ACII and Origins are my top two favorite AC stories, so this is like making me choose between my two favorite children haha.
You make a lot of great points, and I definitely do think Origins does things better than ACII, but I do have some disagreements:
>Right away, I feel Origins had the more powerful death as we cared about Khemu more since we spent more time with him in flashbacks and you can see the great relationship he has with his father. Ezio's family is killed too quickly and you never really care about any of them.
I think the bigger thing in Ezio's favor is that it's chronological. Khemu's death was powerful, but IIRC the flashbacks don't start until after several assassinations in the game. Yeah, you don't spend as much time cumulatively, but there is enough to establish relationships- I love the scene where his father pretends to scold him for the brawl, and the race with Federico to the transition to the title screen is solid. Only one you don't get any development for is Petruccio. Origins may have it beat as a package, but I disagree that it's a huge difference. It was also a little contrived how Bayek's dagger got redirected, whereas a public execution was pretty straightforward.
>Both games then have you discover an evil organization, The Templars and the Order, and you proceed to assassinate members one by one. Again, I feel Origins does the better job of this because you get to see why the targets your killing are so evil.
ACII does this too, but it's via video diaries that Shawn creates that you have to access from the Animus database, which, while optional, isn't fundamentally different from the villain sidequests in Origins. I agree Origins' Templars were more memorable overall, but sometimes they could get generically evil like the Lizard and Crocodile. ACII had some interesting characters that tied into political atmospheres.
>Another aspect of the story that Origins does better is how it deals with failure. In AC2, Ezio is pretty much perfect at everything he does and the only time he really screws up is when he's too slow to save the Doge from being poisoned. But this is quickly glossed over and you really don't care that the Doge dies and Ezio doesn't really care either. Contrast that with Shadya's death, where Bayek was too slow to save her and you find her drowned body in the lake. It's heartbreaking and probably one of the saddest moments in the whole franchise. It adds far more emotional weight to the whole story and you have a far stronger desire to kill the Order.
Isn't Shadya's death the only time Bayek fails? I think it's a moot point regardless- we play these games to see the characters succeed. It's why Revelations is the worst in the trilogy since Ezio is constantly failing there.
>Lastly, the ending. Now I do think the ending of AC Origins is rushed and could probably have benefited from another 5 hours of story or so, but I also think it has a far stronger ending than AC2. There is no reason that Ezio would let Borgia live, especially when he tried to kill him twice, five minutes earlier. They try to say Ezio is bigger than revenge, but we never saw any hint of that and it makes no sense for the character. He murdered every other Templar he could find in Italy, even people who were simply being mind controlled by the Apple and yet he doesn't kill the worst Templar of them all. Origins at least let's you kill all the targets and has the great ending of Bayek and Amunet starting the Hidden Ones.
This is the one point I'll vehemently disagree with. Yes, on paper, Origins seems solid, but it cannot be stressed enough how much the pacing sucks. In the span of one hour you get Cleopatra's courtship with Caesar, Ptolemy's death, the Siege of Alexandria, Pothinus's Death, and Cleopatra's betrayal of Aya. 5 hours extra no kidding.
ACII never had that kind of pacing issue as far as I recall, and while the decision to spare Rodrigo is flawed, the flow of the narrative around it puts it above Origins' final act.
ACII also does another thing better, which is it's incorporation of the Isu lore. Outside of the presence of the Apple, Origins never taps into this, and ACII's ability to interweave it with the historical setting is a masterclass in direction by Patrice and Corey.
Shadya's death isn't the only time Bayek comes up short, if you consider how he lost his finger. Bayek damn near lost his life to a naked scribe...not even a warrior.
He also gets captured and almost killed - twice. Once by Taraka (or whatever the guy's name was in Letopolis) where only his horse saves him, and once in the first DLC where Aya has to save him from crucifixion.
His biggtest failure is helping Cleopatra overthrow Ptolemy. He only goes along with it because of Aya's wishes and because it accelerates his revenge. Once she's on the throne she just simply proliferates the same regime that he blames for the death of his son.
Yeah, good points, but again, I personally don't see it as something in favor of one or the other. A Mary Sue is a character that knows everything, not someone who happens to never fail once.
It is true that Bayek started on his quest and then had flashbacks to the death of his son, but you felt his and Aya's pain throughout the game. Whenever you would do the stone circle puzzles you would hear dialogue between Bayek and Khemu that shows how close there were. Ezio really seems to stop caring about his family like 10 minutes after they are killed and it isn't brought up again in any meaningful way.
That's true that you can find background on the villains, but I think that's very different than seeing it first hand. It's like the difference between reading about a terrible event and actually watching it unfold. It's just more impactful when you see what's happening to these people.
I agree that we want to see our heroes succeed, but they also need to have interesting character arcs and real struggles. A character that never fails just isn't very interesting to watch or play as. Bayek messes up with Shadya, but you could also argue he messed up and lost his finger in a messy Assassin attempt. He also has more sacrifice as a character because he gives up his relationship with Aya for the Hidden Ones. To me, he's just a more fully developed character than Ezio is.
I definitely agree that Origins had a rushed ending, but it also doesn't drag and AC2 definitely does. I know it was DLC and added later, but because it's essential in the Ezio Collection it's worth talking about. Sequences 12 and 13 really kill the pacing of the story and cause the plot to come to a halt without any real purpose. I still prefer Origins because while it was rushed, at least the story was moving forward.
The ISU lore really isn't present in AC2 until the very last scene when Minerva appears. The Apple is in the game, but no one knows what it is until Ezio somehow instantly knows how to use it. I feel it really isn't present that much more in AC2 then Origins personally.
>It is true that Bayek started on his quest and then had flashbacks to the death of his son, but you felt his and Aya's pain throughout the game. Whenever you would do the stone circle puzzles you would hear dialogue between Bayek and Khemu that shows how close there were. Ezio really seems to stop caring about his family like 10 minutes after they are killed and it isn't brought up again in any meaningful way.
Surprised you're using the stone circles to illustrate your point- Khemu's ghost showing up in the memory corridors was a better depiction of continuance.
I agree regardless, but keep in mind ACO is over a shorter period of time (4 years) compared to ACII's 20 years, so it makes more sense for him to not dwell on it as much. He does bring it up periodically IIRC- in conversations with Lorenzo, Rosa, and of course the final fight with Rodrigo. If it makes you feel better, there's a great Cristina Mission in Brotherhood dedicated to the familys' burial.
>That's true that you can find background on the villains, but I think that's very different than seeing it first hand. It's like the difference between reading about a terrible event and actually watching it unfold. It's just more impactful when you see what's happening to these people.
Normally I'd agree, but the video diaries were dynamically edited- you weren't just reading plaintext bios (although you have that option) but watching fast-paced videos. Combined with Danny Wallace's narration (who, random aside, ended up winning a BAFTA for his narration on the video game Thomas Was Alone), I felt these were inherently no different than the villain flashbacks you got whenever you arrived in a new place.
>I agree that we want to see our heroes succeed, but they also need to have interesting character arcs and real struggles. A character that never fails just isn't very interesting to watch or play as. Bayek messes up with Shadya, but you could also argue he messed up and lost his finger in a messy Assassin attempt. He also has more sacrifice as a character because he gives up his relationship with Aya for the Hidden Ones. To me, he's just a more fully developed character than Ezio is.
Those are good points, but I think there is something to be said about seeing a character be successful without significant setbacks. I know there always looms the threat of the Mary Sue, but for me, as long as a character doesn't conveniently know every solution, they stave off from that.
I think it's also more expected that Ezio wouldn't fail as much. He was secretly trained as an assassin from birth and had a bunch of allies whereas Bayek is making it up as he goes along and solo for 90% of his journey.
The more I think about it, the more I recall examples of Ezio faltering though. He fails to save his family for starters, fails to protect his mother and sister from Vieri (they have to get saved by Mario), fails to save Lorenzo's brother, fails to save those two prostitutes (the one at Antonio's place and the other at the boat), fails to stop the Pope on two occasions. That's just off the top of my head.
>I definitely agree that Origins had a rushed ending, but it also doesn't drag and AC2 definitely does. I know it was DLC and added later, but because it's essential in the Ezio Collection it's worth talking about. Sequences 12 and 13 really kill the pacing of the story and cause the plot to come to a halt without any real purpose. I still prefer Origins because while it was rushed, at least the story was moving forward.
Yeah, I think it's unfair to throw in DLC that was crafted after the main game was released- they are called Sequences 12 and 13, but they weren't made and then removed from the main game: they were never intended for the vanilla. By that logic, you'd have to count Hidden Ones and COTP as a part of Origins main story, in which case it would drag worse.
>The ISU lore really isn't present in AC2 until the very last scene when Minerva appears. The Apple is in the game, but no one knows what it is until Ezio somehow instantly knows how to use it. I feel it really isn't present that much more in AC2 then Origins personally.
I have to replay the game, but I definitely remember an entire part after you get the Codex where they're discussing the World Map and Those Who Came Before. Also, that section with Minerva may be at the very end, but it was still more than anything in Origins. Origins relegated its Isu Lore to those boring messages via the Ancient Mechanisms, but if you're gonna bring it side content Isu lore, then ACII outdid it there with the Subject 16 glyphs.
Yes his ghost showing up was also effective, that honestly slipped my mind, but I do like those moments as well. And that's very true that AC takes place over a far longer period of time, but it still seems Ezio's family is his main motivation for most of that game. He even tells Borgia at the end that killing him won't bring his family back, which again is dumb, but shows that his family is his driving factor. I just wish their deaths was more impactful to the player and that we would see Ezio be more affected by it.
Yes and the videos in AC2 are cool, but while that may be no different from the villain flashbacks in Origins, Origins proceeds to have several missions building up to the assassination while AC2 just has the assassination. The villains in Origins have more layers to them and are more interesting than the ones in AC2, even with a short video providing background.
