#Assassins creed 1 story series#

To recap, after galumphing around the world with his companions in tow, Desmond beats his Templar rivals to reaching The Grand Temple. Unless you had been meticulously researching the extended lore, much of what happened in the finale made no sense whatsoever. After racking up countless hours exploring the first four games in the series, Ubisoft dealt a low blow with its half-arsed plot surrounding the First Civilization вЂ“ aka The Isu, aka The Precursors, aka Those Who Came Before. It wasnвЂ™t just killing off Desmond, that entire closing segment to AssassinвЂ™s Creed III was just plain awful.

AssassinвЂ™s Creed IIIвЂ™s Cliffhanger Ending Instead Ubisoft killed him off and seemingly left the seriesвЂ™ overarching plot for dead.Д¤. Aside from the occasional bit of clumsy parkour, we never took control of this would-be hero in the modern day open world we had always envisioned. Thing is, he never actually got to employ those talents. Between the exploits of each assassin and the history lesson that came in tow, he grew stronger and through the вЂњBleeding EffectвЂќ, Desmond went from being a bartender to a trained killer. It was through DesmondвЂ™s time strapped into the Animus that we even got to meet Altair, Ezio, and Connor in the first place. Since then the combat in AssassinвЂ™s Creed has been frustratingly bland at best.Дesmond Miles was never really the seriesвЂ™ posterboy, but was always painted as a character that would become itsВ eventual leading man.

The old system may have been a bit sloppy, but at the same time it felt alive. Battles lacked any sense of versatility or immersion as players simply waited for on-screen prompts before delivering the killing blow. Instead, what players got was an incredibly watered down, simplified version of what came before. Following the changes made inВ AssassinвЂ™s Creed III, being able to target non-enemies was strictly off the cards. You could even brawl with innocent bystanders, headbutting them off buildings and causing all kinds of shenanigans. There was a tangibilityВ to those early AssassinвЂ™s Creed games that just isnвЂ™t there anymore, cycling between various melee weapons while also grabbing, kicking, and wrestling your opponents. While some severely disliked the blow-and-parry rhythm of the original combat system, I loved it.

#Assassins creed 1 story series#

While the series had a clear direction in the first fewВ instalments, by the time AssassinвЂ™s Creed III launched in 2012, UbisoftвЂ™s writing team were scrambling to link ideas together, which brings us to our next criticism.ДЇor me, this one hurts the most. Modern Warfare had a trilogy, sure, but the story Infinity Ward was trying to tell was much smaller in scale and spread across half a decade, taking turns with stories told by other studios. The thing is, none of these series has sought to build on a central narrative in the same way AssassinвЂ™s Creed did. Without fail we see a Call of Duty from Activision, a FIFA from EA, and a WWE from 2K every year. Of course, Ubisoft werenвЂ™t the only ones at it. While itвЂ™s nice to see games expand into their own universes, for AssassinвЂ™s Creed it felt way too rushed and quickly lost some of its passion. Alongside yearly sequels that would continue up until 2015вЂ™s fairly decent Syndicate, Ubisoft had also been pumping out sequels and spin-offs. While AssassinвЂ™s Creed III looked to press the reset button with a new character, fatigue had already begun to kick in. These changes quickly shrank from landmark new ideas to much more incremental changes as we blitzed our way through the Ezio saga in a space of three years. It took two years for the publisherвЂ™s Montreal studio to create a sequel in 2009, ironing out most of the originalвЂ™s flaws while working in layers of additional features and systems. In a way, the rest of the points made in the list all come back to one root problem: UbisoftвЂ™s insistence on making AssassinвЂ™s Creed a yearly franchise.