Fandom

Assassin's Creed Wiki

Comments6

Why Assassin's Creed II was disappointing

Beirut February 26, 2011 User blog:Beirut

Ad blocker interference detected!


Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.

Let me start off by saying this. I thought Assassin's Creed was a good game, but had MANY shortcomings. Here on my first blog page, I will tell you why.


Ac-masyaf3








The first game had a very creepy side to it. I absoluetly loved that. It made every move you make filled with suspense and tension. You were Altair, you would walk the streets, knowing that you are constantly in danger. You're every move was watched. Even the music that would play was hautingly creepy. The people FEARED you. You were their enemy. Remember, "these creatures cling to the shadows..." and "the streets run red with the blood of his victims..." Even the environment wash creepy and even terrifying at times. Remember Acre? Remember Masyaf? Remember riding through the Kingdom knowing that you are being watched by an entire army?


That no longer returns in Assassin's Creed II. The game almost is happy in an almost Barney-esque fashion. The environment is very beautiful, but that comes at the expense of the environments' creepiness. No longer do you feel the sense of being watched and walking through an extremely tense envioronment. You are walking almost carefree in Venice with a bright sunny sky, cheerful music that belongs in childrens' T.V. shows, and Italian fools. Assassin's Creed II gave us that instead of watching your step in gloomy Acre, a chilling soundtrack, and religious heretics who claim that God is on their side.



The Assassin were "shrouded in secrecy, feared for their ruthlessness." Altair is the perfect example of that. Altair was born for one thing and one thing only, to be an Assassin. All he does is working towards the death of his targets. Ezio and the Renaissance Assassins are very different. They do not lecture about the Creed. They are not philosophers and warriors, they are merely theives, whores, and mercenaries. Ezio FORGIVES his Order's greatest enemy, (Borgia) and spares him. He BROKE THE CREED. He COMPRIMISED THE BROTHERHOOD. The third and final tenent. Broken. They are not the same Assassins as depicted in the first game. This leads me to the my next point.


Al Mualim 2
Al Mualim is a character who will never be matched EVER. He brings a level of mystery and eeriness that was missing from Assassin's Creed II. The lack of such a character absolutely brought the game's story below par. Machiavelli was created to mirror him, but he pales in comparison to the eery and almost frightening Grand Master.


Even the Assassination targets presented a layer of creepy that was shockingly absent from Assassin's Creed II.. They manipulated their populace and used religion to turn the people into their puppets. But, they were working towards a noble goal, peace. This served as the main conflict of the game. Do the ends justify the means? The assassination of Abul Noqoud, Garnier, and Jubair all showed that while the targets were monsters, they truely did want peace. This is not present in Assassin's Creed II no matter how you argue it. The only one that comes close is Savonarola. He used religion and the Piece of Eden to attempt to create a better Florence. He killed and destroyed many people, but it was all towards a goal, Florence in peace. But all the other targets are not like that. They are simply supposed to be bad because they killed Ezio's father and brothers. But they have no vision, no goal, they are not working towards peace. They are simply supposed to be bad because Ubisoft said so. They are not bad because they want to force peace. They are bad because Ubisoft said so.


The Catholic Church could have played an enormous role in Assassin's Creed II as the front for the Templar order to force their peace through Catholocism. But, it doesn't. Religion and politics play NO ROLE in ACII. Remember in Assassin's Creed how the Crusades and Islam and Christianity were the methods the Templars used to control people. The Catholic Church could have been the Templar Order and the Pope could have been the Grand Master and Ezio's ultimate enemy. But the Catholic Church plays little to no role in Assassin's Creed II.


Now I know what you are going to say.. Borgia becomes Pope. Yes. He does, for only one mission. And also, it does not show him using this position to manipulate events and make the people obey him under supposed divine right. God is not used as a method for the Templars to gain control like it was in Assassin's Creed. The first game was so unique becuase it showed how God and Government are the two ways to control people. It is a shame that they are missing from Assassin's Creed II.


Assassin's Creed Brotherhood adressed some of these things I pointed out. The Romulus people giving it the creepiness and the Catholic Church playing a very important role, but still, the sequels will never compare to the creepy and sometimes frightening experience of Assassin's Creed.Beirut 01:51, February 26, 2011 (UTC)

Also on Fandom

Random Wiki