It's insane how, despite not "holding up", AC1, a game from 2007, still looks absolutely feasable. Like, I still replay this one every now and then. And the graphics would never take me out of the immersion. The world looks real enough to fully suck you in. 2007 graphics. This game will forever be one of my favourite games.
I played AC1 for the first time a couple weeks ago and I definitely thought it was neat. Everything was pretty good but my biggest gripes were how stiff Altaïr's performance was and sometimes the parkour wouldn't grab onto easily grabbable ledges so I'd have to reposition to make the game let me. Oh, also the combat sometimes got finicky. Funnily enough, all my gripes about AC1 were fixed and improved upon in AC2 which I also just played and finished for the first time this week. AC2 has genuinely become one of my favorites and I'm starting on AC: Brotherhood now.
When getting to the End of Mirage, I couldn't help but wonder: Why didn't the game feel this connected earlier? Why do they insist on telling seperate story arcs? This story would have really benefited from gameplay moments that lead to character developement throughout the game, not just at the end of it. It would have made the struggle so much more apparent.
It's a backstory. It tells about how Basim becane the way he was in Valhalla. It's not really meant to be a mainline in my opinion. It just exists for people who wanted to know about Basim, and for people who wanted to explore Baghdad.
I think AC Mirage gives another chance that AC 1 never had. Like you said, the games just kept adding and adding, but never fixed the core mechanics. The RPGs aren't something new that came out of nowhere, but it can be argued that even AC2 started this road. Of course they had new things, but it likely took other things out instead of imrpoving on them. It 2 steps forward, 3 steps back. We need to clarify what we want this time, so they don't misunderstand in making an entire new genre like after Origins. Mirage is a huge step towards the right direction, but needs to finally enhance the things that AC1 used to have and build upon it.
The story ended with Valhalla. Mirage exists, becuase it's a backstory for Basim, and it was a project the team wanted to do instead of just making a dlc.
Assassin's has changed first off, and secondly, it's changed so much to the point Ubisoft was bullied into making it an RPG franchise, and that's not what Assassin's Creed even is. Sure, they messed up at first with AC Unity, but they made thing's right with the game. If it weren't for people on the internet abusing Ubisoft like a bunch of little babies, we would still have the original formula for the franchise because they wouldn't have been driven to change it in the first place.
Ok, I have a bunch of issues with this video, the crux being the title. Assassin's Creed has changed A LOT. Your main point being "Mirage is like AC1" makes no sense because that's the whole point. Recent entries changed AC so much to the point that it was a different game altogether. Mirage is supposed to be like AC1. Now for the rest of your points: - Parkour: You complaining about the parkour in AC1 really set the tone for the video for me. The controls, while a bit janky, sure, usually do whatever you ask Altair to do. You have to implement a button discipline in the older games. The newer games hold your hand. Most movement that was manual is now contextual. You are automatically stopped from making dangerous jumps in others. In Odyssey they straight up get rid of fall damage. They've already automated large chunks of the parkour to the point now where you're just walking on walls, in Odyssey and Valhalla you can climb sheer cliffs with your bare hands. Mirage slightly reverses these changes, for good I'd say. - Mission Structure: While Assassin's Creed retains some core missions (robbing, assassinating, tailing, etc), I don't generally see how this is a problem. It would be like complaining about how every GTA has certain story missions like committing a robbery or stealing a car or whatnot. Some games do a better job at mission variety than others, I'll give you that The main takeaway for me is this: I wish people who didn't like Assassin's Creed had never played it. Y'all complained and complained and turned a series that genuinely innovated when it first came out to being reduced to a trend chaser. This was a wholly unique game. Now it's just another generic RPG machine. Classic AC fans finally get a bone thrown to us after like 8 years and the same people are back complaining about the same things.
