No, all counterkills with the spear lose it. Killchains don't, and the initial kill if you use an unarmed disarm to take a spear off a guard and then kill him with it doesn't, but countering always loses the spear. The trade-off is that it can counter anything, even heavy weapons and other spears.

 

Goddamnit, humiliated again. Why Tehan, why?

And hell yeah Lamora, I love summoning my foxy ladies to take care of any...problems. Especially large ones, I just get all of them to get down and dirty and the issue solves itself, usually in a big mess.

And just thinking back, I tended to actually use the hidden blades most of all, first because they were convenient, and second because goddamnit if I didn't feel like the most boss predator stalking my prey, and slipping out of the shadows to stealthily carve some stomach steak before melting away.

Edit: On rereading my post I realised that the last sentence had a x6 alliteration combo. Hell Yeah.

 

Holding instead of tapping when chainkilling causes Ezio to use the pistol (with sword) or a throwing knife (with knife) to kill a second person. Uses ammo, though - one more reason for me to pick the knife over the sword.

 

The pistol kills during killstreaks are beast. Eviscerating someone is well and good, but the bang-drop of the gun is just very satisfying. Not to mention how terrifying it would be to watch your buddy's face explode in Ezio's hand when he does a pointblank shot. Just absolutely filthy.

 

This is a necro, but I think that's better than to open a totally new thread.

So I picked this up last week, and I'm loving the shit out of it. Except when I'm raging at the fact that my 85% probability mission with five level 8 assassins fails, but a 1% probability mission goes through.

I'm notr trying to review this or anything, it'd be way too late and other people to it better. I basically just wanted to ask: Is it worth, at this point, to pick up the earlier games of AC? Brotherhood is my first AC game, unless you count that little iPhone version one with some kind of backstory on Altair or such. I went a little through the AC wiki and such, to understand the story I got into, so I don't necessarily need the earlier games for that, but just to have some more of that fun that is AC. Question is: Would I have that? Or would I just be disappointed by... Idk, anything that is inferior in the previous games to this one.

 

It is totally worth playing from the beginning. The mechanics of the game got expanded upon in the sequels, but nothing groundbreaking. Earlier versions are just as exciting.

Basically if you liked Brotherhood, you will like other parts as well. I started playing AC like half a year ago, and my favorite game was the first one. Altair rocks.

 

Altair is still the Fan Favorite. Ezio is damned awesome, but he's a little.. flashy.. for my tastes.

It's definitely worth picking up the other games. It expands upon the story, the characters, it adds life to the universe and gives you a deep, ingrained need to know what will happen next.

Oh, lets not forget the fact that they're all extremely well made on the technical side as well.

So yes, worth it picking up the earlier AC games.

Edit: Brain thinks one thing, fingers do another. :facepalm

 

Really, Brotherhood is just an extension of the main series. In terms of story, its almost tacked on. The arc of Brotherhood is basically 'want revenge, get revenge'. The first has an amazing mystery, and the second is an intensely personal journey. Gameplay wise, the first is kind of repetitive, but so entertaining that I never minded doing anything. Brother hood has, IMO, too much shit going on at the same time. AC1 doesnt, and it lets you focus on the important and much forgotten tasks in the AC series, assassinations. AC1's big positive is that it feels more impactful. Your actions have a visceral, often gory effect that got a little toned down, and the focus you get to finish your tasks hasn't been replicated. AC2 makes free-running and combat extremely smooth, much as they are in ACB. The difference is pretty big, making the first about playing the game and completing goals, whereas 2 is more about the style and story. It does introduce some cool varieties without the clutter of ACB though.

AC2 is a must play, perhaps more then AC1 simply for the story. While I prefer the cool mystery of AC1, the second's story is a journey of family, revenge and growth over thirty years. I don't think any games have told a story quite like AC2. If you like a more 'tale' kind of story and care more about looking cool than deep gameplay, AC2 is your thing. But for the true style and experience of being an assassin, complete with conspiracies and power, go for AC1.

In answer to your question, yes. Play the shit out of both of the previous games. They are both excellent games, better than Brotherhood. The main change in Brotherhood is making the combat fucking easy as shit, offering the 'percentage' completion statistic and introducing the 'Brotherhood' minigame. The only one you'll miss is the Brotherhood, and even then the awesomeness of those games make up for it.

Oh and WalkingDisaster, you did not just call Altair Ibn La-Ahad 'Alistair'. Christ on a stick man, come on.

 

And don't forget.... Revelations comes out on the fifteenth. Those bombs look beautiful. I want a flash bang/smoke/lambs blood/shrapnel explosion!

 

Personally, I found AC1 to be boring, dull and repetative. AC2 and ACB are miles ahead in both gameplay and graphics.

