Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I actually received AC from Gamefly two days before I got Mass Effect (that's
before Thanksgiving!), yet I'm only now just discovering the way of the
Assasin. Thanks mostly to the amazing 30-40 hour movie experience that was
ME. I know some of you have already finished this bad boy. But for those
who haven't...

I'd say the most impressive thing about the game is the size and graphics.
The visuals look great, and yet you can travel through huge sections of
cities, jam packed with citizens, without a single load screen, pop in
texture, etc. Standing on a roof top and looking over a city like
Jerusalem just never gets old.

Here are my quick comments:

--Combat--
Absolutely LOVE the combat system. It took me a while to keep telling
myself NOT to mash buttons. The game is all about timing, and once you get
it down it is very rewarding. The close ups that occur during combat that
show the various cool kills you can pull off are wonderful. And throwing
guys off the roof is just killer.

--Enemy AI--
This game has some VERY nice enemy actions that are, quite frankly,
brilliant in their simplicity. Examples: I'm climbing a ladder to a watch
tower to take out an archer. He sees me nearing the top of the ladder.
What does he do? Walks up as I get near the top and kicks me in the face.
Down I go...ahhhh!!! I hit the ground and get ready to climb the ladder,
half way up the archer is half way down the ladder. What does he do?
Kick's me in the face again...ahhh!

I'm fighting 3 swordsmen and things are getting tricky. I run away and
start climbing a tall wall. They can't climb as well as me, I'm safe
right? Nope, even without bows they pick up some rocks and start throwing
them at me. Sure enough one nails me in the head, I loose my grip and
ahhhh!!

While these seem simple, I'm not sure I can think of another vid game where
the opponent doesn't simply wait until you get off a ladder or you are done
climbing.

--Assassinations--
I still haven't been able to get an 'assasination move' off on a real target
yet (I've taken out the first two) but I have assassinated more than a few
guards. While the low profile assassination is fun, the high profile
leaping assassination is just off the hook cool.

--Story--
The game has a very unique story hook that really makes you want to know
more, far beyond just why you are killing people. There is also a very nice
'moral dilema' sub-plot running that is fun. While the story itself is
linear (unlike Mass Effect, the plot won't change based on what you do) it
is compelling.

--Overall gameplay--
AC, is above all, a 'sandbox game'. That is like GTA, Saint's Row,
Crackdown, or Spiderman, you can wander about massive cities and do optional
mini-quests events and/or then follow the main story events. Because it is
so large and open, it does suffer a little bit of the same problems these
other games have. That is the mini-quests start to feel the same. e.g. You
need to get into a city with heavy guards. How do you get in? Step 1: find
the guy being molested outside the gates, save him, a bunch of monks show up
and you hide in their group and sneak inside.

The above example seems to be the same in every city. Also, once inside
the city you always climb to the tallest building, have a look, then jump
down.

So I can see where the complaints of repetition come from in some of the
reviews. But...

The graphics are so great, the combat is fun, and there is a lot of variety
in actually taking out your target. Climbing and jumping from the massive
buildings simple NEVER gets old. The views are astounding, and running from
a group of angry guards always gets the heart racing. Plus you'll
invariably find some new move or action every time you do something and more
than a few times you'll hear yourself say "man, that was cool."

--Red Toof's Recommendation--
Take Assasin's Creed for a spin..at LEAST as a rental. The game is unique,
and deserves a good shot. Especially for anyone who likes thinking stealth
games. I give it 9 out of 10 teef.

I agree with your Review, but I take it to the next level and defend the games supposed repetition...

All video games in my mind are repetitious to some degree or another. I love the combat system in AC and I too had to stop myself from button mashing.

I personally never found the game to become old or tiresome. I am recently playing through Mass Effect and I feel like in many ways that game is repetitious more than AC.

(Don't get me wrong I like ME, but I am not a fan of the sexuality in the game, it feels a bit misplaced IMHO)

Anyway, I too agree that people should take AC out for a spin, I personally got the Limited Edition of the game and have loved every minute of it. 2007 was a great year for the 360 and for the sheer amount of triple A titles that the year saw.

Again, Just my 2 cents
Chappy P!

again. it's Spider-Man. with a -. the - is important.

nice review though Russ, much more postive then the official ones I've read so far. thanks

This sounds exactly like my feelings about halfway through the game, I frankly loved it at that point.

However, by the end of the game I pratically despised it. It just gets so ridiculously repetitive that it is unbelievable.