I like Mirage but the RPGs really aren't just regular RPGs. Sure, they don't have a bizarre different gameplay loop, but the older games are really overrated by older fans. Origins absolutely destroys the previous three titles in being a complete game that actually feels like your getting your money's worth. Side quests have never been better and seeing the protagonist in the newer games interact all over the map is much better. Parkour was great through the colonial games, and then Unity released with the most overrated as hell parkour ever. It's flashy but I'd hate to see it come back. Now I'm not the best at parkour, but Unity did not improve. Its wonky, and Arno absolutely fails to do what I'm trying to do much more than in other games. The RPG games didn't focus on parkour, which I personally didn't care as much for as long as it's a good game. Stealth is still viable in all of them and I'd argue the only people complaining about stealth are just not playing the game right, specifically Odyssey or they are upset they don't have multiple tools. The combat shines in the newer games. The argument for more weight in the older games using various weapons is also just ridiculous. Like in older games, a heavier weapon takes more time to swing and kill enemies than lighter weapons. I'd also argue that being upset over fall damage is probably the most mediocre argument as well since it's ok to leap from the highest point and be ok with a haystack saving you. Probably should have had no fall damage when the first game came out. For your point about people that don't like Assassin's Creed, they shouldn't play or complain about it. That's kind of arguing they're opinion on a game doesn't matter. If a regular gamer plays Assassin's Creed 2, and they play it, beat it, they are allowed to complain about it if it's genuinely something they didn't like. Combat was at its best in the colonial games, then got worse, and finally did better in the RPGs. It's also not just those people you are referring to. I find the argument that the games should have new mechanics, new systems every few games or by each game crazy. If the system works and is loved, there should be no reason to change it constantly. Anyway, there were fans complaining about the games playing too similar to each other after nine freaking games. I get that argument, but the shift to RPG is great. We got three games, that despite playing similarly and having the same assets, they all play differently. Each has different systems and each works in some ways. You don't have to like the RPGs, but they are genuinely good AC games, but people hate them for not having a protagonist that is in the Brotherhood. Its ridiculous that just because the games don't play the same as the older, people will rate them horrendously with bias all over it. It's also ridiculous to be upset when the protagonist chooses not to join or couldn't join the order. I don't like dialogue options, but Alexios and Eivor are fantastic characters. I'd argue better than some of the older protagonists. Anyway, if you read all of this, everyone has their view of Assassin's Creed, whether they like RPG or traditional, but the traditional fanbase isn't better than the RPG fanbase, or the people who like all of them like me. Instead of wanting every game to be exactly like the one you like the most, judge it based on what it brings to the franchise by itself. Some people like Odyssey the best, others Brotherhood. It's not fact that Brotherhood is better than Odyssey, so it shouldn't be treated as such.
@@ac_nerd9794I don't understand the point of your comment. RPG fans have won. We get a single title like Mirage (the first in 8 years), y'all are gonna get Red immediately after. There's a lot I can reply to in your essay (I did read all of it) but it's pointless. Enjoy what you enjoy, I can still lament what is lost. Have a good one.
@@usmanqureshi8941 That's the thing though. After Red, Hexe is completely different and there might not be another RPG as we don't know what the next titles will look like. We might get an RPG, or something else like Mirage. But Hexe has been stated to be completely different. What I was talking about included the RPG fans. Even though all three titles were very successful, old-school or OG fans as some like to call themselves absolutely think if you like the newer Assassin's Creed games, your just an RPG famboy, and I mean quite a few of them have this mindset. They are good games, just not good AC games. Unity is often thought of as the game to play, but UA-camrs specifically play on PC with modded versions that are enhanced to make it look and play better. I'm on XSX and it is easily still worse than Odyssey for me even if I do enjoy it very much. I'm saying fans of the series need to stop acting like they have the high ground in what AC is. It's a historical action series more than stealth even if stealth and parkour have mostly been at its foundation. The protagonist not being a member of the assassin order doesn't kill the game and neither does the game not focusing on parkour. As for Mirage, I absolutely adore it for what it is. Could have been better but people that hate are either unreasonable or they just want Unity 2.0 which is even worse if you ask me. I'd just go back closer to the colonial games or build from Mirage. I realize people want the older games back but there are 9 of them. We have 3 RPG that essentially made more than all 9 of the previous games with the exception of Black Flag possibly. Those games sold for the setting and the experiences they offer. A pirate, a spartan, and a viking are all games people have wanted and Ubisoft did either very good or great at those games. All I'm saying is the newer games still build on the universe of the Assassin's Creed franchise and all of them are close enough to the plot of assassins vs templars that people shouldn't let biases rule the franchise. Also, thank you for being respectful and you have a good one as well.