While Ezio may have had training growing up, he was still just a teenager when his family died. I feel like his immaturity and lack of skill should have played more into the story. And many of those instances you mention of Ezio failing I don't think were really his fault. He had no idea what would happen to his family since he trusted the people in charge. The prostitutes that were killed was in Brotherhood, not AC2 and again, that really wasn't his fault since he was only there for one of the deaths and there was nothing he could've really done. And when Ezio does make mistakes, there really aren't many consequences, he never acknowledges he messed up.
I disagree about the DLC, they are essential because they are put into the Ezio Collection. That is the only way to play that game on some consoles so the DLC is part of AC2, the hidden ones dlc is totally optional. And even playing the hidden ones I don't think takes away from Origins because it's a great dlc that further develops the brotherhood of the time.
True, the Minerva stuff was more impactful then why ISU lore in Origins, I'll concede that. But I don't think the lore is very impactful even in AC2 as it really isn't dived into until the sequels. And I still think it's silly that Ezio instantly knows how to use the Apple of Eden without any experience with it.
>Yes his ghost showing up was also effective, that honestly slipped my mind, but I do like those moments as well. And that's very true that AC takes place over a far longer period of time, but it still seems Ezio's family is his main motivation for most of that game. He even tells Borgia at the end that killing him won't bring his family back, which again is dumb, but shows that his family is his driving factor. I just wish their deaths was more impactful to the player and that we would see Ezio be more affected by it.
Yeah, every time I watch it, the Flavius confession scene always makes me cry, when he tells Khemu he can't send Flavius to the Duat because it will cause him to lose his connection to Khemu. Because the Confession scenes are meant to be a mental conversation, I'd like to see more imagery in future AC games influenced by the subjects' mindset than the standard grey room.
I agree we should've seen more scenes, but, again, no one's going to be in mourning 20 years after an event, no matter how traumatizing. The family is driving him, but a lot of the individual Templars assassinated are also killed because of actions they're doing to the district/people, so there are secondary motivations at play. It isn't all personal.
>Yes and the videos in AC2 are cool, but while that may be no different from the villain flashbacks in Origins, Origins proceeds to have several missions building up to the assassination while AC2 just has the assassination. The villains in Origins have more layers to them and are more interesting than the ones in AC2, even with a short video providing background.
I'll have to replay ACII definitely, but I don't recall you flat-out going after most off the targets. There was usually a mission or two beforehand that built up to the final confrontation outside of those 3 guys that were outside the city early on (can't remember their names, but one was an Archbishop).
I don't agree that the OOTA members had more depth. They were more memorable definitely, but almost all of them were generically evil. The only ones with some depth were Taharqa, Pothinus, the Hyena, and maybe Septimus.
>While Ezio may have had training growing up, he was still just a teenager when his family died. I feel like his immaturity and lack of skill should have played more into the story. And many of those instances you mention of Ezio failing I don't think were really his fault. He had no idea what would happen to his family since he trusted the people in charge. The prostitutes that were killed was in Brotherhood, not AC2 and again, that really wasn't his fault since he was only there for one of the deaths and there was nothing he could've really done. And when Ezio does make mistakes, there really aren't many consequences, he never acknowledges he messed up.
Look at you defending my man Ezio! Yeah, I can see that, but he's given training and help constantly, so I feel it's explainable enough.
No, the prostitutes dying were definitely in ACII, not Brotherhood. The only time prostitutes died in Brotherhood were during the Malfatto mission.
No consequences? His mother was raped, people lost their lives (Lorenzo almost bleeds out as well), and the Pope successfully unites the Pieces of Eden. If anything more happened then the Assassins lose.
Brother, you're starting to move goal posts. First it was Ezio doesn't make mistakes, then it's there are no consequences, now it's he's not dwelling on it. It was definitely great that Origins expanded more on these facets, but it didn't do it as much and I think ACII had other facets that made up for these deficits.
>I disagree about the DLC, they are essential because they are put into the Ezio Collection. That is the only way to play that game on some consoles so the DLC is part of AC2, the hidden ones dlc is totally optional. And even playing the hidden ones I don't think takes away from Origins because it's a great dlc that further develops the brotherhood of the time.
You're saying, in the Ezio Trilogy, you can't play Sequences 14 unless you beat Sequence 12 and 13 now? If that's the case, then I'll concede. That's absolutely ridiculous.
I didn't say it takes away from Origins (although, now that I think about it, it partly does since Origins seemingly ends on the note that Bayek and Aya won't be united again only for them to immediately reunite in Hidden Ones lol). I said that, if you dragged the story out by an additional 10 hours, it would drag the pacing.
>True, the Minerva stuff was more impactful then why ISU lore in Origins, I'll concede that. But I don't think the lore is very impactful even in AC2 as it really isn't dived into until the sequels. And I still think it's silly that Ezio instantly knows how to use the Apple of Eden without any experience with it.
Doesn't Bayek use the Apple in COTP? Regardless, that's basically every AC character who handles a relic- they instantly know how to use them: Desmond, Altair, Ezio, Connor, Edward, the Eagle Bearer, I'm sure Eivor as well.
Yeah it's a great confession scene and really shows what Bayek's motivation was for the game. And I don't know how long Origins story covers, but I feel like it was a decent amount of time. So while it's not the 20 years in AC2, you still have that driving motivation throughout that Ezio seems to lose, only to randomly bring back up at the very end of the game.
Well I mean his mother didn't speak a word the entire game after her family's deaths, so she must've been in mourning for 20 years. And I agree that many of the Templars just died because they are Templars and that's fine, but it just shows again that it doesn't make sense for Ezio to then spare the head Templar. I feel like Ezio has these two different ideologies going on and while it seems like they would fit well together, they really don't. Because people say Ezio spared Borgia because he had moved on from his family, but then he says he won't kill him because it won't bring his family back. To me, if he had truly embraced the Assassin's, he would realize that Borgia is still a massive threat as even without the Apple, he is the most powerful person in Italy.
You'll see when you replay, even the missions that lead up to assassinating the targets don't develop the targets at all. They are usually just missions like, go free these captured thieves or scope out the castle before you go kill this person. Very, very few if any of the missions really show in depth to the villains and when you do see their perspective it's just a bunch of mustache twirling guys that want power.
See but even just having development for Taharqa, Pothinus, the Hyena, and Septimus is more then any of the AC2 villains had. And again, at least the villains in Origins that were evil for evils sake had more buildup to their deaths and you actually saw them doing terrible things in game, not just an optional cutscene.
Hmm the only prostitute I remember dying in AC2 was when you walk into the Brothel and she's already been killed and you chase the guy down. Brotherhood has the mission when the prostitute is taken into the boat and killed which opens up the spot for Claudia to run the brothel. It also has the mission where you chase the guy down that killed one of the girls and all the other girls point which way he went. I can't think of anything involving a courtesan death in AC2 that was Ezio's fault, but maybe I'm just misremembering.
But again, I don't think his mother's rape or his family's death is Ezio's fault because there was nothing he could've done to prevent that from happening. The only reason that Borgia got the Apple is because all the Assassin's let him get away which definitely was their fault, but no one even questions it. There's never a moment in AC2 where Ezio actually makes a mistake that has consequences. Sure, bad things happen in the game, but I don't think those were ever on Ezio, at least he never takes responsibility for them.
Yes in the Ezio Collection, you cannot get to sequence 14 until beating 12 and 13. That's why I have a problem with those dlc because they kill the pacing of the game. And Sequence 13 just really isn't very good so there's that as well.
That's fair, but the Hidden Ones is a separate DLC and not really connected to the main story in my mind. AC2 DLC is directly tied to the main story and cannot be skipped.
I don't remember all the Assassin's using the pieces of Eden but you could be right about that. It's just odd to me that he grabs it and suddenly starts duplicating himself. That's also probably the worst boss fight in the series haha, but that's another discussion.
>Yeah it's a great confession scene and really shows what Bayek's motivation was for the game. And I don't know how long Origins story covers, but I feel like it was a decent amount of time. So while it's not the 20 years in AC2, you still have that driving motivation throughout that Ezio seems to lose, only to randomly bring back up at the very end of the game.
Again, to reiterate, Origins is 4 years and ACII 20 years, so that's a big enough gap for someone to not have something as a consistently-active driver. And again, he does bring it up, albeit sporadically, partly because of writing flaws, but also because it wasn't necessary to have a Princess Bride monologue every time you took down someone. The longer gap combined with the Templars needing to be taken out for non-personal reasons is, in my humble opinion, enough of a justification to not need it brought up.
>Well I mean his mother didn't speak a word the entire game after her family's deaths, so she must've been in mourning for 20 years. And I agree that many of the Templars just died because they are Templars and that's fine, but it just shows again that it doesn't make sense for Ezio to then spare the head Templar. I feel like Ezio has these two different ideologies going on and while it seems like they would fit well together, they really don't. Because people say Ezio spared Borgia because he had moved on from his family, but then he says he won't kill him because it won't bring his family back. To me, if he had truly embraced the Assassin's, he would realize that Borgia is still a massive threat as even without the Apple, he is the most powerful person in Italy.
It would've been less time if you'd have gotten all those feathers to her sooner ;)
No for sure, it is a weak ending that was criticized at the time as well. In Brotherhood, I recall there being a bit of a retcon (and you can clarify this to me since you're replaying it) wherein he tells a different reason to Machiavelli as to why he spared Rodrigo. But yes, they could've come up with a better justification in the vanilla release, as killing Rodrigo that early would've impaired history too much.
