Assassin's Creed: The Past, The Present and The Future.

In the year 2007, a game was released. It wasn't hyped much. People were excited but no one was giving it the limelight unlike a recent game being called the 'COD Killer'. Like seriously everywhere you look its Titanfall, but getting back to the point. Assassin's Creed was released and only after it was released did people realize that this game can be big, and I mean really BIG!

I remember the first time I played AC. My friend had bought it and only then did I even hear about it. Yes, I was that clueless about it. I never knew that this game would become my all time favourite. I played, and I played and I played. It was amazing. I felt like I was in that world, immersed completely. Obviously it had flaws. The eavesdropping before each assassination, the trailing, etc. It got kind of repetitive but the main missions were different enough to make me continue. This game had elements that no other game had shown before. Parkour, Hidden Blades, Huge Cities. It was a game changer.

Then came the most memorable, the most amazing, the most unbelievable game I have come across - ASSASSIN'S CREED II.

It had everything AC had but larger and better. City sizes that I thought weren't possible in a game. 2 HIDDEN BLADES. Italy, Leonardo Da Vinci! From the start to the end I loved the game. From the flaws to the things that made the game one of the best I've ever played. I still get goosebumps every time I begin a new story in ACII and watch the game title show up with the background music. OH MY GOD! I'm getting goosebumps just writing about it. This has to be my favourite Assassin's Creed game.

In 2010-2011, Ubisoft released AC: Brotherhood and AC: Revelations. Both an extension of the story of Ezio(the protagonist of ACII). These games included new game mechanics. Some a hit, others a miss. The new settings(especially Constantinople) were a breath of fresh air. Both the games were good, maybe even better than ACII but in my opinion, the way the second game touched me, non of these did.

Till now the franchise was going strong. People were more or less happy with what was being produced. Some complaints about the confusing story were being raised. Some said that the story wasn't making sense, others said that Ubi doesn't have a story and are just putting things in as they go along.

Then came the year 2012, the year in which Ubisoft just f****d it.(IMO). Assassin's Creed III. The American Revolution. Native Americans vs The British. Sounds good but the way it was executed made me cry. Good bye cities and hello stupid ass forests where you can fight bears. Yes bears. You gives a rats behind about fighting bears. No doubt the map was large, no wait, extremely large but majority of it was just grassland and wilderness. Even the cities were low-rise and nothing to behold. I know that the setting chosen had to be this because, well, America was being built that time but come on Ubi. Bears! Thats what you come up with? Easier fighting, an uninteresting character and still 2 hidden blades, made this game, the game I like the least in the whole franchise(Only the major releases, no add-ons or stupid additions like liberation). Even the Trilogy ending was a disappointment. A very big one I might add.

Ubi recovered some pride in 2013 with the launch of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. Better than its predecessor but couldn't beat ACII or ACBH or ACR. Better graphics, decent enough story and better fighting made this game a step up from ACIII. They even added multiple pistols. One thing that I got sick of in the game was water, Too much water. I know, Pirates=Water, but still. Too much freakin' water!! Enough with the ships. Bring back land!

And they did. The recently released "trailer" was Assassin's Creed: Unity confirms that we will be back on land. French Land to be precise. And its looking good. No other information was released but from the "trailer" it seems Ubi is finally thinking straight. Lets just hope that they get the story right this time. And one more thing Ubi, please NO BEARS!

*All images used are the property of their rightful owners. I do not own any of the images used in the article above.

You and everyone else's criticisms of the wilderness in AC3 is painfully misplaced. It makes me sick. Of course you will find bears! What did you expect to find? Elves?? Leprechauns???

Jesus?????

Anyway, back to my point. I enjoy all the AC games. Yes, all of them. I like AC1, I really like AC2, I like Brotherhood and Revelations, I really like AC3, I love Black Flag.

Revelations and AC3 were a bit disappointing, yes, but I don't let myself hate them for that like others do. I see the flaws they have, but I also see the good as well. I understand the flaws, wish they weren't there, but still appreciate what good there is.

Black Flag however renewed my faith that the series can make a badass game again.

As much as I do love the naval portions, I do not want to see them in Unity. The naval portions may work, but there is no reason to abuse it. Let each game have it's own flavor. If Unity has some forced, shoehorned naval mechanic in it... it will detract from the game big time. Let Black Flag have the glory of naval, and leave it at that.

I do have a nagging suspicion that Arno (if that really is the protagonists name) will be a bore, but it's just a feeling that I have. Take it with a grain of salt.