@@usmanqureshi8941it's funny how this video or the thumbnail shows you that "THE STORY NEVER CHANGES'' - yet AC2 was the FIRST one to change the actual Assassin vs Templar conflict to be black and white and ZERO nuance... the reason why AC 2 suffers from very mid writing especially with ezios character arc with it being practically non-existent and it making no sense, is because ppl only say that Ezio was well written because of the simple change of him being revenge driven but then turning into a wise adult which is simply not true... Ezio's character growth happens way too quickly and doesn't help thr fact that the game time skips constantly... so by the time ezio is in sequence 5 or 6, he's already a wise not revenge driven adult who explains how much he has grown in that speech in sequence 13 but it ultimately falls flat because ezio remained the same as he was since sequence 4 or 6, and he explains how his ppl aka the assassin's showed him the path of vengeance isnt right even though thats not true because they always wanted him to kill templars and trained him to do so, even the girl that got betrayed just like ezio gave ezios the abilitied to aid him against templars... Also ezio never makes any mistakes except for disrespecting francescos son but it was over so quickly that it didn't even matter and because ezio himself hangs francesco brutally and has the music to show that this was cruel but it is never mentioned and never has any reprocussions for that action that ezio did, ubisoft hinted at making ezio somewhat grey, with that snippet of him hanging francesco, and the cinematic trailer where the templar seems like somewhat of a decent person, as well as the guards, but ubisoft just decided to not do that and instead abandon what they had from the 1st game where everything was morally grey and you couldn't decide which sides were right... Now ezio vs the borgia is basically just like tlou2 but somewhat worse and I love how everyone praised this but not TLOU2, however ubisoft did fix ezios character in brotherhood and in revelations and using his character to reflect on how he was in AC 2 where machiavelli just said that ezio was a prophet even though ezio never really was able to cope with it as well as retiring after dealing with rodrigo borgia but all that changes where his city gets attacked and is done with this shit. Now, im just going spew some copied and pasted stuff regarding AC1 and AC2 down below, so enjoy... AC was morally grey since the first ever AC game..... everyone is grey and not just the assassin's v templar conflict but someone like King Richard, you'd expect him to be always ruthless and bad but no, sure he ordered an attack to basically kill everyone which includes women and children but in the game, he's never your enemy at all and the conversation he and altair gives really showcase the grey aspects of assassin's creed in where i wish they kept in AC2 but no, AC2s greyness is almost practically gone and those who are there or like a hint of greyness like uberto being manipulated by the templars to save his loved ones isn't really that well thought out especially other things like ezio hanging francesco in which he's supposed to respect the dead by that point in the story but he doesn't and this wouldve had the perfect opportunity to have conflict with mario as well as maybe showcasing something with jacopo.... in brotherhood they actually wrote ezio so much better and being flawed instead of the gary sue he was in AC2 it still is a really good game.... AC2 isn't as good as ppl make it out to be..... the story/writing is so badly messy especially with the time gaps that make no sense and instead had to correlate with the actual year in when ezio has to kill a target the things i literally mentioned is what makes AC1 not only unique but very good... no other game has been able to replicate the gameplay mechanics of AC1... the closest ones were unity but with syndicate, originally they were actually going to back and expand how AC1 functioned but deadline fcked Ubisoft Quebec up.... every game is repetitive, you take AC2s dlc missions where he goes to Florence then you'll realise how shallow AC2s gameplay is when it tried to do what AC1 already did... mission designs with stealth is so fckin bad in the ezio games as Ubisoft a company that made Splinter Cell had stealth missions in AC2 to fail when detected... that is BAD gameplay design as it takes away player freedom compared to AC1 where in order for you to get better, you had actually play and learn everything the game had to offer bozo, you need to stop thinking about AC1s gameplay at a surface level... everything from player freedom, utilising your environment to your advantage for example, pickpocketing ppl who have information about the target and the area the target is in and has key information about certain environments to use you your advantage like a hole in a wall on the north end of the rooftop building.... then comes assassinating targets which has effect on the gameplay that ties with the narrative for example, killing the Templar nurse made the mentally ill go out and rot which affects how you traverse.... you need