Assassin's Creed: A Retrospective

Today I was mainly playing Mass Effect 2, trying to perfect my character, Jak Shepard, in preparations for Mass Effect 3 coming out March 6, 2012. Later tonight I was playing Halo: Reach campaign with my cousin, MJOJOJO, and we were taking turns lagging the crap out of eachother due to some connection problems. On Legendary, of course, would we play anything less?

Anyway, after that we played with our friend on Matchmaking Mode and won a few rounds, and lost some, as expected. You win some, you lose some, right?

All that said, I decided to throw a completely off-the-wall game at you, one I am an avid player of. Assassin's Creed, Ubisoft's attempt at a free-roam Prince of Persia.

Now, there is nothing wrong with the concept of the original Assassin's Creed. It was a great game, though many like to put it down for it's flaws, it was what we call an experiment. I could spend my time here yacking about all the flaws of the original game, but instead, let's look at the good things it had to offer.

Image of Combat as seen in Assassin's Creed

Now, many agree that the combat in Assassin's Creed II is more involving than AC1, and this is true. There are many more options to explore for each way to kill people, and many ways to kill lots of people. I don't disagree one bit--once you get the counter kill in Assassin's Creed, it's all you need to kill anyone and anything, final bosses excluded.

What I'm looking at, however, was the age it was in. Sure, ACII's renaissance theme is brilliant, but AC1 really shows beautiful style of where all the Templars and Assassins began: the Holy Land. Mind, it doesn't portray Templars as they are usually portrayed, the bad guys with evil secrets, as opposed to the good guys. The way the overall "tone" of each city varies really sells it for me; the colors are beautiful, and makes it worth freerunning.

Now, I know we ALL hate the repetitive "information gathering missions" prior to Assassination, pardon the unnecessary capital, but when it got to the assassination, it really paid off (somewhat). It gave you a scene, info on the target, and let you go about your own business killing him. While Assassin's Creed II keeps this element, it makes it different when you don't get the whole scene.

It's like Altair plans his kills out carefully, and Ezio runs in following his gut and relying on luck. By principle, Altair is a better Assassin due to this fact, but by plot Ezio is. Don't get me wrong, some missions really don't give much room for planning, like when flying over Venice. No amount of contact interrogation could prepare Altair for that, and Ezio knew to go with his gut instinct, but there are times that Ezio, had he sat back and planned his Assassinations better (again, excuse the capital) he would have had a much easier life.

SO, now that I've finished bagging on Assassin's Creed II to promote Assassin's Creed I, I will say that ACII has a very innovative combat system. Each different weapon has umpteen ways to kill someone, and that isn't even counting taking their weapon and killing them with it. I found myself playing through multiple times just to fight with different weapons. (you can see how obsessed I am about it by looking at the one hundred percent achievement list I have for this game). 

The cities are larger, and the story is more tragic and can be related to better than the silent protagonist of Altair. We get to SEE the transformation of Ezio Auditore, from a young hotshot into a skilled Assassin (then a middle aged Master Assassin, then a "Why are you still an Assassin?" old Assassin in subsequent games involving him). It pushes over twenty years of his life at us, and tells us why we should care. 

A young boy driven for revenge. We all know Sasuke Uchiha already, is what I thought at first. I think he easily could have become a Sasuke-esque character, had his uncle not instilled a code of honor into him. A code that as he followed, transformed a hollowing quest for revenge into a growing experience for the man.

Something Sasuke never had. Fricking Itachi killing Sasuke's uncle.

Ezio's Armory as seen in ACII

"Come on, man, no more Naruto references."

Fine, no more.

Anyway, as pictured above, there are several weapons to choose from, each having their own usage and talents. Alone, Ezio can take a sword, a knife, his two hidden blades, cash money, smoke bombs, and hidden blade upgrades with him on any mission. A smart Assassin will use them well, knowing full well that using a wrist-mounted pistol will probably kill anyone in a single shot, as bulletproof armor has yet to be invented.

The funny thing is, there are no dogs in game. If you fire the gun, you hear dogs barking in the distance. Where are they?!

Back to being serious, the game really upgrades on variety, and adds something the last Assassin's Creed could never have. Town upgrades. 