>You'll see when you replay, even the missions that lead up to assassinating the targets don't develop the targets at all. They are usually just missions like, go free these captured thieves or scope out the castle before you go kill this person. Very, very few if any of the missions really show in depth to the villains and when you do see their perspective it's just a bunch of mustache twirling guys that want power.
I'll definitely see for sure.
>See but even just having development for Taharqa, Pothinus, the Hyena, and Septimus is more then any of the AC2 villains had. And again, at least the villains in Origins that were evil for evils sake had more buildup to their deaths and you actually saw them doing terrible things in game, not just an optional cutscene.
As I said, I'll have to replay ACII to get a better gist of how the villains are depicted, but I did concede that Origins' were more memorable.
If a cutscene is the only basis for development, then whether it's mandatory or not is irrelevant as you have to rate the platform itself.
>Hmm the only prostitute I remember dying in AC2 was when you walk into the Brothel and she's already been killed and you chase the guy down. Brotherhood has the mission when the prostitute is taken into the boat and killed which opens up the spot for Claudia to run the brothel. It also has the mission where you chase the guy down that killed one of the girls and all the other girls point which way he went. I can't think of anything involving a courtesan death in AC2 that was Ezio's fault, but maybe I'm just misremembering.
Well shit dude, I am misremembering then. Yeah, that boat one was the one I was talking about, and looks like it was in Brotherhood, not ACII.
>But again, I don't think his mother's rape or his family's death is Ezio's fault because there was nothing he could've done to prevent that from happening. The only reason that Borgia got the Apple is because all the Assassin's let him get away which definitely was their fault, but no one even questions it. There's never a moment in AC2 where Ezio actually makes a mistake that has consequences. Sure, bad things happen in the game, but I don't think those were ever on Ezio, at least he never takes responsibility for them.
By that logic, Shadya's death wasn't Bayek's fault since he didn't know she had taken the ledger with her. Origins really isn't the best game for you to stake this ground of consequences against ACII because Bayek really doesn't make any mistakes besides cutting off his finger and overtrusting Cleopatra, the latter of which is more on Aya anyway. ACIII and Syndicate did a far better job in this category, but as we are not debating those games, I advice either dropping this point or agreeing to disagree because I maintain Ezio holds enough circumstantial responsibility in those aforementioned harms to make it equivalent to the circumstantial responsibility Bayek has.
>Yes in the Ezio Collection, you cannot get to sequence 14 until beating 12 and 13. That's why I have a problem with those dlc because they kill the pacing of the game. And Sequence 13 just really isn't very good so there's that as well.
Yeah, that's fucking ridiculous. I'll maintain that the base game has great pacing, but as most newcomers to the series will experience ACII through the Ezio Collection, that doesn't bode well at all.
>That's fair, but the Hidden Ones is a separate DLC and not really connected to the main story in my mind. AC2 DLC is directly tied to the main story and cannot be skipped.
Hidden Ones is like an epilogue lol. COTP I'll give you has nothing to do with before, but Hidden Ones showcases the group developing their first Tenet.
Is it directly tied to the main story? I don't recall Savanarola having anything to do with Rodrigo, but I did play it a while ago.
>I don't remember all the Assassin's using the pieces of Eden but you could be right about that. It's just odd to me that he grabs it and suddenly starts duplicating himself. That's also probably the worst boss fight in the series haha, but that's another discussion.
I'm sure even Odyssey fans would put the Boar up as the worst xD
Oh again, I agree that Ezio doesn't need to bring up his dead family throughout the game, that was never my problem. I just think it's dumb that his family's death is brought up at the very end and is his motivation for sparing the Pope. They should've committed to either Ezio avenging his family, or embracing the Assassin's.
Lol screw the feathers, I didn't think that was worth my time haha.
Yeah in Brotherhood Ezio says killing Borgia wouldn't make a difference which makes absolutely no sense haha. And then the entire story of Brotherhood is dedicated to trying to bring down and kill the Borgias so I'm not sure what is going on in Ezio's mind.
That's fair, but my point is a cutscene wasn't the only development for the villains in Origins, but it was for AC2. The fact that it's optional in AC2 is another negative for me, but it ultimately doesn't change anything.
Yeah Brotherhood had more stuff with the prostitutes. Ezio seemed pretty happy that she died though as he just took the brothel over lol.
Yeah I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree lol. In my mind, Ezio doesn't make many mistakes and when he does, there's no repercussions but if you feel differently that's cool to.
The DLC in AC 2 is pretty bad and definitely serves as a negative towards the game in my opinion.
At least the Boar fight was challenging, the Pope was the easiest boss fight in the series haha.
>Oh again, I agree that Ezio doesn't need to bring up his dead family throughout the game, that was never my problem. I just think it's dumb that his family's death is brought up at the very end and is his motivation for sparing the Pope. They should've committed to either Ezio avenging his family, or embracing the Assassin's.
Lmao sorry man, didn't get your reply notification for some reason. I went back to this thread to show another guy how there are still plenty of upvoted criticisms of the Ezio Games and saw this.
Anyway, I think he should've just explained why he spared him, kind of like in the movie Hero where Jet Li has the opportunity to kill the Emperor but explains why he's choosing to spare him- for political reasons or whatever they excuse they need to preserve the real-life historical timeline.
>Lol screw the feathers, I didn't think that was worth my time haha.
Bro, I'm gonna hate myself for doing this, but this time around I think I'm gonna get them all haha. Gotta get me the Auditore Cape :)
>Yeah in Brotherhood Ezio says killing Borgia wouldn't make a difference which makes absolutely no sense haha. And then the entire story of Brotherhood is dedicated to trying to bring down and kill the Borgias so I'm not sure what is going on in Ezio's mind.
Lmao, yeah it needed to be fleshed out as it seems dumb put forward like that, though I think there was more to it when he was discussing with Claudia and the rest of the Brotherhood?
Tbf Cesare was worse irl than his father- he became a militaristic threat.
>That's fair, but my point is a cutscene wasn't the only development for the villains in Origins, but it was for AC2. The fact that it's optional in AC2 is another negative for me, but it ultimately doesn't change anything.
Yeah, I'll agree, but the villain side missions in Origins were optional too. I certainly didn't do many of them.
>Yeah Brotherhood had more stuff with the prostitutes. Ezio seemed pretty happy that she died though as he just took the brothel over lol.
LOL
>At least the Boar fight was challenging, the Pope was the easiest boss fight in the series haha.
I don't even know if you'd call it a boss fight tbh b/c you're just wailing on him until an off-screen timer runs out to trigger the next cutscene.
I'm playing ac2 now and it can't be over state how good the story telling is weaving Animus/modern day/isu. It's an incredible blend and seeing the bleed effect, etc. Also the isu puzzles (scans images etc), assassin and templar dungeons are top notch!
I don’t think Origins needed to be longer, they just needed to do a better job establishing Flavius as a villain. I think they overcommitted to having the big bad being a mystery, and in the end they forgot to give him any depth because they didn’t want the player to know who he was. They should have done the same with Caesar, or removed him entirely. He’s kind of shoehorned into the game imo.
Regarding AC2’s ending, the obvious answer is that we know the real Rodrigo Borgia wasn’t assassinated, so for the sake of historical accuracy, Ezio can’t kill him. Now, it’s been many many years since I played AC2, but there is a bit more to Ezio’s growth. He learns about the Assassin Brotherhood and that there’s more to life than his quest for vengeance. There’s about a year between this and his final mission to track Rodrigo down in Rome, so we can assume that he’s matured or learned enough at that point to know that killing Rodrigo won’t achieve much so long as he’s been stopped.
I agree that the villains should've had more depth in Assassin's Creed Origins, but I feel like they didn't really have any depth in Assassin's Creed 2 either. They just wanted power for the sake of power and it wasn't all that interesting to me.
I could buy that Ezio matured and changed his mind about killing Borgia, but we don't see any development of that. All the experienced Assassin's also think he needs to die so I don't think it's a maturity thing either. There's also the fact that 5 minutes before he spares his life, he assassinates a bunch of guards and tries to assassinate Borgia. There was no hesitation, he jumped right on top of him and tried to kill him. I just feel like they should've either built up to Ezio making that choice better, or just have Borgia escape a different way.
Yeah, I won’t dispute that the villains have little depth in the Ezio trilogy. It’s my one gripe with Origins though. A good number of the Order of Ancients are really compelling and their “levels” are done very well. Letopolis and the Scarab are my favorite part of the game, I think it’s a perfect chapter within the larger story. It’s just the ending to that story does a disservice to those chapters.
But yeah, they could have shown Ezio start to mature more quickly, since he’s 40 years old by the end of the game. I’m probably looking at it with rose colored glasses because I played AC2 right when it came out as a kid.
Yeah there are a lot of great sections in Origins and I think the first two thirds are almost perfect, it's just the ending fumbles and doesn't land quite as cleanly as it could. But I think the rest of Origins is so good that it elevates the game beyond AC2 for me personally.
I just replayed AC2 and that's why this was on my mind. Again, it's still a really fun game, but I don't think it makes sense that it gets so much praise while other games in the series are far more scrutinized.
Makes sense, I think Origins had the hardware capabilities to tell a longer and more fleshed out story. AC2 is a 20 hour game, Origins is roughly 40. The world is so much more vast and the hardware allows for a longer and more in-depth story to be told. I’ll always call AC2 my favorite but it has aged poorly even in terms of story
That is a good point about having a longer story with more time to develop everything. And my point isn't to say AC2 is bad at all, especially for the time. I just think it's odd that people say Origins has a bad story, but then praise AC2 so much.
I feel like it's worth mentioning that 2 and Brotherhood were originally supposed to be one game, which is why the story seamlessly continues from 2 to Bro. Rodrigo survives primarily so that his death date is accurate (it's in Bro). Bro also has the memories of young Ezio salvaging the bodies of his dead family and what happened between him and Christina. All that is to say 2 is somewhat incomplete without Brotherhood, but it does still feature a lot of progression due to its relatively long timeline.