I love the setting, looks freaking fantastic. Then again, I have loved all the settings. They depict this stuff exceptionally well.

I do with they would slow down a bit, but hey.... it could still be amazing.

All in all, I am quite excited for the fifth chapter of the Assassins' Creed series.

@Kevlar101: Im not dissing the franchise. I love it! Its my favourite. All I'm saying is that ACIII was the worst OF THE LOT not the whole world. Agreed that each should have its own thing going on but IMO I wasnt into the naval battles in ACIII. Black Flag had to have them. Plus nothing against bears but come on, If i wanted to go hunting i wound buy deer hunt simulator or something. I want to be an assassin, not a assassin whose hobbies include roaming in forests killing small creatures who haven't done anything.

I wasn't angry, I was mostly kidding around :P but I still meant what I said. Besides, at least in Black Flag, hunting had a meaningful purpose. Even in AC3, there were these "Item" quests.

But, at any rate, I would prefer it if Unity stuck to just Paris, and doesn't try to put too much emphasis on a wilderness area.

But, there are three questions that I ask myself about this:

#1: Will there be a wilderness/countryside location in Unity?

#2: Do I even want a wilderness/countryside location in Unity?

#3: Would a wilderness/countryside location even work in Unity?

These are rhetorical questions btw, but I would be interested in hearing your opinions on this matter about whether or not Unity should have a countryside location....

I hope that the cities are the major location with wilderness as an optional place to explore. Similar to the first game where cities had this huge expanse between them which you could explore or just skip through(at least skip it after going through it once) :P

I have been fan of AC since the release of the first one, but I have two things to say:

1-the story of the first AC was the best (IMO) and I think the reason they changed it, is to be able to connect the many games they planned to release after the first one succeeded.

2- ACIII wasn't that bad, but hunting in that game was really, I mean really, bad, QTE that was implemented in hunting really ruined it, and they could have been better leaving you kill animals as you please.

I've only played the first 2 and, though, 2 is good, it lacks so many of the great concepts of 1.

there is a greatness to the first game when played without a hud (as originally designed) and truly being an investigative assassin where eagle vision and the entire concept of synchronization makes sense and ties the whole game together.

creed2 added many elements that are undeniable handholding and gave an overall sense of dumbing-down. for me, it simply got too big, too quick and succumbed to the useless fluff often associated with modern games.

interestingly, I am a little over half way through another replay of creed1, have turned off all hud elements and the great sense of detective killing has me having a blast again.

when I start creed2 again, I will do EVERYTHING I can to make it as hardcore as I can and see whether or not I still feel it got rid of, as well as, failed to further develop the aspects of creed 1 that are so innovative and superb.

AC1 is my favorite. Unfortunately, I rented it the month that it came out and never played it again. May I ask what you dislike about 2 and love about 1? I traded 2 in 2 years ago. AC1 missions had a more open feel to them. I think that it is just as you said, it had better concepts.

AC1 wasn't hyped? Riiiiiiiiight....

My memory isn't that perfect but I remember it being one of the more hyped original games people were anticipating.

Also, even though it became this huge franchise, I remember quite a few people thinking it was disappointing or overrated.

@lumzi32: What I meant by not hyped is that no one thought it would be that big and were like "meh, its alright." Nowadays some games are given the center of attention months before their release. I just think Assassin's Creed is one of those franchises that should be given the limelight. Much more that what its given. AC IS AWESOME!

@cooolio:

for me, creed2 completely screwed up the concepts that went along with "synchronization." the added health and armor goes against the entire concept of replaying a past memory and the fact that you actually die and then use the gameplay mechanic we call "checkpoints" shows they didn't understand why the rationale for synch checkpoints was so superb.

as well, the entire investigative recon that you do in creed1 is superb, though, repetitive. it all tied in with your added synch and "filling in" the blank memories. creed2 becomes a linear story that is forced upon you. this entire component of creed1 was unbelievably great and merely needed some innovative creativity in the sequel to get rid of the monotonous Sherlock holmes aspects, though, many of creed2 missions were just as repetitive and bland. however, detective work, as a concept, was great (especially when performed sans HUD) and the added info really did allow for better prep for the actual assassinations. doing more recon meant more synch and not simply more real in-game health as in creed2. also, eagle vision in creed1 had purpose and when combined with no hud I could instantly see that the devs designed the game around that component. creed2 gameplay without a hud did not play the smoothly, to say the least, lol.

