01-03-2012 08:07 AM
What do you think? I'm really wondering, is AC:R the best in the series or at least better than Brotherhood? Because Brotherhood wasn't that great,honestly.
Should I pick up Revelations? I've played AC2 and Brotherhood, I didn't bother with the first part since it was "horrible", let's put it that way, will I enjoy Revelations?
01-03-2012 10:22 AM
If you didn't like Brotherhood you will most likely not enjoy Relevations unless you are eager to explore Constantinople for a personal reason and/or are so badly obsessed with seeing the end of Ezio's and Altaïr's story that it can weight it up because I think it was basically a letdown, see what I wrote about it here: http://community.us.playstation.com/thread/4650623
01-03-2012 10:35 AM
Oh thanks, but is it better than Brotherhood? I did thoroughly enjoy Brotherhood, I was just slightly disappointed, and also, yes I really want to know more about the story and what happened to Altair.
01-04-2012 07:45 AM
01-04-2012 10:28 AM
The new gameplay elements aren't really that big and some of them - like den defense - seem to divide the community into those who love it and those who hate it. I like den defense more than simply burning down Borgia towers as in Brotherhood, but in my opinion it is far from making up the other things the game is missing. You can simply allow the Templars to take over control of your den and then recapture it, which usually works quicker and more comfortable than having to fight the nearly invincible machines that appear in the end of a den defense battle. It just has no real important gameplay value in my opinion (I don't need the money, experience or items you get from it), I would rather like to explore Assassin vaults again or something like that. Many elements I liked about AC2 and Brotherhood are missing in Relevations while others that aren't really necessary (I never used any other bombs than those that kill and those that create smoke, and I barely ever used the hookblade melee moves or the ziplines) were added.
01-16-2012 10:16 AM
Many criticized Brotherhood for being too similar to Assassin's Creed 2. Those with such criticisms will no doubt be frustrated by Revelations. If Brotherhood was "Assassin's Creed 2.5," Revelations is "Assassin's Creed 2.61." This is the same game we've been playing since we first met Ezio, and I won't disagree with anyone who claims that Revelations is a money-grab, an artificial fleshing-out of AC2.
I don't mean to criticize Brotherhood. I liked many of the changes from AC2, including Assassin recruits, challenges, and superior level design which allowed for more stealthy approaches. ACR makes far fewer improvements over Brotherhood. You'll be going on the same types of missions and using the same tactics you've been using since AC2. The only real new gadgets in Ezio's overgrown arsenal are bomb, which can be tossed like grenades to take out big batches of enemies at once. If you thought the crossbow in ACB was overpowered, bombs will have you rolling your eyes.
Even multiplayer is virtually untouched. With almost all of the maps lifted from ACB, you're in for an episode of deja vu. New abilities have been added. However, the core mechanics are identical. While the game is set up to give player incentive to get the best kills possible, most players rush their targets for a nominal 100 points.
To add insult to injury, Revelations is small and short, and the mission design is poor. I would forgive the game for being small and short if the missions were well made, or forgive the missions for being poor if the game was long. However having bad missions and not very many of them makes Revelations passable. Constantinople is not as large or as varied as Rome. It is more comparable to Venice in AC2. Most missions have the player rushing, freerunning, or doing menial and non-challenging tasks. I thought Assassin's were meant to stalk and execute their targets with expert precision, but this game seems to favor a more open approach.