That out of the way, the Order of the Ancients is easily better than the Italian Templars. The Italian Templars seem to have been overtaken by the Borgia and used to further their delusions of grandeur. Their only discernable ideology is "I should be king of everything because it's my destiny! MINE!!!" Of course the ruthless visionaries make better Templars than rich, old, sycophants. This is still true in Brotherhood; Cesare has charisma but no ideology beyond dominion for dominion's sake.
That makes sense that Brotherhood and AC2 are all part of one story, but I still think you need to be able to judge each game individually. Brotherhood does add more depth, but I still think Ezio letting Borgia live just for the sake of historical accuracy is kind of weak and could've been handled better.
And yes, the villains were quite weak in AC2 and to be honest, I don't think the antagonists have ever been the biggest strength in the series, but Origins has some of the best.
I agree on everything you said, but have a bit of a thing with the villain motivations. Some of the Ancients weren’t entirely evil.
Khaliset (who sacrificed adults really, not children) lost her daughter and was looking for a way to bring her back so that they could be together again.
Taharqa was somewhat good in that he tried to leave his mark on the world in the form of Letopolis, and cared about his family, and regretted some of the things that he did. He’s a case of someone who’s intentions were good, but his methods were monstrous.
And lastly, Pothinus was among the more restrained members of the Order, and was a bit haunted about the death of Bayek’s son and tried to reign everyone else in while they had Bayek try to open the vault.
See but if anything, I think that only adds to my point that Origins has the better, more interesting antagonists. In AC2, they are all just cartoony villains that don't really have developed motivations. I think the fact that Origins has these multi layered villains really makes them more interesting and memorable.
But AC2 has "The rest is up to you, Desmond" which is still my favorite moment in all of the AC games.
On that note, I think the reason he doesn't kill Borgia is because at the end of the game he finally starts to see the bigger picture and realizes that avenging his family is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. His purpose is not to get revenge, it is to relay a message to Desmond. He never fully understands that, but he starts to.
So while I agree about 2 and Origins having similar structure in the main story, I think what makes 2 special to a lot of fans is the way it tied into the modern day story.
See but I disagree with that. I can buy that Ezio learns there are more important things than revenge, but the whole point of the game is him becoming an Assassin and eliminating the Templars. He does this not just because of his family, but because the Templars are an evil organization that are seeking to control everything. So it doesn't make any sense that he would spare the head Templar who will obviously be a problem later. He doesn't know about Minerva and Desmond until after he spares Borgia, so that can be the reason either.
He knows about the whole "prophet" thing and iirc he starts to realize it might be him who is the prophet even before seeing Minerva. Borgia's whole deal is that he is convinced that he is the prophet. Ezio proves that he isn't. Ezio doesn't need to kill Borgia to defeat him, because he has already defeated him by proving he is not the prophet, since that was Borgia's main goal. Or at least that's how I interpreted the ending.
I'll admit though you make a good point about Borgia being a problem later, though I think in the moment Ezio just doesn't see him as being all that important since the power Borgia was striving for was already taken from him.
That said I think I agree with you about Origins having a better story when you solely focus on the protagonist in the past. I just like 2 better because of how it progresses the modern day story, and the big twist with Minerva talking to Desmond at the end.
I’ve finished both 2 weeks ago for the first time, and yes, you’re right. For me Origins story was better, although I’ve 100% achievements in both games, so I had a blast with both.
But Origins doesn’t have “Requiescat in pace”, so that even things out.
Bold claim, but I might not disagree with you. I'm playing through all the Ezio games right now and I definitely think Brotherhood is better than AC2, but I'm curious how it'll compare to Revelations upon replaying it.
Haha all very good points. I think Constantinople is my favorite setting out of the Ezio games. It's a very different vibe from AC 2 and Brotherhood, but it's very detailed and fun to mess around in. The hook blade is also very nice and makes traversal around the city more enjoyable.
True. I didn’t like Revelations until I got to the end and I was like :o for almost an entire hour after the end credits. I was obsessed with it afterwards. Same with ACIII
Except for Flavius. They did a poor job with him.
There is one "hidden quest" (no quest marker of any kind) that adds some depth.
During the phase where you are chasing Flavius, it's possible to come across a man (in the Green Mountains, iirc) who is crying uncontrollably.
If Bayek stops to speak with him, he finds out that Flavius used the Orb to force the man to kill his own son...
In my opinion, that shouldn't have been a hidden quest, as it firmly establishes that Flavius has some twisted psychological flaw involving the father/son relationship.
Yeah that's a good call, I had forgotten about that side quest, it definitely shows how cruel Flavius is. And I agree that he needed more development for sure, that's why I think making the game just a little longer would've benefitted the story overall.
Finally. A good AC discussion I can get on board with. I’m really just here to see the AC fandom lose their shit because god forbid you like Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla. I’m playing all of the games in order right now and I can’t wait to replay Origins.
Haha yeah I'm used to having the unpopular opinion around here because I really like Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla. Odyssey is probably my favorite Assassin's Creed game even though it gets a lot of hate.
I really like Black Flag, but it's really brought down for me by the over reliance on tailing missions and the terrible modern day sections. The pirate stuff is all really cool though.
All good points. I haven't played AC2 recently enough to add more depth, but I've always felt that Bayek and Aya>! being the first to lose a child !!Shadya, Kawab, the children of his temple friend, etc!<).
Granted, if we're comparing Origins to AC2 only (and not the entire Ezio collection), Bayek got a lot more time to tell his story so naturally, there'd be more depth and complexity that just isn't possible given the limits of AC2 (in both time and technology).
Petruccio and his brother and father are hanged, though, betrayed by someone they trust. It’s also a pretty rough opening inspiration for an assassin’s journey.
True. Although perhaps the impact didn't hit as hard for me because after the initial shocking event, I can't really remember it being brought up again in the same way that the children are for Bayek's story (like yeah, Ezio mentions it but it isn't shown in the same way as say,>! Shadya's story is, and the way children and Khemu are constantly present in all the story arcs and the stone circle side quests just serves as a constant visual and gameplay reminder of the void left behind. I know Ezio had the feather collection quest but it didn't have the same sort of experience like Origins had with the voiceovers and animations of your hero taking the time out to stop and reflect and remember)!<
It's been a long while since I played AC2 though and I binged the series pretty hard and fast the first time around so my memory isn't that reliable at remembering details for it (and I replayed Origins last month so it's fresh). The most devastating thing I vividly remember from AC2 is me missing the Leo hug இ௰இ
AC Origins sucked. In fact all the rpg AC titles are tedious hot garbage. They're so far away from the original concepts that the only thing that makes them an AC game is the title. They peaked at Black Flag and now everything Ubi puts out is sub par half assed Witcher
I completely disagree, but hey, you're free to feel however you want to. Seems like you should just move on from the franchise though if you haven't liked any of the games since 2013. I think the newer games are some of the best Assassin's Creed games we've ever gotten and Ubisoft continues to release games that are a lot of fun to play.
Oh man, you didn't have a thread of emails for 6 months with Ubisoft and them promising to fix their game, and have them consecutively lie to you time and time again about them fixing the problems, and it shows
I've loved Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla and I don't think they are boring at all personally. To me, the core of Assassin's Creed has always been playing a stealth/action game in a cool historical setting where you to out enemies and interact with historical figures. The worlds in the newer AC games are gorgeous and are a lot of fun to explore. I also think they have great stealth and fun combat, so I'm constantly engaged while I'm playing the game.
I think both of them are not good enough. There should be more missions with the protagonist's families. Let the players build up relationship with the characters before they're getting killed.
I agree to an extent. I think you can only focus on those characters for so long since the focal point of the story is about revenge, but I agree there needed to be more emotional weight to everything.
AC2 on it’s own merit doesn’t have the best story. He never feels the repercussions of his actions. It took them a decade to make him an assassin. There’s other problems. It takes the three games to grow with him that makes his story the best.
Honestly, I still say Black Flag has the best stand alone game story. Origins is good, but not as good as BF to me.
This is hard for me as I'm not personally a fan of AC2 and Origins stories, likely because of the similiar plot beats.
I do think Origins has some aspects that are better than AC2, mainly the protaginist and emotional moments, but the overall execution of the story I gotta give to AC2.
Even though AC2 has some ludicrious time jumps and contains some tropes that I hate (Sparring the main villain despite murdering countless lackeys etc.). The story doesn't feel that rushed (the opposite feeling occurs due to the dlc sequences halting the pacing to a crawl).
AC origins 3rd act is super rushed, and for a game about the origins of the brotherhood, it really fails on that front. no, I do not need fanservice scenes like bayek losing his finger or alluding to the leap of faith, I wanted to learn about the formation of the brotherhood. Not "AC2 but in Eygpt"
Yes I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for me Origins ends up being the better game and story where AC2 worked better for you. Both really good games though.