And all the enemy A.I. you think is cool at the beginning of the game you quickly realize is very repetitive and (worse) easily manipulated once you figure out a few tricks.


DO NOT BUY THIS GAME. Just rent it. You will get all the fun out of renting it without all the pain of trying to play it all the way through.

Oh, and it has one of the worst endings in the history of video games.

Good points Yak. I should qualify my review by saying I haven't finished it yet, so it is possible it will get old.

Quick note on ME sexuality: I really think this has been played up in the media to the point where it is silly. While there is some of it in the game, it is minimal, and certanly not the focus.

Plus, ME definitly DOES have one of the coolest endings in vid game history. (Well, actually several of the coolest endings)

I agree with Chappy, 2007 was a crazy year for games, I couldn't keep up. It's 2008 and I'm just now getting through AC, and I still haven't experienced the rumored awesomeness that is COD4.

I was just lucky to make it through Bioshock, Halo 3, Mass Effect, and Rock Band in Q4 of 07.

Actually, Rock Band is the real problem. My wife loves it as much as I do, and we play it just about every other day at least for a bit. This, combined with the 3 new songs every week is really eating into my 'normal' gaming time.

And who knew that "The Last Train to Clarkesville" by the Monkees would have harder guitar and drums than Metallica?

Happy gaming lads!

Well, the Monkees didn't actually have to perform it so
the arrangers could make it as hard as they wanted

malfred wrote:Well, the Monkees didn't actually have to perform it so
the arrangers could make it as hard as they wanted

That's what I thought too, so I wanted to find out who originally did perform the guitar section. One of the fun things about these music games is they really do spark your interest in this stuff and help you gain more respect for the artists who do all the work.

I did a bit of research on the Monkees, and although they did not initially perform their own songs (weren't allowed) they eventually did. They even wrote their own music and performed their songs live on stage.

Last Train to Clarksville was one of the songs they did not write or initially perform, but eventually they all learned to play it and did perform it live.

(It also turns out they were kinda buddy-buddy with the Beetles)

See what kind of useless triva you can learn from playing video games?

Actually, I remember learning all that stuff from VH-1 (or
at least part of it) at some point

Well, I loves me some monkees, but it should be pointed out that none of the stuff they wrote themselves was ever very good.

But they did indeed learn to play "their" songs eventually, which really isn't any worse than many of today's "artists" who have their songs written for them.

Clarksville is quite hard on Rockband, but I don't find it harder (on guitar) than any of the metallica songs personally.

The whole idea that a song is only worthwhile if the writer sings it is ridiculous. Either you like it or you don't.

When you say worse then today's stars, that makes it sound like everyone was a singer/songwriter until recently.

Ahtman wrote:The whole idea that a song is only worthwhile if the writer sings it is ridiculous. Either you like it or you don't.

When you say worse then today's stars, that makes it sound like everyone was a singer/songwriter until recently.

Well of course not. There have been people writing for musical acts since pretty much the beginning of music. As long as there is money to be made by pairing a good song with a good (and/or pretty) performer, people will do it!


I think what irks me is the fact that the public (and the music industry) give credit to the performer as if a song is "theirs" just because they were the first to sing it, even though they did not write it themselves.

Obviously this mainly comes from the celebrity obsessed culture we live in where we idolize the actors and performers while we ignore the (in many ways) more important contributers of writers, directors, producers, etc.

But you can't just blame this on the public because the industry itself does little to promote writers who conistently pump out great songs or #1 hits.


To me, a performer is a performer is a performer. Obviously it takes a ton of skill, pratice and natural talent no matter if you are singing or playing an instrument but to be honest, a good song is really what makes or breaks it. You take any top 40 hit written by one of these people who pumps these things out and give it to any pretty vocalist and *bam* you have a hit on your hands. It is the song itself that is the star and all you need is the pretty packaging of the vocalist to ship it.


So to me, the artists that write and perform their own music are the real talents. I believe that creativity is truly special and people who can create great works of art out of nothing should be rightfully respected.

That is why I personally feel artists who write and perform their own songs are "better" than artists who simply just sing/perform.

yakface wrote:
Clarksville is quite hard on Rockband, but I don't find it harder (on guitar) than any of the metallica songs personally.

I think I found it harder because there is more 'picking' in the song than chords, which is trickier for me.

My favorite take on Assassin's Creed so far:

http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=255

The Monkees seem hard because Metallica is actually rather simple in terms of rhythm. Melodically complicated with the solos, but far from as hard as other stuff in my collection.