me to keep going or not? the gameplay definitely isn't better... if you take 'gameplay' as a whole which includes mission design then AC1 takes it by far even though it is repetitive and it's supposed to be repetitive both for the player and Altair himself or the narrative itself but what makes up for it is the whole 'freedom' and 'mechanics' of it all... especially going 'hudless' that Ubisoft originally was going to have for AC1 as the default will enhance your experience if you actually take the time the combat in AC2 had concepts to 'improve' but what the team at the time failed to realise is that just because you're changing how the combat works compared to the 1st game then that doesn't mean that it is an 'overall improvement' just because its a sequel and how majority of ppl seem to think like that... AC1s combat had concepts that worked with the implementation of progression in the story as well as the actual combat system itself... in AC2, you feel like the only way to defeat enemies and how its the most effective is just mashing the attack button because of how much it 'changed' for the sake of it being a sequel... yes you can still get counter-attacked by enemies or specific enemy types in AC2 but the problem is how it doesn't really incentivise its other layers or elements for its combat system... there are actually great concepts with grabbing enemies as a human shield as well as a more tweaked fist combat (which the fist combat is actually an improvement compared to the 1st game) as well as disarming enemies and using the enemies' weapon for yourself is actually great overshadowed by its ineffectiveness with its basic combat such as doing the usual counters and mashing the attack button... there are still layers to utilise the basic combat more effectively, when an enemy is low on health, you can hold the attack button and do a unique finisher on that enemy and this waa never brought back until AC: Unity which is pretty funny but anyways, there are step dodges which i forgot to mention that you can utilise with mixing it up with the basic combat as well as utilising it to take out an enemy faster by step dodging behind the enemy and one-shotting the a.i and not to mention how there's 2 variations of the step dodge with the 1st one being called 'strafe' where ezio covers long distances around the environment to dodge backwards, side ways in which you can get behind and forwards to get aggressive... then there is the close encounter steo dodge where Ezio covers short distances to be more engaged or personal in the combat which you can still utilise by going behind the enemy to one-shot him... there's also 'taunt' which makes the enemy try to hit you instantly but this was already implemented since the 1st game but Altair does it in a more different way that fits Altairs character.
I can’t believe you think the newer games have better parkour than the first ones Also why do you use god of war ragnarok’s music in this video? You also criticise the quality of cutscenes but this game is 20 dollars cheaper than your typical AAA game and is made by a new studio with few resources. Finally saying that Assassins Creed has never changed without mentioning the rpg trilogy which is so different than the previous games that made fans ask for a return to the roots and is why Ubisoft made Mirage feels like you intentionally ignored important details to sell your own narrative that is pretty out of touch with reality.
The AC games throughout Desmonds story with Altair and Ezio are a captivating page turner, but imo Assassin's Creed should have stopped long ago because Odyssey, Origins & Valhalla turned into boring, repetitive button mashing sand boxes with uninteresting dialogue and characters, and they introduced RPG mechanics that fucking sucked. Ubisoft saying they're "returning to roots" is mostly a lie. Yeah sure it's actually a game about the assassins finally, and the visuals remind you of AC 1 but they still incorporate sudo RPG bullshit where enemies have health bars again. The great thing about the combat in AC 1 & 2 is that if you got a clean hit on an enemy they were dead...as they should be. Also I hated the story and characters, I ended up just skipping all the dialogue because it was so boring compared to the days of Desmond & Ezio where I was hooked on every word...and one thing that pissed me off about Mirage is how the Middle East in the 9th century is so progressive.
Bro what is this game. ..come ubisoft. Why. .. I love ac. Game 🎮 But from the great game to worst 😕 they made assassin creed origin. Good then odyssey was the best game ever made by ubisoft. The Valhalla not good. The mirage when we're so happy then .when I played mirage 100% no good.
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
High effort video for a such a small channel has earned my respect keep it going
It's insane how, despite not "holding up", AC1, a game from 2007, still looks absolutely feasable. Like, I still replay this one every now and then. And the graphics would never take me out of the immersion. The world looks real enough to fully suck you in. 2007 graphics. This game will forever be one of my favourite games.