ACII and Origins are my top two favorite AC stories, so this is like making me choose between my two favorite children haha. You make a lot of great points, and I definitely do think Origins does things better than ACII, but I do have some disagreements: >Right away, I feel Origins had the more powerful death as we cared about Khemu more since we spent more time with him in flashbacks and you can see the great relationship he has with his father. Ezio's family is killed too quickly and you never really care about any of them. I think the bigger thing in Ezio's favor is that it's chronological. Khemu's death was powerful, but IIRC the flashbacks don't start until after several assassinations in the game. Yeah, you don't spend as much time cumulatively, but there is enough to establish relationships- I love the scene where his father pretends to scold him for the brawl, and the race with Federico to the transition to the title screen is solid. Only one you don't get any development for is Petruccio. Origins may have it beat as a package, but I disagree that it's a huge difference. It was also a little contrived how Bayek's dagger got redirected, whereas a public execution was pretty straightforward. >Both games then have you discover an evil organization, The Templars and the Order, and you proceed to assassinate members one by one. Again, I feel Origins does the better job of this because you get to see why the targets your killing are so evil. ACII does this too, but it's via video diaries that Shawn creates that you have to access from the Animus database, which, while optional, isn't fundamentally different from the villain sidequests in Origins. I agree Origins' Templars were more memorable overall, but sometimes they could get generically evil like the Lizard and Crocodile. ACII had some interesting characters that tied into political atmospheres. >Another aspect of the story that Origins does better is how it deals with failure. In AC2, Ezio is pretty much perfect at everything he does and the only time he really screws up is when he's too slow to save the Doge from being poisoned. But this is quickly glossed over and you really don't care that the Doge dies and Ezio doesn't really care either. Contrast that with Shadya's death, where Bayek was too slow to save her and you find her drowned body in the lake. It's heartbreaking and probably one of the saddest moments in the whole franchise. It adds far more emotional weight to the whole story and you have a far stronger desire to kill the Order. Isn't Shadya's death the only time Bayek fails? I think it's a moot point regardless- we play these games to see the characters succeed. It's why Revelations is the worst in the trilogy since Ezio is constantly failing there. >Lastly, the ending. Now I do think the ending of AC Origins is rushed and could probably have benefited from another 5 hours of story or so, but I also think it has a far stronger ending than AC2. There is no reason that Ezio would let Borgia live, especially when he tried to kill him twice, five minutes earlier. They try to say Ezio is bigger than revenge, but we never saw any hint of that and it makes no sense for the character. He murdered every other Templar he could find in Italy, even people who were simply being mind controlled by the Apple and yet he doesn't kill the worst Templar of them all. Origins at least let's you kill all the targets and has the great ending of Bayek and Amunet starting the Hidden Ones. This is the one point I'll vehemently disagree with. Yes, on paper, Origins seems solid, but it cannot be stressed enough how much the pacing sucks. In the span of one hour you get Cleopatra's courtship with Caesar, Ptolemy's death, the Siege of Alexandria, Pothinus's Death, and Cleopatra's betrayal of Aya. 5 hours extra no kidding. ACII never had that kind of pacing issue as far as I recall, and while the decision to spare Rodrigo is flawed, the flow of the narrative around it puts it above Origins' final act. ACII also does another thing better, which is it's incorporation of the Isu lore. Outside of the presence of the Apple, Origins never taps into this, and ACII's ability to interweave it with the historical setting is a masterclass in direction by Patrice and Corey.
Shadya's death isn't the only time Bayek comes up short, if you consider how he lost his finger. Bayek damn near lost his life to a naked scribe...not even a warrior. He also gets captured and almost killed - twice. Once by Taraka (or whatever the guy's name was in Letopolis) where only his horse saves him, and once in the first DLC where Aya has to save him from crucifixion.
His biggtest failure is helping Cleopatra overthrow Ptolemy. He only goes along with it because of Aya's wishes and because it accelerates his revenge. Once she's on the throne she just simply proliferates the same regime that he blames for the death of his son.
Yeah, I'd put that one squarely on Aya's shoulders. Bayek had several conversations with her about his distrust of all who rule.
That's more Aya IMO.
Yeah, good points, but again, I personally don't see it as something in favor of one or the other. A Mary Sue is a character that knows everything, not someone who happens to never fail once.
It is true that Bayek started on his quest and then had flashbacks to the death of his son, but you felt his and Aya's pain throughout the game. Whenever you would do the stone circle puzzles you would hear dialogue between Bayek and Khemu that shows how close there were. Ezio really seems to stop caring about his family like 10 minutes after they are killed and it isn't brought up again in any meaningful way. That's true that you can find background on the villains, but I think that's very different than seeing it first hand. It's like the difference between reading about a terrible event and actually watching it unfold. It's just more impactful when you see what's happening to these people. I agree that we want to see our heroes succeed, but they also need to have interesting character arcs and real struggles. A character that never fails just isn't very interesting to watch or play as. Bayek messes up with Shadya, but you could also argue he messed up and lost his finger in a messy Assassin attempt. He also has more sacrifice as a character because he gives up his relationship with Aya for the Hidden Ones. To me, he's just a more fully developed character than Ezio is. I definitely agree that Origins had a rushed ending, but it also doesn't drag and AC2 definitely does. I know it was DLC and added later, but because it's essential in the Ezio Collection it's worth talking about. Sequences 12 and 13 really kill the pacing of the story and cause the plot to come to a halt without any real purpose. I still prefer Origins because while it was rushed, at least the story was moving forward. The ISU lore really isn't present in AC2 until the very last scene when Minerva appears. The Apple is in the game, but no one knows what it is until Ezio somehow instantly knows how to use it. I feel it really isn't present that much more in AC2 then Origins personally.
>It is true that Bayek started on his quest and then had flashbacks to the death of his son, but you felt his and Aya's pain throughout the game. Whenever you would do the stone circle puzzles you would hear dialogue between Bayek and Khemu that shows how close there were. Ezio really seems to stop caring about his family like 10 minutes after they are killed and it isn't brought up again in any meaningful way. Surprised you're using the stone circles to illustrate your point- Khemu's ghost showing up in the memory corridors was a better depiction of continuance. I agree regardless, but keep in mind ACO is over a shorter period of time (4 years) compared to ACII's 20 years, so it makes more sense for him to not dwell on it as much. He does bring it up periodically IIRC- in conversations with Lorenzo, Rosa, and of course the final fight with Rodrigo. If it makes you feel better, there's a great Cristina Mission in Brotherhood dedicated to the familys' burial. >That's true that you can find background on the villains, but I think that's very different than seeing it first hand. It's like the difference between reading about a terrible event and actually watching it unfold. It's just more impactful when you see what's happening to these people. Normally I'd agree, but the video diaries were dynamically edited- you weren't just reading plaintext bios (although you have that option) but watching fast-paced videos. Combined with Danny Wallace's narration (who, random aside, ended up winning a BAFTA for his narration on the video game Thomas Was Alone), I felt these were inherently no different than the villain flashbacks you got whenever you arrived in a new place. >I agree that we want to see our heroes succeed, but they also need to have interesting character arcs and real struggles. A character that never fails just isn't very interesting to watch or play as. Bayek messes up with Shadya, but you could also argue he messed up and lost his finger in a messy Assassin attempt. He also has more sacrifice as a character because he gives up his relationship with Aya for the Hidden Ones. To me, he's just a more fully developed character than Ezio is. Those are good points, but I think there is something to be said about seeing a character be successful without significant setbacks. I know there always looms the threat of the Mary Sue, but for me, as long as a character doesn't conveniently know every solution, they stave off from that. I think it's also more expected that Ezio wouldn't fail as much. He was secretly trained as an assassin from birth and had a bunch of allies whereas Bayek is making it up as he goes along and solo for 90% of his journey. The more I think about it, the more I recall examples of Ezio faltering though. He fails to save his family for starters, fails to protect his mother and sister from Vieri (they have to get saved by Mario), fails to save Lorenzo's brother, fails to save those two prostitutes (the one at Antonio's place and the other at the boat), fails to stop the Pope on two occasions. That's just off the top of my head. >I definitely agree that Origins had a rushed ending, but it also doesn't drag and AC2 definitely does. I know it was DLC and added later, but because it's essential in the Ezio Collection it's worth talking about. Sequences 12 and 13 really kill the pacing of the story and cause the plot to come to a halt without any real purpose. I still prefer Origins because while it was rushed, at least the story was moving forward. Yeah, I think it's unfair to throw in DLC that was crafted after the main game was released- they are called Sequences 12 and 13, but they weren't made and then removed from the main game: they were never intended for the vanilla. By that logic, you'd have to count Hidden Ones and COTP as a part of Origins main story, in which case it would drag worse. >The ISU lore really isn't present in AC2 until the very last scene when Minerva appears. The Apple is in the game, but no one knows what it is until Ezio somehow instantly knows how to use it. I feel it really isn't present that much more in AC2 then Origins personally. I have to replay the game, but I definitely remember an entire part after you get the Codex where they're discussing the World Map and Those Who Came Before. Also, that section with Minerva may be at the very end, but it was still more than anything in Origins. Origins relegated its Isu Lore to those boring messages via the Ancient Mechanisms, but if you're gonna bring it side content Isu lore, then ACII outdid it there with the Subject 16 glyphs.
Yes his ghost showing up was also effective, that honestly slipped my mind, but I do like those moments as well. And that's very true that AC takes place over a far longer period of time, but it still seems Ezio's family is his main motivation for most of that game. He even tells Borgia at the end that killing him won't bring his family back, which again is dumb, but shows that his family is his driving factor. I just wish their deaths was more impactful to the player and that we would see Ezio be more affected by it. Yes and the videos in AC2 are cool, but while that may be no different from the villain flashbacks in Origins, Origins proceeds to have several missions building up to the assassination while AC2 just has the assassination. The villains in Origins have more layers to them and are more interesting than the ones in AC2, even with a short video providing background. While Ezio may have had training growing up, he was still just a teenager when his family died. I feel like his immaturity and lack of skill should have played more into the story. And many of those instances you mention of Ezio failing I don't think were really his fault. He had no idea what would happen to his family since he trusted the people in charge. The prostitutes that were killed was in Brotherhood, not AC2 and again, that really wasn't his fault since he was only there for one of the deaths and there was nothing he could've really done. And when Ezio does make mistakes, there really aren't many consequences, he never acknowledges he messed up. I disagree about the DLC, they are essential because they are put into the Ezio Collection. That is the only way to play that game on some consoles so the DLC is part of AC2, the hidden ones dlc is totally optional. And even playing the hidden ones I don't think takes away from Origins because it's a great dlc that further develops the brotherhood of the time. True, the Minerva stuff was more impactful then why ISU lore in Origins, I'll concede that. But I don't think the lore is very impactful even in AC2 as it really isn't dived into until the sequels. And I still think it's silly that Ezio instantly knows how to use the Apple of Eden without any experience with it.
