- Hylebos
- |
- Fabled Mythic Member
Posted by: Tactical Nuke
Posted by: Hylebos
Assassin's Creed suffers much more in the story department than anything else. Even Assassin's Creed II, which you rate as the best in the series, despite starting off strong, spiralled downwards to a wimper.
It's just very clear that whoever came up with the initial story left after the first game. Personally I feel that it was wrong to focus on Desmond whatsoever, the series would have benefited far more from focusing on the stories of different Assassins throughout history, their struggles against the templars, and most importantly, the constant presence and resurgence of these pieces of eden which link all the games together into one big mystery that is SLOWLY but surely revealed.
If I were them I would just cut out all that futuristic crap that makes no sense. But then there wouldn't be much connection between the series. It's a lose lose situation. The game series is crap anyway and needs to die.I don't feel there needs to be a ton of things connecting between the series, history itself would be the glue that holds the entire thing together.
Assassins Creed I would be a story of an assassin fallen from grace slowly redeeming himself, and in that regard, it would be a good game. But at the end, they introduce the Apple of Eden which clearly has some kind of mystical power, and you're like "What the hell was that about?"
Assassins Creed II would be a story of an Assassin seeking revenge for his family. And again, the Apple of Eden would pop up, and some other pieces of eden would show up, and they would all have mystical power over humans. Slowly the truth would be revealed.
Game by game, the backstory of the universe is slowly revealed, until Miles Desmond comes along in a future where the Templars control the world. Then you can enjoy his story uncut, without this fast forwarding / rewinding bullcrap that screws him over game after game after game.
Much of the Desmond stuff is futuristic crap that makes more sense, but I honestly believe that the series would have developed much better if the games were small stories that added to a larger picture rather than a big picture broken up into smaller stories.
I mean, I hear even fanboys of the series saying "Oh, in this game, the Assassin's story is great, but Demond's story is the weak bit." Perhaps they should try giving Desmond a break? It's a tad too late now, if only they had planned ahead with the first game. Desmond was an interesting way to frame the first game, but it ultimately wasn't worth it.