations that ac 3, the only thing that made me play it was to see ezio's and altair story ending.

Hmm, the problem with AC 3 was Connor, the guy was unlikeable poorly crafted and it was a pain to even play one min as him.

Compare that to Ezio who is probably one of the best and well-written characters in gaming history its hard to see Revelations as worse then AC3, the gameplay might be better in AC3 but it should be its a newer game, but for someone who plays it for the story Brotherhood, Revelations, 2 are almost one game and really shows the franchise from its best side.

Play Brotherhood next and than Ac Black flag.

Thank me later..

@elmeanno:

Agreed. I think you should do what these nice people said.

I believe AC3 is free for on PS +, so if you want to try it. Or you could just read up on it. I'd recommend you play Revelations (you don't have to though). Then Brotherhood! Then get AC5 if you like pirates and naval battles, a lot consider it the best AC game or 2nd best behind AC2.

Mr. Z~kun

play them all. they're all cheap now anyway

Skip all of them.The are terrible games.

@zjun: I managed to get a free copy of ACIII when I bought a new graphics card, but hadn't played it as I was still catching up on the earlier entries.

Thank you all for the comments; I think that I will give Brotherhood and Revelations a go. The newer ones aren't going anywhere and I have really enjoyed the story so far, so it would be a shame to miss out just to say I've played the newest sequel.

@ShepardCommandr: Everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, you could explain why you dislike them rather than just saying they're terrible.

Ya Call of Dogs and Battlebunny is much better right?

Skip Revelations and play all the others.

The overall plot isn't very good, so you could skip the first five games and go straight for Assassins Creed 4.

PLEASE, do NOT listen to anyone who tells you to skip AC3. That game gets way more crap than it deserves. Yeah, it's not perfect...... but it's not bad either, It's really good, just not great. People just like to shit on it because it wasn't PERFECT.

Here's my biased opinion:

Skip AC1, because it was a pile of unrealised promises.

Play AC2, because it was awesome.

Play Brotherhood, because it was amazing.

Skip Revelations, it added nothing new whatsoever.

Play AC3, up until you switch to Connor, then abandon.

Play Black Flag.

Skip all others, because I've never played. And if I didn't play them, why should you?

no game is perfect, but ac 3 was a bore fest

How? How is it REALLY any less of a game than all the others?

@Kevlar101: I'd comment on Assassins Creed 3 being boring, but I only got about 8 hours into the tutorial before giving up on it. I suppose it wouldn't be fair to judge a game until it actually begins.

AC1 is good just for the story, but I would not go all completions on it. Do whatever side missions you want, but if they get tedious (and they will) just go through the story for the narrative background, which will be important in later games. Or you could just YouTube all the cutscenes. (Assassin's Creed: The Movie)

Then I'd play AC2 for sure. Arguably it's the best game in the series. Great story, great Gameplay.

Then Brotherhood after that. A lot like 2, but with minions. And the setting and story are great.

If it were me, I'd probably then just watch all the cutscenes in Revelations. By this point, things really started to get stale in the Gameplay department, but the story was terrific. I think you can look on YouTube for "Revelations: The Movie" .

Then skip 3. It was bad. The story had interesting stuff in it, but also a lot of crap that disappointed. But I don't' recommend the Gameplay.

Then absolutely play Black Flag. Possibly the best game in the series, and a great story. Not as great as 2, but the Gameplay improvements were most welcome.

The ability to carry a bow in AC 3 was one of the coolest features AC ever had imo.

totally agree.

Please do NOT listen to this guy he clearly has a case of the opposite bug.

Noone likes AC3 because its absolute terrible. If you have to look for some positives it is the naval combat and some of the gameplay elements.

indeed it was, the axe was very cool too, combat was great and connor fight animations were also great, but the game was lack luster in many other areas.

Well, for one thing, it was designed by several teams who didn't communicate well together, resulting in the worse sense of cohesion the series has ever seen. The revolutionary setting was wasted with dull interactions with historical figures, the 100% completion was needlessly difficult relative to all other games in the series (certain side missions could be missed, making 100% completion impossible) and Connor was about as interesting as a bucket of hair. The ship component was welcome, but compared to Black Flag it was linear, limited and mired with needlessly obtuse secondary requirements. The 'homestead' and economic system was also needlessly complex and ultimately pointless. Hunting was similarly a fool's errand. So yeah, it was a whole lot different than the other games... so much less polished on every level. It came out right before the whole Mayan end of the world thing with a promise of saving the world only to get mired by some asinine space alien sub plot at the end. Better to just watch the cutscenes and skip right to Black Flag. I liked Haytham, though... he was like the Revolutionary Don Draper.

Indeed.

@donalbane: Well, there is one thing I must say.........AC3 certainly was not the game it was promised to be.

HOWEVER.....I do think that Black Flag was indeed the game that AC3 was promised to be.

I'd recommend anyone who's starting the whole thing to go the route i'm taking: AC1-AC3-AC2 trilogy-AC4.

AC3 did have a few spoilers for some parts of the ezio saga but nothing that'll ruin it. I'm in the middle of 2 right now and though i know where the Desmond storyline is headed, the renaissance era part is still unfolding.

Playing AC3 after 1 makes you appreciate the gameplay mechanics adjustments, various side game types, and the challenge of trying for 100%sync (I wouldn't recommend this unless you're waiting for a price-drop on the AC2 trilogy, and the release of AC4 like I was). Playing it before AC2 makes you appreciate Ezio's character even more. A bit of patience and suspension of disbelief helps too.

Also, at this point, I personally think that Connor's character isn't as lousy as Desmond.

I don't understand the hate for Assassin's Creed 3. Maybe it's because Assassin's Creed 3 was the first Assassin's Creed game that I played, but I really loved it. I tried playing Assassin's Creed 2 after and could not really get into it because the controls felt more clunky than in Assassin's Creed 3.

You can safely skip all of of the games, since the plot is meandering and pointless and never goes anywhere, and the gameplay is pure monotony.

Assassin's Creed II, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag > All you need if you want satisfactory gameplay :) But to understand Assassin's Creed II beginning, you have to play the first one or you can just go look up the summary in wikipedia or watch a video.

Ya, i have the feeling you are right

But the problem was also Connor, he is without a doubt the absolute worst AC protagonist and probably sits at the top of the all time worst game characters so far

Its pretty much opposite of Black Flag where it felt like a bore going out of the animus and the plot there was just weak and uninteresting and the "employee nr 900 random dude" was just bad.

Play 'Assassin's Creed II', 'Brotherhood', 'Assassin's Creed III' and 'Assassin's Creed IV'