I played AC1 for the first time a couple weeks ago and I definitely thought it was neat. Everything was pretty good but my biggest gripes were how stiff Altaïr's performance was and sometimes the parkour wouldn't grab onto easily grabbable ledges so I'd have to reposition to make the game let me. Oh, also the combat sometimes got finicky. Funnily enough, all my gripes about AC1 were fixed and improved upon in AC2 which I also just played and finished for the first time this week. AC2 has genuinely become one of my favorites and I'm starting on AC: Brotherhood now.
Trust me your success is coming broski keep pushing. I give myself a pep talk before every upload. The amount of work you put in will not go unnoticed
I feel like this video is gonna blow up at some point. Also great video!
This was a really well made video
Amazing video essay keep it up
I was so surprised seeing the views this video got, your channel is honestly very underrated
When getting to the End of Mirage, I couldn't help but wonder: Why didn't the game feel this connected earlier? Why do they insist on telling seperate story arcs? This story would have really benefited from gameplay moments that lead to character developement throughout the game, not just at the end of it. It would have made the struggle so much more apparent.
It's a backstory. It tells about how Basim becane the way he was in Valhalla. It's not really meant to be a mainline in my opinion. It just exists for people who wanted to know about Basim, and for people who wanted to explore Baghdad.
I love this assassins creed to bits and i believe unity was the peak your amazing and this video is amazing i can't wait for more,
Great video, I can tell there was a lot of effort put into this. Subbed, and looking forward to more content 🤝
Great video
Criminally low views tbh. Great video!
Nice video!
grade content brother
the only thing that really changed were gameplay and stealth but stealth were there
I think AC Mirage gives another chance that AC 1 never had. Like you said, the games just kept adding and adding, but never fixed the core mechanics. The RPGs aren't something new that came out of nowhere, but it can be argued that even AC2 started this road. Of course they had new things, but it likely took other things out instead of imrpoving on them. It 2 steps forward, 3 steps back. We need to clarify what we want this time, so they don't misunderstand in making an entire new genre like after Origins. Mirage is a huge step towards the right direction, but needs to finally enhance the things that AC1 used to have and build upon it.
The story ended with Valhalla. Mirage exists, becuase it's a backstory for Basim, and it was a project the team wanted to do instead of just making a dlc.
Assassin's has changed first off, and secondly, it's changed so much to the point Ubisoft was bullied into making it an RPG franchise, and that's not what Assassin's Creed even is. Sure, they messed up at first with AC Unity, but they made thing's right with the game. If it weren't for people on the internet abusing Ubisoft like a bunch of little babies, we would still have the original formula for the franchise because they wouldn't have been driven to change it in the first place.
Justice
If only ubisoft had a fraction of your passion & respect for this franchise...
Ok, I have a bunch of issues with this video, the crux being the title. Assassin's Creed has changed A LOT. Your main point being "Mirage is like AC1" makes no sense because that's the whole point. Recent entries changed AC so much to the point that it was a different game altogether. Mirage is supposed to be like AC1. Now for the rest of your points:
- Parkour: You complaining about the parkour in AC1 really set the tone for the video for me. The controls, while a bit janky, sure, usually do whatever you ask Altair to do. You have to implement a button discipline in the older games. The newer games hold your hand. Most movement that was manual is now contextual. You are automatically stopped from making dangerous jumps in others. In Odyssey they straight up get rid of fall damage. They've already automated large chunks of the parkour to the point now where you're just walking on walls, in Odyssey and Valhalla you can climb sheer cliffs with your bare hands. Mirage slightly reverses these changes, for good I'd say.
- Mission Structure: While Assassin's Creed retains some core missions (robbing, assassinating, tailing, etc), I don't generally see how this is a problem. It would be like complaining about how every GTA has certain story missions like committing a robbery or stealing a car or whatnot. Some games do a better job at mission variety than others, I'll give you that
The main takeaway for me is this: I wish people who didn't like Assassin's Creed had never played it. Y'all complained and complained and turned a series that genuinely innovated when it first came out to being reduced to a trend chaser. This was a wholly unique game. Now it's just another generic RPG machine. Classic AC fans finally get a bone thrown to us after like 8 years and the same people are back complaining about the same things.
I like Mirage but the RPGs really aren't just regular RPGs. Sure, they don't have a bizarre different gameplay loop, but the older games are really overrated by older fans. Origins absolutely destroys the previous three titles in being a complete game that actually feels like your getting your money's worth.
