Before I start this review I would like to point out that this is for the console version of the game as the PC version is ruined by numerous glitches and the stupid DRM always online crap that has no benefit to this game at all. If this game is bought it should be for the console. Period.
The original game was a great idea slightly ruined by poor mechanics and a boring storyline. The game sold, highly, meaning a sequel was imminent and a chance for Ubisoft to redeem themselves. The setting is still brilliant, one of the best in any game. The renaissance period is bought to stunning life in Florence, Venice and other smaller Italian towns. It's about as close to an open world game as possible without being classed as an open world game. This time the modern storyline has been bought forward to the primary storyline which sees Oscar nominee Desmond Miles run from Abstergo to join the 'Indie' animus running company. This does introduce us to the greatest Assassin's Creed character ever; Shaun. Voiced by Danny Wallace, who looks like Steven Merchant on a windy day, who gives a hilarious voice over. I would forgive you for not finishing the story if you just listened to the hilarious insults Shaun throws at Desmond. You have no idea how much fun it is to hear Desmond being told to repetitively go away.
Another great character is born, the protagonist Ezio Auditore, who apart from being some sort of wealthy Assassins on one side is also a professional playboy, or Italian. Very similar things, easy to get mixed up. Instead of the obsession with stabbing minorities the last one had this one has an obsession with Ezio sticking his cock in everything. Even Leonardo Da Vinci, although by his voice and enthusiasm I would say he was up for it.
When Ezio is not checking out the local clunge (which isn't very often) he is participating in what is an exceptionally well paced story that doesn't drag on and become boring like the previous version and doesn't become a fast paced COD style campaign where everything happens at once. The ending isn't brilliant but does set up a sequel in not a very inventive way. Still, at least it isn't predictable like the last one. The missions aren't exactly very inventive but they are fun to play and all contribute towards the story in their own way. The side missions have also been improved, feathers are just rarer versions of those fucking flags but the puzzles are not complicated and fun to play. A nice little addition.
The problems of the last installment are no more. The stealth system has been improved as has the combat system although counter kill is still the way forward but boy does it feel sweet when you hit it. There are now a variety of enemies as well which means a minor strategy is required for some battles unlike the originals counter kill everything battles. The heavily updated engine also feels so much smoother and makes those viewpoints look even better. It does have its fair share of glitches though, probably worse than the first to be honest.
Although the game has fixed virtually all the problems the previous one has it has created some new ones. The Animus isn't that good as it constricts the map loosing the feeling of an open world. When killing civilians (as you do) a message pops up saying "Ezio did not kill civilians." I don't care if Ezio killed civilians or not, I do, especially those annoying lute playing bastards that don't bother anyone else, just you. Waiting round corners to ruin your day. The Jehovah's Witnesses of the Renaissance.
Overall Assassin's Creed 2 is everything the original should have been. Smooth gameplay, fun innovative missions and a great storyline. It is without doubt the best game of the series so far although Black Flag has a good chance of beating that. What Ubisoft managed to so with this title was take the original and improve every single aspect of it to create what is quite frankly a truly brilliant game.
The Christoforge Rating: 92/100
Favorite Quote: "I have plenty of outlets."
"Other than vaginas." - Maria Auditore to Ezio.
Favorite Moment: "Its a me Mario" - When Ezio first meets his uncle.
Worst Moment: What do you mean I have to collect all the codex pages to continue.
Wednesday 27 November 2013
Tuesday 26 November 2013
Review: Assassin's Creed
I will begin just by saying that the Assassin's Creed franchise is one of the greatest concepts in the history of gaming. I don't necessarily agree with the direction that Ubisoft has taken it but the original plot and setting are so utterly amazing that I constantly remember playing this in 2007 with an open jaw. Very few games live up to the hype that they gain, but Assassin's Creed was definitely one of them. It takes a big game to still be noticed as one of the biggest games of the year with other brilliant titles such as Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 coming out at the same time.
The game is set during the crusades and a modern metropolis which the Scimitar Engine perfectly captures. If the gameplay is a little rough around the edges the thing that Ubisoft really accomplished with this title is appearance. The game looks and feels beautiful, from the brilliant musical score to the view from the top of spires this game feels like a historical epic. It is the first ever title I have got the sense that the setting is 'living'. The two stories coming together is also a nice feature as they compliment each other nicely, however, the modern segments are definitely the most tedious and often poorly constructed.