It let two elements of RPG into an action game. Customizable weapons, and upgrading towns. These seemed like awesome ideas, and still do, but little do we know, they are ushering in the defeat of action in Assassin's Creed, and the rise of roleplaying.

Not that it is bad, mind, but it is against the original concept. Create a freeform Prince of Persia, an action game. (Though Prince of Persia is a linear platformer)

Is it deviating too much? I think so. Yet I, as a roleplaying gamer, am enjoying it somewhat.

"Hey, Assassin's Creed II was a hit!"

"Dude, I totally know! We did something right! What was it?"

"Man, it was totally Ezio."

"Totally. Maybe the town upgrading too!"

"We should use Ezio again!"

"And get a bigger town to upgrade!"

"Just to be safe, let's add some new elements. Like, let's make Ezio the Master Assassin!"

"Yeah!"

"Let's also kill Uncle Mario and make Machiavelli into Cesare Borgia's enemy!"

"...you never read 'The Prince', did you...?"

"But it would be totally awesome!"

...at least, that's what goes through my head when I try to imagine what Ubisoft was thinking in bringing Ezio, and Italy, and town upgrading, back.

You see, one thing that made Assassin's Creed II a hit was the hinting that we're visiting lots of different time eras, and being lots of different highly trained killers. I guess Ubisoft wasn't expecting a Cash Cow like Ezio, and figure pushing him on through his old age is a good idea. 

The game is great, and certainly exceeds "Expansion Pack" status. The new features of "Brotherhood Control" and the idea behind managing your own guild was great, but fixing all of Rome? I agree with Benjamin "Yahtzee" Croshaw on this. "What are we trying to do, evict them from Rome by buying everything?!"

However, the fact being we're using the same character who has already gone through life's greatest challenge, he just doesn't have any more character development left in him. He's already grown up to be a fine young (old) man, and pushing him any farther than he actually has to go is plain stupid. The story of the game falters somewhat at this point, being that we're the Master Assassin. Assassin's Creed's saving grace was that we did not know Altair's past, we were trying to figure that part out. In ACB, we already know Ezio, his past exploits, and what his full capabilities are.

Now, something that I review separately from singleplayer, is the multiplayer.

The different multiplayer characters and their selectable weapons (not all included)

Now, Assassin's Creed Brotherhood was a good game, don't get me wrong here. But the multiplayer blew me away. I loved being online doing my Assassin thing with other people, hiding from and killing players. It brings a certain tensity to the game not knowing who will kill you but knowing who you are after.

Looking over your shoulder while at the same time looking straight ahead. It provided a great deal of challenge. Of course, having preordered from Gamestop, I had the Harlequin character, who also happens to be my favorite character when playing the game. 

The kills in Online Play are beautiful, and it is satisfying knowing you just ruined someone's kill by taking your own. Of course, it backfires when someone kills you, but what the hey, it's all good. There are a couple problems I found with multiplayer, of course.

First being the most vain of them all. Why oh why, if we're on the same team, do we have to be the same person? So partners can tell eachother apart? To make it easier to find your opponents? Both could easily be rectified by adding a color code system similar to Halo and almost every other game out there. 

Since no one else can select the character you selected, all of that character are coded red for the match as well. Easy fix, non?

Second, the EXTREMELY long wait times on every match. It says we're waiting for six of six people, then seven of seven join, then eight of eight. I've played some pretty bullshitted servers before, some that booted me out of the game before I could collect points (everyone else was booted out of the game too) and sometimes people are forced off. 

Sometimes it seems people are trying to be real asses and joining just to quit, which is infuriating to me. Though I have to try and understand, maybe they just didn't want to play that map or something.

FINALLY, I want to be able to pick the maps I play on in a public server, not just private. I prefer the Monteriggioni maps and would like to play on them, but if I want to not have to hope the server randomly picks Monteriggioni for me, I have to go to Private mode, invite friends, and get no points for the match anyway. Seriously?!

I hope these major problems are fixed by the time Revelations comes out. Expect an article in preparation for it, and an article after I get and play it.

Anyway, that's my rant of the day. Happy trails until next we meet!

The Best Things Come in Pairs...Two for post #2.

Post number two, and today we'll be talking about the game I recently bought and beat, Army of Two: The Fortieth Day.