combat: the combat in creed2 is too easy and less fun and intuitive. hand2hand still stinks. assassination planning (as opposed to run n gun) as a concept much more prevalent in creed1, as well. I love more options in combat, but, I want the implemented wisely and in a way that makes a game more sophisticated and difficult, not, gimmicky and easy. money and sidequests were meaningless fluff, just like the flags in creed1. however, the flags made sense and gave synch, while, these do not. creed2 returns the concept of "boss" fights, instead, of individual assassination attempts. (some you can't even kill at that time or use certain methods: unacceptable!)

codex pages: forced to find which, in turn, forces my complaint about the game being too easy. as well, the concept is completely ridiculous as tied to synch, which, the codex pages are, though, armor and medicine aren't. illogical.

replay: eliminated. no minimal runs. no low-health, increased difficulty runs. less open-world chaos runs. less options.

assassin means, for me, stealth and planning with freedom an actual, uh, assassination. not exactly core concepts of creed2, lol.

@ranbir_flame: I have enjoyed all of them more or less, i did find AC 1 and AC III not to be as good as the rest of the series. But that is besides the point. They are awesome games. And none of them are bad

I disagree AC3 was bad beyond bad, the gameplay was perhaps decent, but the story and Connor was just broken and terrible.

I didn't think the story was the biggest fall of the game, it was that the whole game design and level design was flawed. No progression and the wild had no purpose but to give you something to travel to outside of the cities

Completely different from my experience of the time.

The gameplay in Black Flag is identical to that of AC3...... yet, people who love Black Flag criticize AC3 for it's gameplay. This proves that AC3 haters have little validity.

It's story was actually damn good, probably the best in the series. Your hate for the game may have made you stop playing halfway through or just make you stop caring to pay attention, but the narrative pretty much challenges everything that we have known about AC, and if you had paid attention, you might have seen this. It's subjects of morality and "there is no good or evil" .... stuff like that. How the Assassins' are actually the "bad guys" , technically, but how both the Assassins and Templars fall into a moral grey area where neither side is actually doing morally good or bad things, how it's all relative. The subjects of loyalty and hypocrisy also drive the narrative in other areas. It's a story that actually trumps all the others by a mile.

Connor was boring...but not really TERRIBLE. I mean, there have been worse characters than Connor. At least he had a goal, right? Determination drives him.

Btw...Achilles made that game. Idc what anyone else says. Achilles is one of the best characters in the series.

I feel like I need to try out some other AC games but the first one was garbage and left a horrible taste in my mouth.

The gameplay in Black Flag is not identical to AC3, i played them both and they are defentialy not identical, they might be somewhat similar but in Black Flag it feels a hell of a lot more natural than in AC3. Also Ac3 haters? are you 3? its not like you cant go online and find 100 and 1000´s of posts and critics who all say the same thing AC3 was terrible and so far the worst game in the franchise.

And the story was weak, connor was weak and besides Eveline it was the weakest story of them all and Connor tops any list you can ever make of characters that never should have been made.

But hey its fine you love the disaster that is AC3 i and others dont hate it, hate is a strong word, but the game is clearly broken and was the worst in the series.

And for the record the best story in the franchise is Ezio and Altair.

You seem to be calling characters story....

Anyway. I feel like even the most stubborn of AC3 haters would be able to admit how strong and meaningful a character that Achilles was.

To me, AC2 was the best game of the franchise. Ezio was epic, so were the game mechanics. I loved the sword combat, and I loved every single time I completed a mission undetected.

AC:B was pretty good for a successor, but I think the story progressed too quickly, and I wasn't able to keep up.

AC:R gets bashed for no reason. Exploring Constantinople was awesome, and the combat was epic. Sure, it felt kind of dark, but it was fun.

AC3 gets a lot of hate for no reason. Yes, it was nothing compared to the other games, but it wasn't all that bad. Sure, the hunting part was poorly executed, and Connor was boring, but the combat was awesome, and Haytham was epic.

I liked that AC3 had wolves and bears. I just didn't like how they were so common and that you basically fought them with the same QTE over and over and over. Hunting should have been handled more like the big cats are in AC4, where you pretty much need a gun. Bears should have been all but impossible to kill.

I seem to be calling a story a story and in that story Connor is the main protagonist. A story that was badly written and didn't feel believable

And again with the AC3-haters? seriously are you 5 and have mistaken this debate for a system wars fanboyism-debate.

Are you daft and just missing the fact that I am just asking you to give me your honest opinion of Achilles?