What the Ubisoft team accomplished in this edition is blurring the line between juxtaposing settings and between good and evil. The player will usually start as a firm Assassin but as the game wears on may switch to the 'evil' Templars as their regime just seems to make sense. I started in the same boat but I found that as the game wore on the Assassin order was just as corrupt and tyrannical as the Templars. It is quite difficult to pick a side when the concept of the game is based around killing people because of their religion, an idea Ubisoft must have gained from the shocking title Ethnic Cleansing. (It should also be pointed out that Al Mualim, the leader of the Assassin order, is based off a historical figure known as 'The Wise Man of The Mountains' who founded a group of Islamic extremists. Who are the bad guys now.)
Another reason why I love this series so much is that it is based off history. With this game you genuinely feel like you are part of history and even though the war between Assassin's and Templars is fictional it still feels as though you are ultimately changing your characters fate. The story itself is set into two parts. The first in a modern corporation run by antagonist Warren Vidic with an assistant ; Lucy. You are introduced to a machine known as an animus which can travel to an ancestors memory through DNA sequences. I don't know what I just said but I WANT ONE. This strand in the storyline is intriguing if anything and is a nice subtle backdrop from slaughtering ethnic minorities.
The second part of the story is the historical element. Unfortunately as innovative as this section is it feels rather linear. The main missions all follow the same premise of, yep you guessed it, slaughtering ethnic minorities. This means that although the game contains many great features it always feels predictable and so the ending is just alright. It's just so predictable that it just isn't surprising and therefore slightly anti climatic.
However, the main reason Assassin's Creed is such a good title is because of the game defining features. The main feature is the ability to free run, on any building. This feature makes the whole map so vast and open and flows so effortlessly making this feature more of an art form made so simple by the brilliant control system. The combat leaves a lot to be desired. It feels rather wooden and relies on timing rather than actual skill and any enemy can be simply mowed down by using counter kill.
Instead of any form of side missions there are various flags to collect. There are hundreds of them and there is no benefit at all. Apart from an achievement they are completely pointless. In Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, Rex will sometimes say "I hope I don't have to collect any fucking flags." Another example of another flawed feature. This contributes to the fact that this game does get boring. After a quarter of the story it just gets predictable and repetitive, the missions just don't have enough variety and often end in a massive sword fight that only emphasizes the rather lackluster combat system.
Overall Assassin's Creed is more of a missed opportunity. The game that looked so good in the previews and looked even better when starting to play soon wore out on me. The story seems to have been sacrificed for gameplay, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but there is no substance here to elevate the gameplay. The repetitive story is saved by the fact that this title is forward thinking. This is genesis for one of the most loved franchises in console history and players will look back a lot more fondly on this game for what would become of the series.
The Christoforge Rating: 84/100
Favorite Quote: "Ironic isn't it? That I your greatest enemy kept you safe from harm. But now you've taken my life, and in the process, ended your own."- Robert De Sable
Favorite Moment: Climbing the spires of Jerusalem and admiring the view
Worst Moment: Those fucking flags. Why?
The game is set during the crusades and a modern metropolis which the Scimitar Engine perfectly captures. If the gameplay is a little rough around the edges the thing that Ubisoft really accomplished with this title is appearance. The game looks and feels beautiful, from the brilliant musical score to the view from the top of spires this game feels like a historical epic. It is the first ever title I have got the sense that the setting is 'living'. The two stories coming together is also a nice feature as they compliment each other nicely, however, the modern segments are definitely the most tedious and often poorly constructed.
What the Ubisoft team accomplished in this edition is blurring the line between juxtaposing settings and between good and evil. The player will usually start as a firm Assassin but as the game wears on may switch to the 'evil' Templars as their regime just seems to make sense. I started in the same boat but I found that as the game wore on the Assassin order was just as corrupt and tyrannical as the Templars. It is quite difficult to pick a side when the concept of the game is based around killing people because of their religion, an idea Ubisoft must have gained from the shocking title Ethnic Cleansing. (It should also be pointed out that Al Mualim, the leader of the Assassin order, is based off a historical figure known as 'The Wise Man of The Mountains' who founded a group of Islamic extremists. Who are the bad guys now.)
