Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/05/05/assassins-creed-brotherhood-placeholder-art-spotted-at-gamestop/

Sounds interesting for a spin-off.

Not sure how multiplayer will work though.

Game looks amazing. And multiplayer is a nice touch to an already great franchise.

The original was pretty good but had some annoying elements (Like the beggars.)

The second fixed most of those problems and was a very good game. Didn't like the ending though.

Eh... Assasain's Creed felt so repetetive... even with the second one...

It lacks the openness and variety of quests in an RPG and while the fighting is very well done, it is always the same. Most of the time, it just amounts to blocking and striking back.

Assasain's Creed has so much potential... but it just doensn't fulfill it. When I played the first one, I thought for a bit that they were building a great RPG... and just gave up and published it with just the main quest and starting weapons/armor/etc.

I can't do another AC unless it make some major advances.

It was never supposed to be an RPG.

It was more about assassinations and planning the kill, then getting out of dodge before they took you down.

Think Medieval Hitman and you've got the basic premise they were going for.

Hitman was an awesome game and movie. Sorry I never played either AC but I heard it was good.

Assassins Creed was, as Civ already said, repetative. The missions when you go into cities were... the same. The combat was fun at first, but got boring and I wondered why they didn't just zerg rush altair rather than making a knitting circle around him.

Indecisive One. wrote:Hitman was an awesome game and movie. Sorry I never played either AC but I heard it was good.

The Hitman games are okay and the movie was absolute shit.

Vigil wrote:It was never supposed to be an RPG.

It was more about assassinations and planning the kill, then getting out of dodge before they took you down.

Think Medieval Hitman and you've got the basic premise they were going for.

That's exactly what I was hoping for too. The problem was they didn't make it nearly complex enough in terms of assassinations. It was usually run into the general area and stab their face then run away from a panic. I wanted more sneaky sneaky dammit.

Great freerunning openworlder though. The best maybe.

Yeah.

My best kill was when I moved up with a pack of monks as they inspected the damned. I then lunged out and stabbed him beore he knew what was happening.

The rest were rinse and repeat.

Yah... I think the system for Assassin's Creed would make an amazing RPG if it had the other elements included. A better economy, a decent item management system, and some more (better developed) quests and "guilds" would make the game a thing of beauty.

Gauz wrote:Assassins Creed was, as Civ already said, repetative. The missions when you go into cities were... the same. The combat was fun at first, but got boring and I wondered why they didn't just zerg rush altair rather than making a knitting circle around him.

Someone needs to go play Assassin's Creed 2.

Gauz wrote:Assassins Creed was, as Civ already said, repetative. The missions when you go into cities were... the same. The combat was fun at first, but got boring and I wondered why they didn't just zerg rush altair rather than making a knitting circle around him.

^This!
I found it amazingly boring.
And I found myself with such a lack of motivation before anything had even happened.
Plus, it had the gayest tutorial in existence, ever!

Despite what I have said about the franchise I am anticipating this greatly

Yes, the first was a 'tad' repetitive, but the second did mostly a good job to fix that. What I give them credit for is making something new. It's not another war game. The combat is unique and the free-running/parkour is fun as hell. I can only hope this game expands on all that is good about the series.

As for the multiplayer, we'll see how that goes. Personally I think it has potential, but i'm not going to just assume that it's gonna be the next best thing. I am looking forward to it though.


that is all.

I still think it needs more RPG. Even more than AC2.

Also, some options with assassinations would be nice. Let the player actually gather information and plan the kill rather than just following directions.

The game has a lot going for it, but it all seems to fall short when the actual kills come around.

The problem they probably ran into is that if the assassinations were harder and required actual planning, most of the general public would think the game was too hard or boring. All the elements for having to plan your assassinations were in the first game, but they weren't really necessary in the final product. I imagine they discovered early on that testers didn't have the brain matter to plan a kill based on gathered evidence.

Well, the Hitman series attempted that idea and it had quite a following in it's hayday.

AC2 was fun, but it lacked alot in difficulty. It feels that once you got counter-kill, you were invincible to all city guards, and the learning curve disappeared.

The assassin's tombs were great though. And the new hiding with civilians was great. The villa and the new weapon system was a good change, although it could have been better.

The weapon system was weird, they promised to make you use weapons other than swords, but after maybe two lines of other weapons (axe, mace) it disappeared, and the sword remained as victor through the majority of the game.

The villa system was bland, but it was a nice change. I wish you could make choices that affected the town as a whole.

They've said that they've revamped the combat making it much fatser, and not about just sitting there waiting to counter.

You can use the gun in a swordfight for example.

Vigil wrote:They've said that they've revamped the combat making it much fatser, and not about just sitting there waiting to counter.

You can use the gun in a swordfight for example.

Did anyone actually use the gun in AC2?

It found it useless. To long to aim, and even when you get the shot, the person probably has already ran away or attacked you.

It fires faster now.

It was decent at range, but I mainly used Altair's sword in combat.

What i would love to see is a fable meets Assassins Creed with a bit of Oblivion in there.

That may sound a little confusing but think of it. the leveling system of Oblivion, the choice-effect system of fable and then you mix that with an assassin theme game and you've hit the jack pot.

AC 1 and 2 were far to linear. You're supposed to be an assassin that can effectively change the course of humanity with one kill practically. Think about it; what would happen to the social order if the David Cameron was assassinated? (Hint Hint) There would be chaos! But in AC 1 and 2 the second after you became anonymous the guards forgot about you and all order was back.

It was just plain silly...
I just hope this game is better than the first 2...

There is nothing wrong with a game being linear.

Zaki90 wrote:It feels that once you got counter-kill, you were invincible to all city guards

^The sole reason I didn't like AC's combat system.

YouCurse wrote:

Zaki90 wrote:It feels that once you got counter-kill, you were invincible to all city guards

^The sole reason I didn't like AC's combat system.

Then you fight the fuckers in plate armor with the giant hammers who kick your ass.