Side quests have never been better and seeing the protagonist in the newer games interact all over the map is much better.
Parkour was great through the colonial games, and then Unity released with the most overrated as hell parkour ever. It's flashy but I'd hate to see it come back. Now I'm not the best at parkour, but Unity did not improve. Its wonky, and Arno absolutely fails to do what I'm trying to do much more than in other games. The RPG games didn't focus on parkour, which I personally didn't care as much for as long as it's a good game. Stealth is still viable in all of them and I'd argue the only people complaining about stealth are just not playing the game right, specifically Odyssey or they are upset they don't have multiple tools. The combat shines in the newer games. The argument for more weight in the older games using various weapons is also just ridiculous. Like in older games, a heavier weapon takes more time to swing and kill enemies than lighter weapons. I'd also argue that being upset over fall damage is probably the most mediocre argument as well since it's ok to leap from the highest point and be ok with a haystack saving you. Probably should have had no fall damage when the first game came out.
For your point about people that don't like Assassin's Creed, they shouldn't play or complain about it. That's kind of arguing they're opinion on a game doesn't matter. If a regular gamer plays Assassin's Creed 2, and they play it, beat it, they are allowed to complain about it if it's genuinely something they didn't like. Combat was at its best in the colonial games, then got worse, and finally did better in the RPGs. It's also not just those people you are referring to. I find the argument that the games should have new mechanics, new systems every few games or by each game crazy. If the system works and is loved, there should be no reason to change it constantly. Anyway, there were fans complaining about the games playing too similar to each other after nine freaking games. I get that argument, but the shift to RPG is great. We got three games, that despite playing similarly and having the same assets, they all play differently. Each has different systems and each works in some ways. You don't have to like the RPGs, but they are genuinely good AC games, but people hate them for not having a protagonist that is in the Brotherhood. Its ridiculous that just because the games don't play the same as the older, people will rate them horrendously with bias all over it. It's also ridiculous to be upset when the protagonist chooses not to join or couldn't join the order. I don't like dialogue options, but Alexios and Eivor are fantastic characters. I'd argue better than some of the older protagonists. Anyway, if you read all of this, everyone has their view of Assassin's Creed, whether they like RPG or traditional, but the traditional fanbase isn't better than the RPG fanbase, or the people who like all of them like me. Instead of wanting every game to be exactly like the one you like the most, judge it based on what it brings to the franchise by itself. Some people like Odyssey the best, others Brotherhood. It's not fact that Brotherhood is better than Odyssey, so it shouldn't be treated as such.
@@ac_nerd9794I don't understand the point of your comment. RPG fans have won. We get a single title like Mirage (the first in 8 years), y'all are gonna get Red immediately after. There's a lot I can reply to in your essay (I did read all of it) but it's pointless. Enjoy what you enjoy, I can still lament what is lost. Have a good one.
@@usmanqureshi8941 That's the thing though. After Red, Hexe is completely different and there might not be another RPG as we don't know what the next titles will look like. We might get an RPG, or something else like Mirage. But Hexe has been stated to be completely different.
What I was talking about included the RPG fans. Even though all three titles were very successful, old-school or OG fans as some like to call themselves absolutely think if you like the newer Assassin's Creed games, your just an RPG famboy, and I mean quite a few of them have this mindset. They are good games, just not good AC games. Unity is often thought of as the game to play, but UA-camrs specifically play on PC with modded versions that are enhanced to make it look and play better. I'm on XSX and it is easily still worse than Odyssey for me even if I do enjoy it very much. I'm saying fans of the series need to stop acting like they have the high ground in what AC is. It's a historical action series more than stealth even if stealth and parkour have mostly been at its foundation. The protagonist not being a member of the assassin order doesn't kill the game and neither does the game not focusing on parkour.
As for Mirage, I absolutely adore it for what it is. Could have been better but people that hate are either unreasonable or they just want Unity 2.0 which is even worse if you ask me. I'd just go back closer to the colonial games or build from Mirage.
