How much of an improvement is Brotherhood over Assassins Creed 2?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by biggest_loser (24029 posts) -

How much of an improvement is Brotherhood over Assassins Creed 2?

Say if I thought that AC2 got a little repetitive towards the end and was too long should I hold off playing Brotherhood?

Or is there enough variety to go around again! :D

#2 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

I wouldn't, because it still continues the story with Ezio and Desmond, so there's some revelations to be discovered in Brotherhood.

The combat is a bit too easy, but there's variety in the missions and there's a lot to do, such as rebuilding Rome and getting the best equipment. It's gonna take awhile, that's for sure.

#3 Posted by g4m8l3r (86 posts) -
Its much the same as AC2... Both are still pretty fun to play though. If anything i find the original AC to be the least favorite for me out of the three titles. Lucky for you Brotherhood is fairly cheap and is worth playing if you want to continue the story on and stay in touch with the events leading up to the newest release.
#4 Posted by foxhound_fox (87693 posts) -
If ACII is a 100% improvement over AC, then Brotherhood is an 80% improvement over ACII. Rome is a little less creative in terms of design and layout, but the combat is massively better, the mission variety is increased, the story is better and there is multiplayer (which I never even touched). It might not be worth full price, but I was more than justified paying $40.
#5 Posted by Legendaryscmt (12532 posts) -

I thought it was more of a step to the side than a step above. Not saying it's bad, but the leap is no where near as big as AC to AC2 was.

#6 Posted by adam1808 (264 posts) -

If you loved the gameplay and open world stuff of AC2 then Brotherhood is definitely worth the price of admission. There is literally monstrous levels of content and it's all nicely varied and interesting, the gameplay is the smoothest and most enjoyable it has ever been actually and Ubisoft have finally nailed the controls this time. If you only appreciate AC for the story then stay away as it's just filler with some nonsensical happenstances near the end. It's just the culmination of the AC gameplay formula, not a realisation of its creative potential

#7 Posted by foxhound_fox (87693 posts) -
but the leap is no where near as big as AC to AC2 was.Legendaryscmt
Very few games ever leap *that* far. The only other one I can think of as comparable this gen was Forza Motorsport 2 to 3.
#8 Posted by brucecambell (1572 posts) -

More enemy types,tons of mission types [ literally the map is scattered with endless missions ], rebuilding rome, more weapons, horse back riding anwhere,fast travel, can replay any mission any time, virtual training missions, multiplayer, combat is much improved

The 1st thing that really jumps at me is the improved combat. AC2 was more of a hack & slash game while AC:BH really makes you a badass. Killstreaks give you the ability to chain together multiple quick kills. Instead of hacking & slashing at 10enemeis for 10 minutes you can kill 10 enemies in 10 seconds. Kicks allow you to break a enemies guard.

The game is as lengthy as AC2 but has more replay value. No more constantly being taken out of the animus, if you want to stay in the animus for most of the game you can. The story & characters arent as interesting as AC2 but if you love AC then there is no dissapointment.

If your looking for gameplay changes there arent a lot but sequels arent about gameplay changes, they're about making a better game. For the most part ACBH is a better game technically speaking but most believe AC2 is a better game for its story, pacing & variety. Its pretty cheap now so its definitely a beefy game worth your money.

#9 Posted by Overlord93 (12602 posts) -
It's good, and has some fun new features, but I'd call it more of a spin off than a sequel.
#10 Posted by JustPlainLucas (73596 posts) -
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If ACII is a 100% improvement over AC, then Brotherhood is an 80% improvement over ACII. Rome is a little less creative in terms of design and layout, but the combat is massively better, the mission variety is increased, the story is better and there is multiplayer (which I never even touched). It might not be worth full price, but I was more than justified paying $40.