Army of Two: The 40th Day takes place in Shanghai as it is destroyed around our heroes by terrorists. Salem and Rios have returned, donning their fancy new Army of Two armor, since in the end of the original game they founded a merc company named for the game.

Anyway, I started the game, and immediately checked out the menus, as I often do. I looked around and saw the masks selection, being pleasantly surprised that masks no longer had to be tediously purchased, like in the original game. So I gave Rios a silly yellow mask with a smiley face painted on it and Salem a skull mask.

Naturally, I chose Salem because he has hair. Silly reason, really, but I connect more with the character of Salem and revere Rios as more of a guidance character, even though he can be annoying as hell in combat when trying to heal me.

Anyway, the game introduces a deeper and more customizable weapons system, where you can interchange parts from weapons you have, parts you buy, and things you pick up. I ended up with the M41G, a great upgrade letting me mow down enemies.

I like how they upgraded the enemy AI, as well, showing characteristics similar to Salem and Rios. If you didn't quite kill a soldier, another will drag him to cover and patch him up. It made me feel good inside to know Rios wasn't the only AI who knew how to do that, even as I picked off the helper then the wounded.

Once down, you can drag yourself to cover and wait for your
partner to heal you.

Other interesting mechanics have been added in-game as well; hostage situations, mock surrendering, and in general better mechanics. If you are knocked down in combat, you can drag yourself to cover so your partner doesn't have to worry about you while he mops up remaining enemies. You have a health bar, though, so if they leave you too long or you can't find adequate cover, you get killed.

The aggrometer as it appears in Army of Two

I must say that I love the aggro system very much. It works well for the game and makes quite a bit of sense in appliance--enemies will be aiming at whoever is threatening them the most, that being whoever is shooting the biggest gun the most. It is oftentimes me, as I am more of a tank-typed gamer, preferring to jump right into the action, however there are times I was forced to cooperate with Rios, letting him take the aggro so I could sneak around and snipe enemies.

A hostage situation can quickly be turned around for your
advantage...if you know who to grab.

New mechanics in the game include "Mock Surrender" and the new GPS add-on "ID Search" as I call it. It tells you what rank certain enemies are. As for why you'd want to know that, you can grab an enemy and use them as a human shield. Any enemy whose rank is lower than who you just grabbed will surrender, and you have the choice to kill them or tie them up and spare them. (though in an exploding city, leaving them there isn't much better than killing them...)

The idea comes is extremely important when rescuing civilians. One well-timed capture can save them, but a slip-up and they are the first to get shot. If they die, morality is lost, causing difficulty for the player at the end of the game.

Salem pretending to surrender

The mock surrender appears just before combat ensues. It allows you to gain a bullet-time upgrade  temporarily if done correctly, giving you a major advantage in many of the firefights you will encounter in the game. It also allows you to get to items not normally attainable if one just rushes into the thick of combat, such as extra cash and weapon parts.



The game also allows for something not previously seen in Army of Two. While in the original, you had to constantly buy your weapons and upgrades, in the latest installment you can use the ones that all your enemies conveniently have. The temporary weapons system works well in the game and fits to the action, especially if you're hurting for ammunition in the middle of a firefight.

The Grenadier, just waiting to pick a bone with our heroes

All these tools in mind, the game doesn't simply let you run around all willy-nilly and not use them. It taxes your cooperative skills and ability to use them to their fullest ability-for instance, the Grenadier Trooper (pictured left) can only be killed by shooting his grenade packs, which are behind him. One has to use aggro effectively to get around him and manage to fire long enough to take the Grenadier down, all the while trying to keep their partner alive. There are other troops like this, such as the Minigun Trooper and the Flamethrower trooper, whom have similar strategies to be defeated. However, using the aggro system this well is rewarding and will win many battles pretty easily on its own.

With its new bayonet-typed attachments, martial arts-style moves, expanded arsenal, greater co-op commands and strategic requirement, the beautiful destruction of the city of Shanghai in Army of Two: The 40th Day certainly does it's best to live up to the original's legacy. But does it? Gameplay-wise, I am much happier with the performance. Storywise?

Army of Two takes place across the whole world, involving a massive terrorist plot to take over the world, naturally. The 40th Day involves the warzone of Shanghai as a terrorist group seeks to wipe it off the face of the Earth for pessimistic reasons involving the state of humanity and its unwillingness for sacrifice.