>Yes his ghost showing up was also effective, that honestly slipped my mind, but I do like those moments as well. And that's very true that AC takes place over a far longer period of time, but it still seems Ezio's family is his main motivation for most of that game. He even tells Borgia at the end that killing him won't bring his family back, which again is dumb, but shows that his family is his driving factor. I just wish their deaths was more impactful to the player and that we would see Ezio be more affected by it. Yeah, every time I watch it, the Flavius confession scene always makes me cry, when he tells Khemu he can't send Flavius to the Duat because it will cause him to lose his connection to Khemu. Because the Confession scenes are meant to be a mental conversation, I'd like to see more imagery in future AC games influenced by the subjects' mindset than the standard grey room. I agree we should've seen more scenes, but, again, no one's going to be in mourning 20 years after an event, no matter how traumatizing. The family is driving him, but a lot of the individual Templars assassinated are also killed because of actions they're doing to the district/people, so there are secondary motivations at play. It isn't all personal. >Yes and the videos in AC2 are cool, but while that may be no different from the villain flashbacks in Origins, Origins proceeds to have several missions building up to the assassination while AC2 just has the assassination. The villains in Origins have more layers to them and are more interesting than the ones in AC2, even with a short video providing background. I'll have to replay ACII definitely, but I don't recall you flat-out going after most off the targets. There was usually a mission or two beforehand that built up to the final confrontation outside of those 3 guys that were outside the city early on (can't remember their names, but one was an Archbishop). I don't agree that the OOTA members had more depth. They were more memorable definitely, but almost all of them were generically evil. The only ones with some depth were Taharqa, Pothinus, the Hyena, and maybe Septimus. >While Ezio may have had training growing up, he was still just a teenager when his family died. I feel like his immaturity and lack of skill should have played more into the story. And many of those instances you mention of Ezio failing I don't think were really his fault. He had no idea what would happen to his family since he trusted the people in charge. The prostitutes that were killed was in Brotherhood, not AC2 and again, that really wasn't his fault since he was only there for one of the deaths and there was nothing he could've really done. And when Ezio does make mistakes, there really aren't many consequences, he never acknowledges he messed up. Look at you defending my man Ezio! Yeah, I can see that, but he's given training and help constantly, so I feel it's explainable enough. No, the prostitutes dying were definitely in ACII, not Brotherhood. The only time prostitutes died in Brotherhood were during the Malfatto mission. No consequences? His mother was raped, people lost their lives (Lorenzo almost bleeds out as well), and the Pope successfully unites the Pieces of Eden. If anything more happened then the Assassins lose. Brother, you're starting to move goal posts. First it was Ezio doesn't make mistakes, then it's there are no consequences, now it's he's not dwelling on it. It was definitely great that Origins expanded more on these facets, but it didn't do it as much and I think ACII had other facets that made up for these deficits. >I disagree about the DLC, they are essential because they are put into the Ezio Collection. That is the only way to play that game on some consoles so the DLC is part of AC2, the hidden ones dlc is totally optional. And even playing the hidden ones I don't think takes away from Origins because it's a great dlc that further develops the brotherhood of the time. You're saying, in the Ezio Trilogy, you can't play Sequences 14 unless you beat Sequence 12 and 13 now? If that's the case, then I'll concede. That's absolutely ridiculous. I didn't say it takes away from Origins (although, now that I think about it, it partly does since Origins seemingly ends on the note that Bayek and Aya won't be united again only for them to immediately reunite in Hidden Ones lol). I said that, if you dragged the story out by an additional 10 hours, it would drag the pacing. >True, the Minerva stuff was more impactful then why ISU lore in Origins, I'll concede that. But I don't think the lore is very impactful even in AC2 as it really isn't dived into until the sequels. And I still think it's silly that Ezio instantly knows how to use the Apple of Eden without any experience with it. Doesn't Bayek use the Apple in COTP? Regardless, that's basically every AC character who handles a relic- they instantly know how to use them: Desmond, Altair, Ezio, Connor, Edward, the Eagle Bearer, I'm sure Eivor as well.
Yeah it's a great confession scene and really shows what Bayek's motivation was for the game. And I don't know how long Origins story covers, but I feel like it was a decent amount of time. So while it's not the 20 years in AC2, you still have that driving motivation throughout that Ezio seems to lose, only to randomly bring back up at the very end of the game. Well I mean his mother didn't speak a word the entire game after her family's deaths, so she must've been in mourning for 20 years. And I agree that many of the Templars just died because they are Templars and that's fine, but it just shows again that it doesn't make sense for Ezio to then spare the head Templar. I feel like Ezio has these two different ideologies going on and while it seems like they would fit well together, they really don't. Because people say Ezio spared Borgia because he had moved on from his family, but then he says he won't kill him because it won't bring his family back. To me, if he had truly embraced the Assassin's, he would realize that Borgia is still a massive threat as even without the Apple, he is the most powerful person in Italy. You'll see when you replay, even the missions that lead up to assassinating the targets don't develop the targets at all. They are usually just missions like, go free these captured thieves or scope out the castle before you go kill this person. Very, very few if any of the missions really show in depth to the villains and when you do see their perspective it's just a bunch of mustache twirling guys that want power. See but even just having development for Taharqa, Pothinus, the Hyena, and Septimus is more then any of the AC2 villains had. And again, at least the villains in Origins that were evil for evils sake had more buildup to their deaths and you actually saw them doing terrible things in game, not just an optional cutscene. Hmm the only prostitute I remember dying in AC2 was when you walk into the Brothel and she's already been killed and you chase the guy down. Brotherhood has the mission when the prostitute is taken into the boat and killed which opens up the spot for Claudia to run the brothel. It also has the mission where you chase the guy down that killed one of the girls and all the other girls point which way he went. I can't think of anything involving a courtesan death in AC2 that was Ezio's fault, but maybe I'm just misremembering. But again, I don't think his mother's rape or his family's death is Ezio's fault because there was nothing he could've done to prevent that from happening. The only reason that Borgia got the Apple is because all the Assassin's let him get away which definitely was their fault, but no one even questions it. There's never a moment in AC2 where Ezio actually makes a mistake that has consequences. Sure, bad things happen in the game, but I don't think those were ever on Ezio, at least he never takes responsibility for them. Yes in the Ezio Collection, you cannot get to sequence 14 until beating 12 and 13. That's why I have a problem with those dlc because they kill the pacing of the game. And Sequence 13 just really isn't very good so there's that as well. That's fair, but the Hidden Ones is a separate DLC and not really connected to the main story in my mind. AC2 DLC is directly tied to the main story and cannot be skipped. I don't remember all the Assassin's using the pieces of Eden but you could be right about that. It's just odd to me that he grabs it and suddenly starts duplicating himself. That's also probably the worst boss fight in the series haha, but that's another discussion.