@Kevlar101: Achilles was the strongest character of ACIII. Which also is that problem(IMO) because he isn't the main character of the game. I believe that Connor should have been made better, much better actually. In Black Flag, Edward was a very good character but I wasn't able to connect to him the same way I did with Ezio and Altair. He fit the story obviously but I never got a feeling that he wanted to be an Assassin till nearer to the end of the story. In AC, you want to play as an Assassin not a guy who wants to loot all the time and make money. Again, just saying that Edward was a good fit for the story and not a bad character but feels odd for the franchise.

I would love to see an AC game set during the American civil war. Not just for the opportunity of branching family trees during one of the most racially tense periods in American history, but also because there has yet to be a game that does that war justice.

Anyone heard of Assassin's Creed: Brahman? Story seems stupid but the guy looks pretty cool.

And if you would have acted like anything but a 5year old fanboy i would have answered you.

But Davenport was a good side-character but he was a side dish to a rotten main dish Connor, and unless your game was different then mine, it was connor who you played. But thats all he was a sidecharacter.

I agree about Davenport. And yes the problem with

And yep thats why Black Flag was not a AC game but any other thing then its name and the animus, but opposite AC3 Black Flag was a amazing story of self-discovery and about a kid who became a man and a assassin. So its kinda like a prequel to a AC game.

I really hope Ubisoft gets back on track with the franchise. They have taken a small step in the right direction with Black Flag. Now its time for a leap.(In the right direction that is) :P

Yep same here, but it looks like Unity might be, as long as they dont make a giant mistake like with Eveline and Connor.

@Jacanuk: True....True.

well, speaking about creeds past I just finished creed1 for the third time. I played it with no hud all the way through (no music, sound effects at max) and all I can say is that I had a blast and the game was again fantastic. unbelievable intuitiveness and free-flow movement and combat.

I had such a great time doing all the investigations with the eagle eye and never cheating. ever. I had an amazing sense of satisfaction finding all targets and planning my missions carefully. very rewarding on those tough informer assassination missions.

the story was great (I didn't search for flags at all) and I found myself actually paying attention and wanting to get the next bit. and, as some may know, i'm not a story guy, lol.

I went for stealth assassinations on every target that I could and just let myself die If I got caught. playing this way let me really get to know the layout of each city. I knew landmarks and side-streets and became my own gps by merely getting a topside view.

a true stealth, investigative, assassination game that made me think, plan and pay attention. I think creed1 is one of the most underrated (not total sales) games available. it is a game that with a few tweaks could have been legendary.

now, i'm off to replay 2, which, I did not even come close to liking as much as the first on my first playthrough. I thought it was unbelievably dumbed-down and became full of fluff for fluff's sake and lost its way as far as gameplay and its reasoning. it attempted to add more for more's sake. yet, suffered because of it. tbh, I find lots of similarities between it and my disdain for masseffect 2.

however, I am going into this play with a blank opinion slate and I will be trying to make it as hardcore a playthrough as I can.

i'm off.....

I keep buying/playing these games waiting for the Japanese/Ancient Egypt histories/characters.

I have a pretty good feeling Ubisoft, will, eventually get around to them. Or one atleast. Then I'm done. (satisfied)

to the op- assassin's creed was a very hyped game and one of the most talked about games of its time. tv, newspapers, gaming and non-gaming websites. it was not critically acclaimed as an overall game when it was released, except, for the control scheme and world and received less than stellar reviews.

@udubdawgz1: what I meant to say was I've had enough of titanfall everywhere. Assassins creed should have gotten that much coverage. (Not saying titanfall is bad in anyway though. )

@ranbir_flame:

gotcha. personally, I've watched/read a total of one (1) lol, article about titanfall. wake me up if it releases a single-player version.

My experience with the Assassin's Creed games consist of being bored to tears and really frustrated with the controls.

First time I played AC1 my friend lent it to me. After doing 4-5 sequences of the same thing over and over again (eves dropping, collecting flags etc.) I got bored and never played it again.

My friend then lent me ACB. I got to the Colosseum chase before I got bored and frustrated. The story was slow to the point it seemed to never progress and when trying to jump in one direction I'd end up jumping off a ledge and have to do it all again.

I then played AC3 through PlayStation Plus (EU). Oh my god. Got to sequence 10 before I deleted it. Had a great chance to be a revenge story but screwed it up so bad. Same frustrating control scheme, and I noticed how aged the gameplay was by then. Why can't Connor sneak up to someone but decides to crouch ever so slightly in a bush?

I dislike the series a lot and I don't have a lot of respect for yearly released games.

Agreed. Publishers should take time to make the next installment of their game. Making money is usually whats all in their mind. Gamers would be better of waiting for two years between games rather than having the same game with better graphics and a few tweaks every year.