I realize people want the older games back but there are 9 of them. We have 3 RPG that essentially made more than all 9 of the previous games with the exception of Black Flag possibly. Those games sold for the setting and the experiences they offer. A pirate, a spartan, and a viking are all games people have wanted and Ubisoft did either very good or great at those games. All I'm saying is the newer games still build on the universe of the Assassin's Creed franchise and all of them are close enough to the plot of assassins vs templars that people shouldn't let biases rule the franchise. Also, thank you for being respectful and you have a good one as well.
@@usmanqureshi8941it's funny how this video or the thumbnail shows you that "THE STORY NEVER CHANGES'' - yet AC2 was the FIRST one to change the actual Assassin vs Templar conflict to be black and white and ZERO nuance...
the reason why AC 2 suffers from very mid writing especially with ezios character arc with it being practically non-existent and it making no sense, is because ppl only say that Ezio was well written because of the simple change of him being revenge driven but then turning into a wise adult which is simply not true...
Ezio's character growth happens way too quickly and doesn't help thr fact that the game time skips constantly... so by the time ezio is in sequence 5 or 6, he's already a wise not revenge driven adult who explains how much he has grown in that speech in sequence 13 but it ultimately falls flat because ezio remained the same as he was since sequence 4 or 6, and he explains how his ppl aka the assassin's showed him the path of vengeance isnt right even though thats not true because they always wanted him to kill templars and trained him to do so, even the girl that got betrayed just like ezio gave ezios the abilitied to aid him against templars...
Also ezio never makes any mistakes except for disrespecting francescos son but it was over so quickly that it didn't even matter and because ezio himself hangs francesco brutally and has the music to show that this was cruel but it is never mentioned and never has any reprocussions for that action that ezio did, ubisoft hinted at making ezio somewhat grey, with that snippet of him hanging francesco, and the cinematic trailer where the templar seems like somewhat of a decent person, as well as the guards, but ubisoft just decided to not do that and instead abandon what they had from the 1st game where everything was morally grey and you couldn't decide which sides were right...
Now ezio vs the borgia is basically just like tlou2 but somewhat worse and I love how everyone praised this but not TLOU2, however ubisoft did fix ezios character in brotherhood and in revelations and using his character to reflect on how he was in AC 2 where machiavelli just said that ezio was a prophet even though ezio never really was able to cope with it as well as retiring after dealing with rodrigo borgia but all that changes where his city gets attacked and is done with this shit.
Now, im just going spew some copied and pasted stuff regarding AC1 and AC2 down below, so enjoy...
AC was morally grey since the first ever AC game..... everyone is grey and not just the assassin's v templar conflict but someone like King Richard, you'd expect him to be always ruthless and bad but no, sure he ordered an attack to basically kill everyone which includes women and children but in the game, he's never your enemy at all and the conversation he and altair gives really showcase the grey aspects of assassin's creed in where i wish they kept in AC2 but no, AC2s greyness is almost practically gone and those who are there or like a hint of greyness like uberto being manipulated by the templars to save his loved ones isn't really that well thought out especially other things like ezio hanging francesco in which he's supposed to respect the dead by that point in the story but he doesn't and this wouldve had the perfect opportunity to have conflict with mario as well as maybe showcasing something with jacopo.... in brotherhood they actually wrote ezio so much better and being flawed instead of the gary sue he was in AC2
it still is a really good game.... AC2 isn't as good as ppl make it out to be..... the story/writing is so badly messy especially with the time gaps that make no sense and instead had to correlate with the actual year in when ezio has to kill a target
the things i literally mentioned is what makes AC1 not only unique but very good... no other game has been able to replicate the gameplay mechanics of AC1... the closest ones were unity but with syndicate, originally they were actually going to back and expand how AC1 functioned but deadline fcked Ubisoft Quebec up.... every game is repetitive, you take AC2s dlc missions where he goes to Florence then you'll realise how shallow AC2s gameplay is when it tried to do what AC1 already did... mission designs with stealth is so fckin bad in the ezio games as Ubisoft a company that made Splinter Cell had stealth missions in AC2 to fail when detected... that is BAD gameplay design as it takes away player freedom compared to AC1 where in order for you to get better, you had actually play and learn everything the game had to offer
bozo, you need to stop thinking about AC1s gameplay at a surface level... everything from player freedom, utilising your environment to your advantage for example, pickpocketing ppl who have information about the target and the area the target is in and has key information about certain environments to use you your advantage like a hole in a wall on the north end of the rooftop building.... then comes assassinating targets which has effect on the gameplay that ties with the narrative for example, killing the Templar nurse made the mentally ill go out and rot which affects how you traverse.... you need me to keep going or not?