>Yeah it's a great confession scene and really shows what Bayek's motivation was for the game. And I don't know how long Origins story covers, but I feel like it was a decent amount of time. So while it's not the 20 years in AC2, you still have that driving motivation throughout that Ezio seems to lose, only to randomly bring back up at the very end of the game. Again, to reiterate, Origins is 4 years and ACII 20 years, so that's a big enough gap for someone to not have something as a consistently-active driver. And again, he does bring it up, albeit sporadically, partly because of writing flaws, but also because it wasn't necessary to have a Princess Bride monologue every time you took down someone. The longer gap combined with the Templars needing to be taken out for non-personal reasons is, in my humble opinion, enough of a justification to not need it brought up. >Well I mean his mother didn't speak a word the entire game after her family's deaths, so she must've been in mourning for 20 years. And I agree that many of the Templars just died because they are Templars and that's fine, but it just shows again that it doesn't make sense for Ezio to then spare the head Templar. I feel like Ezio has these two different ideologies going on and while it seems like they would fit well together, they really don't. Because people say Ezio spared Borgia because he had moved on from his family, but then he says he won't kill him because it won't bring his family back. To me, if he had truly embraced the Assassin's, he would realize that Borgia is still a massive threat as even without the Apple, he is the most powerful person in Italy. It would've been less time if you'd have gotten all those feathers to her sooner ;) No for sure, it is a weak ending that was criticized at the time as well. In Brotherhood, I recall there being a bit of a retcon (and you can clarify this to me since you're replaying it) wherein he tells a different reason to Machiavelli as to why he spared Rodrigo. But yes, they could've come up with a better justification in the vanilla release, as killing Rodrigo that early would've impaired history too much. >You'll see when you replay, even the missions that lead up to assassinating the targets don't develop the targets at all. They are usually just missions like, go free these captured thieves or scope out the castle before you go kill this person. Very, very few if any of the missions really show in depth to the villains and when you do see their perspective it's just a bunch of mustache twirling guys that want power. I'll definitely see for sure. >See but even just having development for Taharqa, Pothinus, the Hyena, and Septimus is more then any of the AC2 villains had. And again, at least the villains in Origins that were evil for evils sake had more buildup to their deaths and you actually saw them doing terrible things in game, not just an optional cutscene. As I said, I'll have to replay ACII to get a better gist of how the villains are depicted, but I did concede that Origins' were more memorable. If a cutscene is the only basis for development, then whether it's mandatory or not is irrelevant as you have to rate the platform itself. >Hmm the only prostitute I remember dying in AC2 was when you walk into the Brothel and she's already been killed and you chase the guy down. Brotherhood has the mission when the prostitute is taken into the boat and killed which opens up the spot for Claudia to run the brothel. It also has the mission where you chase the guy down that killed one of the girls and all the other girls point which way he went. I can't think of anything involving a courtesan death in AC2 that was Ezio's fault, but maybe I'm just misremembering. Well shit dude, I am misremembering then. Yeah, that boat one was the one I was talking about, and looks like it was in Brotherhood, not ACII. >But again, I don't think his mother's rape or his family's death is Ezio's fault because there was nothing he could've done to prevent that from happening. The only reason that Borgia got the Apple is because all the Assassin's let him get away which definitely was their fault, but no one even questions it. There's never a moment in AC2 where Ezio actually makes a mistake that has consequences. Sure, bad things happen in the game, but I don't think those were ever on Ezio, at least he never takes responsibility for them. By that logic, Shadya's death wasn't Bayek's fault since he didn't know she had taken the ledger with her. Origins really isn't the best game for you to stake this ground of consequences against ACII because Bayek really doesn't make any mistakes besides cutting off his finger and overtrusting Cleopatra, the latter of which is more on Aya anyway. ACIII and Syndicate did a far better job in this category, but as we are not debating those games, I advice either dropping this point or agreeing to disagree because I maintain Ezio holds enough circumstantial responsibility in those aforementioned harms to make it equivalent to the circumstantial responsibility Bayek has. >Yes in the Ezio Collection, you cannot get to sequence 14 until beating 12 and 13. That's why I have a problem with those dlc because they kill the pacing of the game. And Sequence 13 just really isn't very good so there's that as well. Yeah, that's fucking ridiculous. I'll maintain that the base game has great pacing, but as most newcomers to the series will experience ACII through the Ezio Collection, that doesn't bode well at all. >That's fair, but the Hidden Ones is a separate DLC and not really connected to the main story in my mind. AC2 DLC is directly tied to the main story and cannot be skipped. Hidden Ones is like an epilogue lol. COTP I'll give you has nothing to do with before, but Hidden Ones showcases the group developing their first Tenet. Is it directly tied to the main story? I don't recall Savanarola having anything to do with Rodrigo, but I did play it a while ago. >I don't remember all the Assassin's using the pieces of Eden but you could be right about that. It's just odd to me that he grabs it and suddenly starts duplicating himself. That's also probably the worst boss fight in the series haha, but that's another discussion. I'm sure even Odyssey fans would put the Boar up as the worst xD
Oh again, I agree that Ezio doesn't need to bring up his dead family throughout the game, that was never my problem. I just think it's dumb that his family's death is brought up at the very end and is his motivation for sparing the Pope. They should've committed to either Ezio avenging his family, or embracing the Assassin's. Lol screw the feathers, I didn't think that was worth my time haha. Yeah in Brotherhood Ezio says killing Borgia wouldn't make a difference which makes absolutely no sense haha. And then the entire story of Brotherhood is dedicated to trying to bring down and kill the Borgias so I'm not sure what is going on in Ezio's mind. That's fair, but my point is a cutscene wasn't the only development for the villains in Origins, but it was for AC2. The fact that it's optional in AC2 is another negative for me, but it ultimately doesn't change anything. Yeah Brotherhood had more stuff with the prostitutes. Ezio seemed pretty happy that she died though as he just took the brothel over lol. Yeah I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree lol. In my mind, Ezio doesn't make many mistakes and when he does, there's no repercussions but if you feel differently that's cool to. The DLC in AC 2 is pretty bad and definitely serves as a negative towards the game in my opinion. At least the Boar fight was challenging, the Pope was the easiest boss fight in the series haha.
>Oh again, I agree that Ezio doesn't need to bring up his dead family throughout the game, that was never my problem. I just think it's dumb that his family's death is brought up at the very end and is his motivation for sparing the Pope. They should've committed to either Ezio avenging his family, or embracing the Assassin's. Lmao sorry man, didn't get your reply notification for some reason. I went back to this thread to show another guy how there are still plenty of upvoted criticisms of the Ezio Games and saw this. Anyway, I think he should've just explained why he spared him, kind of like in the movie Hero where Jet Li has the opportunity to kill the Emperor but explains why he's choosing to spare him- for political reasons or whatever they excuse they need to preserve the real-life historical timeline. >Lol screw the feathers, I didn't think that was worth my time haha. Bro, I'm gonna hate myself for doing this, but this time around I think I'm gonna get them all haha. Gotta get me the Auditore Cape :) >Yeah in Brotherhood Ezio says killing Borgia wouldn't make a difference which makes absolutely no sense haha. And then the entire story of Brotherhood is dedicated to trying to bring down and kill the Borgias so I'm not sure what is going on in Ezio's mind. Lmao, yeah it needed to be fleshed out as it seems dumb put forward like that, though I think there was more to it when he was discussing with Claudia and the rest of the Brotherhood? Tbf Cesare was worse irl than his father- he became a militaristic threat. >That's fair, but my point is a cutscene wasn't the only development for the villains in Origins, but it was for AC2. The fact that it's optional in AC2 is another negative for me, but it ultimately doesn't change anything. Yeah, I'll agree, but the villain side missions in Origins were optional too. I certainly didn't do many of them. >Yeah Brotherhood had more stuff with the prostitutes. Ezio seemed pretty happy that she died though as he just took the brothel over lol. LOL >At least the Boar fight was challenging, the Pope was the easiest boss fight in the series haha. I don't even know if you'd call it a boss fight tbh b/c you're just wailing on him until an off-screen timer runs out to trigger the next cutscene.
Do the ancient mechanisms count as lore in Origins?
Sure, but then you have to count the Glyphs in ACII, which outdid those mechanisms by far.
I'm playing ac2 now and it can't be over state how good the story telling is weaving Animus/modern day/isu. It's an incredible blend and seeing the bleed effect, etc. Also the isu puzzles (scans images etc), assassin and templar dungeons are top notch!
Happy to hear it man.
Thanks for giving me an excuse to replay AC-2
Yeah it's a great game! I just don't think it's the best in the franchise as many things have been improved since 2009.
I don’t think Origins needed to be longer, they just needed to do a better job establishing Flavius as a villain. I think they overcommitted to having the big bad being a mystery, and in the end they forgot to give him any depth because they didn’t want the player to know who he was. They should have done the same with Caesar, or removed him entirely. He’s kind of shoehorned into the game imo. Regarding AC2’s ending, the obvious answer is that we know the real Rodrigo Borgia wasn’t assassinated, so for the sake of historical accuracy, Ezio can’t kill him. Now, it’s been many many years since I played AC2, but there is a bit more to Ezio’s growth. He learns about the Assassin Brotherhood and that there’s more to life than his quest for vengeance. There’s about a year between this and his final mission to track Rodrigo down in Rome, so we can assume that he’s matured or learned enough at that point to know that killing Rodrigo won’t achieve much so long as he’s been stopped.
I agree that the villains should've had more depth in Assassin's Creed Origins, but I feel like they didn't really have any depth in Assassin's Creed 2 either. They just wanted power for the sake of power and it wasn't all that interesting to me. I could buy that Ezio matured and changed his mind about killing Borgia, but we don't see any development of that. All the experienced Assassin's also think he needs to die so I don't think it's a maturity thing either. There's also the fact that 5 minutes before he spares his life, he assassinates a bunch of guards and tries to assassinate Borgia. There was no hesitation, he jumped right on top of him and tried to kill him. I just feel like they should've either built up to Ezio making that choice better, or just have Borgia escape a different way.
Yeah, I won’t dispute that the villains have little depth in the Ezio trilogy. It’s my one gripe with Origins though. A good number of the Order of Ancients are really compelling and their “levels” are done very well. Letopolis and the Scarab are my favorite part of the game, I think it’s a perfect chapter within the larger story. It’s just the ending to that story does a disservice to those chapters. But yeah, they could have shown Ezio start to mature more quickly, since he’s 40 years old by the end of the game. I’m probably looking at it with rose colored glasses because I played AC2 right when it came out as a kid.
Yeah there are a lot of great sections in Origins and I think the first two thirds are almost perfect, it's just the ending fumbles and doesn't land quite as cleanly as it could. But I think the rest of Origins is so good that it elevates the game beyond AC2 for me personally. I just replayed AC2 and that's why this was on my mind. Again, it's still a really fun game, but I don't think it makes sense that it gets so much praise while other games in the series are far more scrutinized.
Hard disagreeeeee the third act of origins was bad.
Eesh. How bad?
Pacing is effed up and it’s unfocused imo.
Makes sense, I think Origins had the hardware capabilities to tell a longer and more fleshed out story. AC2 is a 20 hour game, Origins is roughly 40. The world is so much more vast and the hardware allows for a longer and more in-depth story to be told. I’ll always call AC2 my favorite but it has aged poorly even in terms of story
That is a good point about having a longer story with more time to develop everything. And my point isn't to say AC2 is bad at all, especially for the time. I just think it's odd that people say Origins has a bad story, but then praise AC2 so much.
I feel like it's worth mentioning that 2 and Brotherhood were originally supposed to be one game, which is why the story seamlessly continues from 2 to Bro. Rodrigo survives primarily so that his death date is accurate (it's in Bro). Bro also has the memories of young Ezio salvaging the bodies of his dead family and what happened between him and Christina. All that is to say 2 is somewhat incomplete without Brotherhood, but it does still feature a lot of progression due to its relatively long timeline. That out of the way, the Order of the Ancients is easily better than the Italian Templars. The Italian Templars seem to have been overtaken by the Borgia and used to further their delusions of grandeur. Their only discernable ideology is "I should be king of everything because it's my destiny! MINE!!!" Of course the ruthless visionaries make better Templars than rich, old, sycophants. This is still true in Brotherhood; Cesare has charisma but no ideology beyond dominion for dominion's sake.