Another reason why I love this series so much is that it is based off history. With this game you genuinely feel like you are part of history and even though the war between Assassin's and Templars is fictional it still feels as though you are ultimately changing your characters fate. The story itself is set into two parts. The first in a modern corporation run by antagonist Warren Vidic with an assistant ; Lucy. You are introduced to a machine known as an animus which can travel to an ancestors memory through DNA sequences. I don't know what I just said but I WANT ONE. This strand in the storyline is intriguing if anything and is a nice subtle backdrop from slaughtering ethnic minorities.
The second part of the story is the historical element. Unfortunately as innovative as this section is it feels rather linear. The main missions all follow the same premise of, yep you guessed it, slaughtering ethnic minorities. This means that although the game contains many great features it always feels predictable and so the ending is just alright. It's just so predictable that it just isn't surprising and therefore slightly anti climatic.
However, the main reason Assassin's Creed is such a good title is because of the game defining features. The main feature is the ability to free run, on any building. This feature makes the whole map so vast and open and flows so effortlessly making this feature more of an art form made so simple by the brilliant control system. The combat leaves a lot to be desired. It feels rather wooden and relies on timing rather than actual skill and any enemy can be simply mowed down by using counter kill.
Instead of any form of side missions there are various flags to collect. There are hundreds of them and there is no benefit at all. Apart from an achievement they are completely pointless. In Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon, Rex will sometimes say "I hope I don't have to collect any fucking flags." Another example of another flawed feature. This contributes to the fact that this game does get boring. After a quarter of the story it just gets predictable and repetitive, the missions just don't have enough variety and often end in a massive sword fight that only emphasizes the rather lackluster combat system.
Overall Assassin's Creed is more of a missed opportunity. The game that looked so good in the previews and looked even better when starting to play soon wore out on me. The story seems to have been sacrificed for gameplay, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but there is no substance here to elevate the gameplay. The repetitive story is saved by the fact that this title is forward thinking. This is genesis for one of the most loved franchises in console history and players will look back a lot more fondly on this game for what would become of the series.
The Christoforge Rating: 84/100
Favorite Quote: "Ironic isn't it? That I your greatest enemy kept you safe from harm. But now you've taken my life, and in the process, ended your own."- Robert De Sable
Favorite Moment: Climbing the spires of Jerusalem and admiring the view
Worst Moment: Those fucking flags. Why?
Thursday 21 November 2013
Battlefield Vs COD
This is, in my opinion, quite possible the most annoying thing in gaming at the moment. I accept that two rival products each trying to be better is going to create some friction, however, what really annoys me is this pathetic constant argument that usually ends up resorting to stupid, annoying and immature jokes that usually end up insulting the other person's mother. This problem can be witnessed on virtually any YouTube video relating to any first person shooter, but really came to my attention on a recent video I watched that showed a fellow gamer 'quickscoping' on Battlefield 4. Despite the fact that this video was clearly a harmless joke, the comments were littered with abuse towards the other side and despite the fact that most Call Of Duty players are seen as 'immature' it was to my surprise that the majority of these immature insults were coming from Battlefield fans.
I personally enjoy playing both games as much as each other and in my opinion, for the last few years COD and Battlefield have been at around the same level and so it is impossible to say which one is definitively better. Therefore I am sick and tired of hearing from fan-boys that one is obviously better than the other and that usually comes from the Battlefield side. I'm going to be sticking up for Call of Duty here a little as these Battlefield die hard fans have been pissing me off recently and I will run through their classic arguments.
Argument number one ; COD is always the same game. This is the classic argument and one that really annoys me. Battlefield 2 was my first proper shooter and one that I hold close to my heart. It is a brilliant game, but also remarkably similar to the multiplayer of Battlefield 3 and oh, what a surprise, Battlefield 3, which again is a good game, is almost identical to Battlefield 4. My first COD, the original Modern Warfare, which by the way is a better overall game than any Battlefield has ever been (yes, I said it. You can insult my mum as much as you want I really don't care.) has a completely different experience some of the latest installments but still most of the fun elements that made four so good. The principle of don't fix something that isn't broken rings true here.
Argument number two ; Battlefield takes more skill to play. Bullshit, I have a higher kill to death ratio and score per minute on Battlefield. It depends on the player.