the gameplay definitely isn't better... if you take 'gameplay' as a whole which includes mission design then AC1 takes it by far even though it is repetitive and it's supposed to be repetitive both for the player and Altair himself or the narrative itself but what makes up for it is the whole 'freedom' and 'mechanics' of it all... especially going 'hudless' that Ubisoft originally was going to have for AC1 as the default will enhance your experience if you actually take the time
the combat in AC2 had concepts to 'improve' but what the team at the time failed to realise is that just because you're changing how the combat works compared to the 1st game then that doesn't mean that it is an 'overall improvement' just because its a sequel and how majority of ppl seem to think like that...
AC1s combat had concepts that worked with the implementation of progression in the story as well as the actual combat system itself... in AC2, you feel like the only way to defeat enemies and how its the most effective is just mashing the attack button because of how much it 'changed' for the sake of it being a sequel... yes you can still get counter-attacked by enemies or specific enemy types in AC2 but the problem is how it doesn't really incentivise its other layers or elements for its combat system... there are actually great concepts with grabbing enemies as a human shield as well as a more tweaked fist combat (which the fist combat is actually an improvement compared to the 1st game) as well as disarming enemies and using the enemies' weapon for yourself is actually great overshadowed by its ineffectiveness with its basic combat such as doing the usual counters and mashing the attack button...
there are still layers to utilise the basic combat more effectively,
when an enemy is low on health, you can hold the attack button and do a unique finisher on that enemy and this waa never brought back until AC: Unity which is pretty funny but anyways, there are step dodges which i forgot to mention that you can utilise with mixing it up with the basic combat as well as utilising it to take out an enemy faster by step dodging behind the enemy and one-shotting the a.i and not to mention how there's 2 variations of the step dodge with the 1st one being called 'strafe' where ezio covers long distances around the environment to dodge backwards, side ways in which you can get behind and forwards to get aggressive... then there is the close encounter steo dodge where Ezio covers short distances to be more engaged or personal in the combat which you can still utilise by going behind the enemy to one-shot him...
there's also 'taunt' which makes the enemy try to hit you instantly but this was already implemented since the 1st game but Altair does it in a more different way that fits Altairs character.
@@godzillazfriction holy hell that's a long essay 😭 add some visuals and editing and you could make it a video
Ezio goated
I can’t believe you think the newer games have better parkour than the first ones
Also why do you use god of war ragnarok’s music in this video?
You also criticise the quality of cutscenes but this game is 20 dollars cheaper than your typical AAA game and is made by a new studio with few resources.
Finally saying that Assassins Creed has never changed without mentioning the rpg trilogy which is so different than the previous games that made fans ask for a return to the roots and is why Ubisoft made Mirage feels like you intentionally ignored important details to sell your own narrative that is pretty out of touch with reality.
The AC games throughout Desmonds story with Altair and Ezio are a captivating page turner, but imo Assassin's Creed should have stopped long ago because Odyssey, Origins & Valhalla turned into boring, repetitive button mashing sand boxes with uninteresting dialogue and characters, and they introduced RPG mechanics that fucking sucked. Ubisoft saying they're "returning to roots" is mostly a lie. Yeah sure it's actually a game about the assassins finally, and the visuals remind you of AC 1 but they still incorporate sudo RPG bullshit where enemies have health bars again. The great thing about the combat in AC 1 & 2 is that if you got a clean hit on an enemy they were dead...as they should be. Also I hated the story and characters, I ended up just skipping all the dialogue because it was so boring compared to the days of Desmond & Ezio where I was hooked on every word...and one thing that pissed me off about Mirage is how the Middle East in the 9th century is so progressive.
No
Bro what is this game. ..come ubisoft. Why. .. I love ac. Game 🎮
But from the great game to worst 😕 they made assassin creed origin. Good then odyssey was the best game ever made by ubisoft. The Valhalla not good. The mirage when we're so happy then .when I played mirage 100% no good.
No ac games are like.. sex and open world😮..Skyrim script copy😅...