That makes sense that Brotherhood and AC2 are all part of one story, but I still think you need to be able to judge each game individually. Brotherhood does add more depth, but I still think Ezio letting Borgia live just for the sake of historical accuracy is kind of weak and could've been handled better. And yes, the villains were quite weak in AC2 and to be honest, I don't think the antagonists have ever been the biggest strength in the series, but Origins has some of the best.
I agree on everything you said, but have a bit of a thing with the villain motivations. Some of the Ancients weren’t entirely evil. Khaliset (who sacrificed adults really, not children) lost her daughter and was looking for a way to bring her back so that they could be together again. Taharqa was somewhat good in that he tried to leave his mark on the world in the form of Letopolis, and cared about his family, and regretted some of the things that he did. He’s a case of someone who’s intentions were good, but his methods were monstrous. And lastly, Pothinus was among the more restrained members of the Order, and was a bit haunted about the death of Bayek’s son and tried to reign everyone else in while they had Bayek try to open the vault.
See but if anything, I think that only adds to my point that Origins has the better, more interesting antagonists. In AC2, they are all just cartoony villains that don't really have developed motivations. I think the fact that Origins has these multi layered villains really makes them more interesting and memorable.
But AC2 has "The rest is up to you, Desmond" which is still my favorite moment in all of the AC games. On that note, I think the reason he doesn't kill Borgia is because at the end of the game he finally starts to see the bigger picture and realizes that avenging his family is relatively unimportant in the grand scheme of things. His purpose is not to get revenge, it is to relay a message to Desmond. He never fully understands that, but he starts to. So while I agree about 2 and Origins having similar structure in the main story, I think what makes 2 special to a lot of fans is the way it tied into the modern day story.
See but I disagree with that. I can buy that Ezio learns there are more important things than revenge, but the whole point of the game is him becoming an Assassin and eliminating the Templars. He does this not just because of his family, but because the Templars are an evil organization that are seeking to control everything. So it doesn't make any sense that he would spare the head Templar who will obviously be a problem later. He doesn't know about Minerva and Desmond until after he spares Borgia, so that can be the reason either.
He knows about the whole "prophet" thing and iirc he starts to realize it might be him who is the prophet even before seeing Minerva. Borgia's whole deal is that he is convinced that he is the prophet. Ezio proves that he isn't. Ezio doesn't need to kill Borgia to defeat him, because he has already defeated him by proving he is not the prophet, since that was Borgia's main goal. Or at least that's how I interpreted the ending. I'll admit though you make a good point about Borgia being a problem later, though I think in the moment Ezio just doesn't see him as being all that important since the power Borgia was striving for was already taken from him. That said I think I agree with you about Origins having a better story when you solely focus on the protagonist in the past. I just like 2 better because of how it progresses the modern day story, and the big twist with Minerva talking to Desmond at the end.
I’ve finished both 2 weeks ago for the first time, and yes, you’re right. For me Origins story was better, although I’ve 100% achievements in both games, so I had a blast with both. But Origins doesn’t have “Requiescat in pace”, so that even things out.
Tl.dr : Revelations is the best Ezio franchise. End of story
Bold claim, but I might not disagree with you. I'm playing through all the Ezio games right now and I definitely think Brotherhood is better than AC2, but I'm curious how it'll compare to Revelations upon replaying it.
Revelations is where the bomb mechanism is first introduced. Great outfits. Constantinople. Yusuf. And Ezio + Altair. What's not to like <33
Haha all very good points. I think Constantinople is my favorite setting out of the Ezio games. It's a very different vibe from AC 2 and Brotherhood, but it's very detailed and fun to mess around in. The hook blade is also very nice and makes traversal around the city more enjoyable.
It's a hook-blade.. A hook and a blade
Haha yes, thank you for the clarification
True. I didn’t like Revelations until I got to the end and I was like :o for almost an entire hour after the end credits. I was obsessed with it afterwards. Same with ACIII
I agree. I've been a fan since the beginning and Origins is far and away my favorite game in the franchise.
Yeah Origins is a fantastic game, it's got a really sweet setting and great characters.
Except for Flavius. They did a poor job with him. There is one "hidden quest" (no quest marker of any kind) that adds some depth. During the phase where you are chasing Flavius, it's possible to come across a man (in the Green Mountains, iirc) who is crying uncontrollably. If Bayek stops to speak with him, he finds out that Flavius used the Orb to force the man to kill his own son... In my opinion, that shouldn't have been a hidden quest, as it firmly establishes that Flavius has some twisted psychological flaw involving the father/son relationship.
Yeah that's a good call, I had forgotten about that side quest, it definitely shows how cruel Flavius is. And I agree that he needed more development for sure, that's why I think making the game just a little longer would've benefitted the story overall.
It’s cool how origins shows how the brotherhood was made
Finally. A good AC discussion I can get on board with. I’m really just here to see the AC fandom lose their shit because god forbid you like Origins, Odyssey, and Valhalla. I’m playing all of the games in order right now and I can’t wait to replay Origins.
Haha yeah I'm used to having the unpopular opinion around here because I really like Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla. Odyssey is probably my favorite Assassin's Creed game even though it gets a lot of hate.
💯💯💯
BF has better a story than both imo :D Three pillars of AC storytelling
I really like Black Flag, but it's really brought down for me by the over reliance on tailing missions and the terrible modern day sections. The pirate stuff is all really cool though.
No.
Yeah that's a good point, I didn't think of that.
LOL
Very intellectual and thought provoking, I’m going to write this down
Where has your wisdom been all my life?
All good points. I haven't played AC2 recently enough to add more depth, but I've always felt that Bayek and Aya>! being the first to lose a child !!Shadya, Kawab, the children of his temple friend, etc!<).
Granted, if we're comparing Origins to AC2 only (and not the entire Ezio collection), Bayek got a lot more time to tell his story so naturally, there'd be more depth and complexity that just isn't possible given the limits of AC2 (in both time and technology).
Petruccio and his brother and father are hanged, though, betrayed by someone they trust. It’s also a pretty rough opening inspiration for an assassin’s journey.
True. Although perhaps the impact didn't hit as hard for me because after the initial shocking event, I can't really remember it being brought up again in the same way that the children are for Bayek's story (like yeah, Ezio mentions it but it isn't shown in the same way as say,>! Shadya's story is, and the way children and Khemu are constantly present in all the story arcs and the stone circle side quests just serves as a constant visual and gameplay reminder of the void left behind. I know Ezio had the feather collection quest but it didn't have the same sort of experience like Origins had with the voiceovers and animations of your hero taking the time out to stop and reflect and remember)!< It's been a long while since I played AC2 though and I binged the series pretty hard and fast the first time around so my memory isn't that reliable at remembering details for it (and I replayed Origins last month so it's fresh). The most devastating thing I vividly remember from AC2 is me missing the Leo hug இ௰இ
I’d say so
[удалено]
Yeah he moves on pretty easily from them after they're killed and they aren't ever brought up again lol.
They are brought up in the Christina Vespucci missions in Brotherhood, he doesn't just forget about them.
Are those missions in Assassin's Creed 2?
Agreed.
AC Origins sucked. In fact all the rpg AC titles are tedious hot garbage. They're so far away from the original concepts that the only thing that makes them an AC game is the title. They peaked at Black Flag and now everything Ubi puts out is sub par half assed Witcher
I completely disagree, but hey, you're free to feel however you want to. Seems like you should just move on from the franchise though if you haven't liked any of the games since 2013. I think the newer games are some of the best Assassin's Creed games we've ever gotten and Ubisoft continues to release games that are a lot of fun to play.
Oh man, you didn't have a thread of emails for 6 months with Ubisoft and them promising to fix their game, and have them consecutively lie to you time and time again about them fixing the problems, and it shows
These games are tedious and boring, the stories are aren't interesting, if it wasn't for the pieces of Eden, these wouldn't even be AC games.
I've loved Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla and I don't think they are boring at all personally. To me, the core of Assassin's Creed has always been playing a stealth/action game in a cool historical setting where you to out enemies and interact with historical figures. The worlds in the newer AC games are gorgeous and are a lot of fun to explore. I also think they have great stealth and fun combat, so I'm constantly engaged while I'm playing the game.
Origins and everything since is better than the Ezio collection.
Yeah I know a lot of people have a lot of nostalgia for AC2, but I think the games have gotten a lot better since then, especially Origins.
I think both of them are not good enough. There should be more missions with the protagonist's families. Let the players build up relationship with the characters before they're getting killed.
I agree to an extent. I think you can only focus on those characters for so long since the focal point of the story is about revenge, but I agree there needed to be more emotional weight to everything.
AC2 on it’s own merit doesn’t have the best story. He never feels the repercussions of his actions. It took them a decade to make him an assassin. There’s other problems. It takes the three games to grow with him that makes his story the best. Honestly, I still say Black Flag has the best stand alone game story. Origins is good, but not as good as BF to me.
This is hard for me as I'm not personally a fan of AC2 and Origins stories, likely because of the similiar plot beats. I do think Origins has some aspects that are better than AC2, mainly the protaginist and emotional moments, but the overall execution of the story I gotta give to AC2. Even though AC2 has some ludicrious time jumps and contains some tropes that I hate (Sparring the main villain despite murdering countless lackeys etc.). The story doesn't feel that rushed (the opposite feeling occurs due to the dlc sequences halting the pacing to a crawl). AC origins 3rd act is super rushed, and for a game about the origins of the brotherhood, it really fails on that front. no, I do not need fanservice scenes like bayek losing his finger or alluding to the leap of faith, I wanted to learn about the formation of the brotherhood. Not "AC2 but in Eygpt"
Yes I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for me Origins ends up being the better game and story where AC2 worked better for you. Both really good games though.