Am I the only one who thinks this setting is terrible for Assassin's Creed? And not because of the possible mishandling of the setting and details, the AC games were never particularly good at that anyway. More because this doesn't seem to be a setting that brings out the best of the series, to me.
What I loved about the previous games was climbing through densely populated cities, with historic landmarks. The free-running over rooftops was very well done, as was the atmosphere in those cities. The detail on monuments was stunning (if often historically inaccurate).
But colonial America had none of that. They had no historic landmarks and few buildings from that time survive today. In addition, cities were relatively sparsely populated, buildings were low-rise and built far apart. That makes for a completely different style of gameplay, one I don't think plays to the games' strengths.
Plus, now they're sure to continue to build on that fucking asstarded conspiracy backstory no one gives a shit about. I play those games because I want to play an assassin in historical settings, not fuck around in the modern day playing some dude who seems to have suffered permanent brain injuries related to his utter fucking stupidity.
Serge 13 said:
Did you give AC2 a try? It sure is a big improvement over the first game. AC: Brotherhood and Revelations on the other hand are the very definitions of the word 'Grind'.
Huh, really? I thought AC: Brotherhood was the best of the bunch, adding a lot of variety to the game. Revelations added more, but I didn't think its additions did much for the game, and something about it just felt a little off.