Pretty much it. Plus, I'm not a multiplayer person, but I loved playing Brotherhood's MP.
#11 Posted by biggest_loser (24029 posts) -
Thanks for sharing everyone! Some of these answers were very helpful! :D
#12 Posted by Am_Confucius (3376 posts) -
[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If ACII is a 100% improvement over AC, then Brotherhood is an 80% improvement over ACII. Rome is a little less creative in terms of design and layout, but the combat is massively better, the mission variety is increased, the story is better and there is multiplayer (which I never even touched). It might not be worth full price, but I was more than justified paying $40.

Sorry, what? The combat was worse than ever in Brotherhood. The problem is that the main character gets more ways to attack and defend in each game, but the guards aren't stronger.
#13 Posted by Metamania (11971 posts) -

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If ACII is a 100% improvement over AC, then Brotherhood is an 80% improvement over ACII. Rome is a little less creative in terms of design and layout, but the combat is massively better, the mission variety is increased, the story is better and there is multiplayer (which I never even touched). It might not be worth full price, but I was more than justified paying $40.JustPlainLucas
Pretty much it. Plus, I'm not a multiplayer person, but I loved playing Brotherhood's MP.

The MP was certainly a breath of fresh air. Too bad I couldn't get into a lot of matches, due to the servers...

#14 Posted by lamprey263 (23180 posts) -
it's an improvement only in game mechanics, such as having assassins that will come to your aid when you call for them, as a game it's a big step down, in AC2 you played in several large cities, in AC2.5 (AKA "Brotherhood") you only get one big city to play in, there are times you travel to another city but only in a small linear mission capacity, it's short and the first and last two sequences were horribly rushed
#15 Posted by Elann2008 (32953 posts) -
To me it's a major improvement, and this was when I thought AC2 was a huge improvement over AC1 (which was average). ACB is a masterpiece. Brilliant game, imho.
#16 Posted by foxhound_fox (87693 posts) -
Sorry, what? The combat was worse than ever in Brotherhood. The problem is that the main character gets more ways to attack and defend in each game, but the guards aren't stronger.Am_Confucius
You say that as if the combat was actually hard at some point. The only times I've ever died in AC games is jumping too far or missing a ledge grab.
#17 Posted by Funky_Connor (417 posts) -

Not a huge one but in terms of gameplay I think it's the better game. You need to play this game if you are gonna get Revelations because Desmond's story... woah.

#18 Posted by blueboxdoctor (2397 posts) -

I thought Brotherhood was better. Having just 1 city allowed for a more focused game IMO. There was still plenty to do in terms of sidequests, but the overall story seemed to move faster if that's the aspect of the game you're most interested in (and you can do the sidequests after the main story if you want to go back). The only annoying part was the online only trophies/achievements, but the game itself is very good. I was surprised how many adjustments/additions they threw in there that actually made it a better game.

#19 Posted by contracts420 (1956 posts) -

[QUOTE="foxhound_fox"]If ACII is a 100% improvement over AC, then Brotherhood is an 80% improvement over ACII. Rome is a little less creative in terms of design and layout, but the combat is massively better, the mission variety is increased, the story is better and there is multiplayer (which I never even touched). It might not be worth full price, but I was more than justified paying $40.Am_Confucius
Sorry, what? The combat was worse than ever in Brotherhood. The problem is that the main character gets more ways to attack and defend in each game, but the guards aren't stronger.

What are you talking about? Sure the combat is easier but that only adds to the feeling of being a total bad***. I don't feel that the enemies need to get stronger. Not every game needs to be about difficulty. All it really does is speed up the combat. Instead of waiting for the enemy to attack and counter, now you just counter one enemy and string a bunch of kills together. Same deal, just quicker is all.

#20 Posted by Canvas_Of_Flesh (4052 posts) -
I thought AC2 was great. I was fairlyy dissappointed by Brotherhood though. I'm not sure if I was just tired of Ezio's story or if the game itself just felt a bit rushed. Sure, there was quite a bit to due, but most of it just felt like padding. I had a hard time pushing myself to finish it, but I had to find out how the story developed. I was somewhat disparaged to hear that Ezio would again be in the installment, so I think I'll wait for a lower price on Revelations.