Plus, Ezio Auditore da Firenze is one of the most badass game characters ever, and according to the ACR trailers, he looks to get more awesome with age.

 

...wut?

Oh my god, really? Why would anyone do that?

Ezio has a ton more panache than Altair, and he seems to have a hell of a lot more impact on the brotherhood as well.

 

Ezio is certainly a character, but I liked Altair's quiet confidence by the end of the game. I just liked playing as a professional, one who knows his job and will do anything to get it done. Ezio as a character was just too much of a badass to really relate to, you know?

While I love playing him, and I have a lot of fun with his cool style and personality, Altair is the one I actually like, and because of that he is cooler. Also, he was a better assassin than Ezio. According to the 'Sync' thing, he was never hit and took no damage from falls ever. What a boss.

 

Yeah, while the 2nd and 3rd games were better, by far, I still like Altair a lot more than Ezio. For one, Altair just sounds a lot more badass than Ezio ever will and he just is cooler overall.

 

I disagree completely on the later. I can't fully judge until I see the end of Ezio's story, but the majority of what Altair did for the Creed was done after we finish playing the game. Altair becomes the head honcho of the Brotherhood at the end, with the Piece of Eden and carries the Brotherhood past its near collapse when (SPOILER!) its former leader nearly destroys it when he turns out to be a templar. Just saying, Ezio did a lot for the Brotherhood but it was on the verge of collapse after the first game and Altair carried it past that.

 

Well, that was an unambiguous answer. Thanks all of you for replying, I'll try and get AC and ACII copies somewhere along the way.

...


And there goes all the time I should spent studying like a proper college student... and it will be totally worth it :awesome

 

I picked up the series at ACII, and loved it. I picked up ACI from a steam sale and tried to play it, but since I had been bored at an airport and purchased and read a 'novel' of Assassin's Creed that turned out to be the entire story of the game, I never got into it. For that reason, I honestly prefer Ezio. Ezio Auditore da Firenze sounds just as awesome as Altair Ibn La-Ahad to me.

Psyched for Revelations though :awesome

 

Dunno to me...

Altair > Ezio.

Why?

Well... in AC2/Brohood you can get hurt and you can restore health. You can blend and finally distract those annoying beggers.

AC1? Altair doesnt get any of that shit. Hell the "health" is sync. That means Altair, never got hit. At all. Ever. Motherfucker was ghost.

Counter kill with one hidden blade. Yes. Altair could do that. The window though was very small.

Nothing more delightful then seeing a Templar knight try to attack only to get a hidden blade through the eye slit.



Though I will admit Ezio has a much MUCH better developed backstory/motivation etc...

Still like em both.

On the other hand... AC2 did make Ezio look like a psychopath killer though. They took out a lot of the death speeches because of complaints about it and I understand. A knife to the throat should render you unable to give a 4 minute speech about your motivations...

But it showed a human side to your victims they weren't "OLOLOLOLOLOLOL. I IZ TEH EVULZ."

In AC2 Ezio pretty much murders... and murders. There's no real attempt to humanize any of his victims.

AC: Brohood attempts to but pretty early it establishes all of your targets as evil fucks who have no redeeming value so... KILL THEM ALL! AHAHAHAHAHA


Interesting thing to note: I actually bench assassinated the Banker... and NO one noticed. It was... kind of uncanny. Usually when I do that all the guards get alerted.

 

Yeah those kills make you feel boss. Did it in multi-player and couldn't stop giggling.

 

AC2 and AC:B have the better gameplay, nobody can deny that. But dammit, I replayed AC earlier this week and I fucking died a bunch of times. Some of the battles near the end are actually hard to complete, mostly because just blocking and countering won't always work.

I resent AC2 and AC:B for removing all suspense of whether you'll actually be able to survive if you fuck up and are hunted by 20 guards. Ezio is one giant murder-machine, and with AC:R he will be even more so, but Altair was an Assassin. Plain and simple. With Ezio you could just walk in, kill everyone, and that's that.
Having said that, I think the game I enjoyed most was AC:B. I just love my Assassins, and Ezio's uniform in AC:B is the best by far. AC1 had a more epic feeling to it, your actions seemed to have bigger impact. Killing someone wouldn't just deprive your main target of a lieutenant, it would also affect nations.

From what I've seen of the new bomb system, I quite dislike it. The more abilities they give Ezio, the easier he kills his enemies, and the games get progressively more boring, at least gameplay wise.
Props for the story though. In my opinion, the best part of the AC series is it's plot.

 

Yeah the bomb system does seem to make things a hell of a lot easier for an already easy time of killing enemies. Now instead of just throwing a smoke and killing the tough enemies with the hidden blade... you can now just throw a grenade at em... :|