Argument number three ; Battlefield has better graphics. Seriously, are graphics are more important than gameplay? Sure better graphics do contribute to a better gaming experience but given the choice between playing Tetris, which by modern standards has abysmal graphics, and Crysis 3, which has mouthwateringly good graphics, I would choose Tetris any day of the week due to the significantly better gameplay. Sure Tetris doesn't tell a story but then neither does Battlefield. Seriously though, Battlefield 3's campaign was a good substitute for Nytol. The outdated engine one is also flawed as although the Frostbite 2 engine is a lot more advanced it has a poor framerate and just isn't as good as the heavily modified Quake engine. Sometimes the simple things are the best in life.
Argument number four ; Battlefield has better multiplayer. Arguable and in my opinion is correct, certainly with later titles. But multiplayer doesn't make a complete game does it. (Yes that was aimed at DICE.)
Finally, the most ignorant of them all. Argument number five ; Battlefield is more realistic. Oh yes, I forgot the time the whole US Army could respawn on the Battlefield, but only to a certain limit. Why people even argue this point is stupid. If they want a realistic shooter then Battlefield would be a fair way down the list past titles such as ARMA and Operation Flashpoint, the later of which is not a good game but under their logic it's the best shooter on the market. Making something realistic does not make it fun. I'm sure these people will be first in the queue for the 'Christoforge patented virtual saw your own leg off experience' which is very realistic but only fun if you want to walk around on a prosthetic limb for the rest of your life.
There are many more arguments for and against which are equally annoying and ignorant and quite frankly just make YouTube videos a living hell. I know this won't stop this pointless argument, but I just wish people would learn to enjoy both games for what they are and have fun. Who cares which one is best, they're both superior at what they do brilliantly so just appreciate both for what they are.
I personally enjoy playing both games as much as each other and in my opinion, for the last few years COD and Battlefield have been at around the same level and so it is impossible to say which one is definitively better. Therefore I am sick and tired of hearing from fan-boys that one is obviously better than the other and that usually comes from the Battlefield side. I'm going to be sticking up for Call of Duty here a little as these Battlefield die hard fans have been pissing me off recently and I will run through their classic arguments.
Argument number one ; COD is always the same game. This is the classic argument and one that really annoys me. Battlefield 2 was my first proper shooter and one that I hold close to my heart. It is a brilliant game, but also remarkably similar to the multiplayer of Battlefield 3 and oh, what a surprise, Battlefield 3, which again is a good game, is almost identical to Battlefield 4. My first COD, the original Modern Warfare, which by the way is a better overall game than any Battlefield has ever been (yes, I said it. You can insult my mum as much as you want I really don't care.) has a completely different experience some of the latest installments but still most of the fun elements that made four so good. The principle of don't fix something that isn't broken rings true here.
Argument number two ; Battlefield takes more skill to play. Bullshit, I have a higher kill to death ratio and score per minute on Battlefield. It depends on the player.
Argument number three ; Battlefield has better graphics. Seriously, are graphics are more important than gameplay? Sure better graphics do contribute to a better gaming experience but given the choice between playing Tetris, which by modern standards has abysmal graphics, and Crysis 3, which has mouthwateringly good graphics, I would choose Tetris any day of the week due to the significantly better gameplay. Sure Tetris doesn't tell a story but then neither does Battlefield. Seriously though, Battlefield 3's campaign was a good substitute for Nytol. The outdated engine one is also flawed as although the Frostbite 2 engine is a lot more advanced it has a poor framerate and just isn't as good as the heavily modified Quake engine. Sometimes the simple things are the best in life.
Argument number four ; Battlefield has better multiplayer. Arguable and in my opinion is correct, certainly with later titles. But multiplayer doesn't make a complete game does it. (Yes that was aimed at DICE.)
Finally, the most ignorant of them all. Argument number five ; Battlefield is more realistic. Oh yes, I forgot the time the whole US Army could respawn on the Battlefield, but only to a certain limit. Why people even argue this point is stupid. If they want a realistic shooter then Battlefield would be a fair way down the list past titles such as ARMA and Operation Flashpoint, the later of which is not a good game but under their logic it's the best shooter on the market. Making something realistic does not make it fun. I'm sure these people will be first in the queue for the 'Christoforge patented virtual saw your own leg off experience' which is very realistic but only fun if you want to walk around on a prosthetic limb for the rest of your life.
There are many more arguments for and against which are equally annoying and ignorant and quite frankly just make YouTube videos a living hell. I know this won't stop this pointless argument, but I just wish people would learn to enjoy both games for what they are and have fun. Who cares which one is best, they're both superior at what they do brilliantly so just appreciate both for what they are.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)