Both involve treachery, and the bonding of our heroes. They both allow growth for the characters while establishing they've already been through hell and back, and are ready to do it again. I am reluctant to say which is better because both have done a great job of portraying the hotshot Elliot Salem and the Wants-to-save-the-world Tyson Rios.

I can't truly reveal my pick without spoiling the game, so I will only say that The 40th Day has been done with magnificent detail, and rivals, if not surpasses, its predecessor in many ways. However, if you want all the fun and action, I suggest that you play both.

Until next time I post, happy trails.

First Post and Whatnot

So anyway, I decided to make a blog because I was bored, and detail what all I am playing in videogames. Why not just play the videogames? Good question. Next!

Anyway, I recently acquired two games I've been looking for for some time. Mass Effect and Army of Two: The 40th Day. So I might as well start writing with Mass Effect since I started playing that one first. (Keep in mind, I have played Mass Effect 2, and Mass Effect 1 gave me...something I wasn't expecting...)

So anyway, I started up my game of Mass Effect 1, (by Bioware) and looked around the menus for a little bit, trying to see if it would be anything like ME2. Finally after setting everything to my preferences, with difficulty at Normal, I started the game. I picked something different from my usual, a Spacer Lone Survivor Female Shepard, instead choosing an Earthborn Warhero Male Shepard.

The game started, and I was at first saddened at how Joker seemed to hate me outright. Well, maybe not outright, but his sarcasm was less...lightheartedly funny and more...get out of my face.

Anyway, I finally arrive at the first combat scene, and find the HUD to be vastly different, among other things.

Mass Effect 1's HUD

Notice the health bars in the bottom left, as well as shield monitors. This is what I loved best about the Mass Effect heads up display--it let me see how my partners were doing in a constant detailed report. I also admit I liked that there was unlimited ammunition, you merely had to not overheat your weapon. 

Mass Effect 2's HUD

The ME2 HUD is more concerned, it seems, with packing everything up. I can only vaguely see how my partners are doing with their health and shields, represented under Shepard's own health/shield bar by a small bar and a quarter circle. The only thing I ever really relied on in concern with that pitiful display is when their faces glow red, meaning they're taking damage, and even then, I don't know how much more they can actually take. 

I was, however, frustrated that I could not command my team separately in Mass Effect 1, a feature added on in Mass Effect 2. That did not excuse, for me, the pitiful lack in variety of weapons and armor ME2 has. Sure, you can change out parts of your regular N7 Armor, but most other armors are exclusive and DLC-Only, and even then, only for Shepard. Sure, you could change out skins on your team, but how much stronger does that actually make them?

I also noted that through three playthroughs, I only had two types of pistols, 4 machine guns, three snipers, and three shotguns excluding squad-exclusive weaponry. What is this? In Mass Effect there were almost countless variety of weapons, and different weapon manufacturers everywhere! It made it worthwhile to get money, to see how much more you could buy. In ME2, there was apparently a massive deflation in the economy, as while I amassed over 6 million credits in the predecessor, the best I ever got in ME2 on Hardcore Mode was around 300,000 credits. 

It's not a bad thing, and it certainly explains the drop in weapons and armor variety--I mean, with 300,000 credits only there isn't a lot the poor Commander could buy anyway. Besides, I'd much rather only buy virtually nameless upgrades for my weapons and, of course, be able to attach them all at once stifling my creativity of mix and match.

Now that the rant is over, I honestly cannot compare the storylines. I will say I liked the team of ME2 better, even though I still stuck with Tali and Garrus (they are my A-Team) and sometimes Legion. The arguments among the team were interesting as well, even if I never resolved Miranda vs Jack. 

The ending is a lot better, or it was for me, because I spoiled it (slightly) for myself. I read that Shepard could get killed on the Suicide Mission if certain parameters were met, and all along I was on the edge of my seat trying not to meet those parameters. In the battle against Sovereign and Saren, I actually managed to convince the villain to pull suicide, and the ending was on a grand scale (Joker's flying was incredible) however the knowledge that Shepard would, in fact, survive simply killed the end suspense.

Of course, I plan to play ME2 again with my ME1 Shepard, and play through twice to get good stats and all that, in preparation for Mass Effect 3 coming out Winter sometime.

Until next time I post, peace!