My review of the AC series so far!
Everyone seems to be reviewing Brotherhood so I though I'd go over the whole series and sumarize what I'd like from the next game.
So, to start with AC1. I only ever played this game on the computer as when I finnally got it on xbox360 it did the predictable thing and glitched so that everytime I killed some1 it froze so I had to restart. But at the time I was hugely impressed by AC1. It was the best free-run open world game I'd ever played and I loved the history behind it. The repetitive gameplay leading up to the assassinations, while useful, was so boring and that was what finnally (after many hours of fun) put me off replaying the game. I was however a fan of the main assassinations and the William de Montferat was my favourite and it was Stabby's and Ian's vids on that assassination that brought me to this site. The storyline in AC1 was also interesting and I liked the way that the characters tried to put doubt into your mind just before they died. To summarize, Ac1 gameplay wise was great and the atmosphere in later sequences actually gave you a reason to be stealthy but the glitches and repetitive gameplay left it at the bottom of the assassin's creed pile for me. :/
Ac2 was a huge improvement. I loved the graphics even more than the first game and the storyline now flowed properly which made it much more replayable. I also liked the character development of Ezio and I felt much more attatched to him than Altair. However, whilst AC1 wasn't difficult, Ac2 became far too easy with instant use medicine being a large part of the problem. The combat was still dull but now incredibly easy as a 4 man guard post could be taken out in 2 seconds with the double hidden blade. Fights took forever as guards seemed very unwilling to attack. The notoriety system became silly as in Ac1 with each imjportant person you killed you became irreversibly more notorious but for some reason they decided that that didn't work (why ubisoft???) and now you could reduce notoriety ridiculously easily. I am however picking holes in what was in my opinion a fantastique game and definately my favourite of the AC series so far. 
Ac:B-There are many more problems than good things about the changes in this game and they have lready been discussed in etail on other topics so I'll not rant for too long here besides mentioning that they really have to re-do combat as it is now ludicrously easy. Ezio's godlike abilities are fun to play with for a while (I'm urrently going through the story for 100% sync for the third time) even though there's no challenge . I agreee with everyone that we need more, and less scripted main assassinations as there's very little fun to be had.
I'm now going to suprise everyone by saying that AC:B is great fun to play, partially I think because I expected to like it so much so I sort of made myself like it however as stated above they need to make serious improvements before they release the next game.
I can't really comment on multi-player besides saying that the VR missions (which are great) are a better test of your abilities as an assassin although I've been hugely imprssed by Jack-Reacher's vids.
So for AC3 i'd like to see a larger ability to plan missions with your factions and personalise where and when you strike (this should impact alot on your notoriety). The combat needs to be made much more difficult to persuade people to bother with stealth and healing should only be possible when out of combat and should take a while. There are lots of minor things I'd like to see corrected but Everyone has already talked about them so i'll leave it there.
I f you've bothered to read all that then thank you and I'd like to hear what you guys think (especially about potential for AC3. 
Ac2 became far too easy with instant use medicine being a large part of the problem
you could reduce notoriety ridiculously easily
I found a fix for those problems: I didn't use health potions and I didn't do the notoriety-reducing stuff when I played ACII. Also, I didn't buy armor (except the one piece you have to buy), and I only bought a dagger, so I have a short blade. Those features are optional, and I suppose they are only there for those that find the game too difficult otherwise.
My ideal AC3 would be a remake of AC1, with only some slight brushup. For example, when you move on a crosspiece towards a wall, and there's a climbing handhold on the wall, you have to release high-profile, to avoid clinging onto the wall instead of running up the wall. They could change that.
And maybe I would tolerate a slight change of the setting: maybe the time before the third crusade, or maybe a Persian setting during the early twelfth century.
But all in all, I think AC1 is perfect the way it is. I've been playing it for a year now, and I still find it the opposite of repetitive. Every streetcorner, every save citizen, and every investigation has a universe of potential gameplay in them.
In ACII, everything is integrated in the "flow" of storyline so much, that it's hard to decouple the bits of gameplay from the story. It's just a movie. In AC however, every single kill can take on a context of its own. That's what makes AC the most replayable game imaginable for me.
Not to promote my vid, just to demonstrate my point:
http://thehiddenblade.com/gardens-acre
That's just a small section of one of the nine districts. And I can't get bored of it. The guard patrol that comes over from the middle district, for example can be played a thousand different ways. In AC1, the buildings are designed for gameplay. Every nook and cranny can take up significance during a fight, during an escape or during stealthy exploration. In ACII, the buildings are just scenery. There's an alley right up to the northern wall, just east of the gardens, with a very exciting route to the higher gardens, and some very diverse possibilities for escape and hiding. I can't wait for the next time I explore those rooftops. The archer on the eastern rooftops makes it a really unpredictable terrain.
I don't understand how people can find that game repetitive. Unless they just rush through it.
But I'll stop my ranting. I don't actually have any expectations for AC3. There's no need for an AC3, just like there's no need for a chess 2.
Honestly, I felt that AC1 was pretty repetitive, but only because of the constant eavesdropping and beating people up that you did before every single asassination. The assassinations and side missions were probably some of the best gameplay wise, because they were less scripted than AC2 and ACB.
What made AC1 great was the unscripted gameplay. You could take a target across the entire city in a chase and kill them extremely far away from their original position and it was okay. In ACB, when you have to hold off the guards so Caterina can get away from the Castello, you are required to stay in a tiny area until the game tells you to run like a pussy and hide. 
You aren't though. It tells you to do that, but if you fight off all the guards who come in the area then you will become anonymous and complete the memory, without needing to run away.
The point still stands that there's nothing for mission freedom in Brotherhood compared to AC1, which really robs the game of the idea that 'everything is permitted'.
The point still stands that there's nothing for mission freedom in Brotherhood compared to AC1, which really robs the game of the idea that 'everything is permitted'.
Exactly! If the series is titled "Assassin's Creed", there should be significance to that creed. Just because they say it at ceremonies doesn't give it a significant role in the series anymore. 
Doing a 1 vs. 20 in AC2 is nearly impossible. If you kill like 10 guards, the other 10 run away. Not cool man.
I wish AC games had difficulty modes.
I wish AC games had difficulty modes.
THANK YOU!!!
I wish AC games had difficulty modes.
It has automatic difficulty modes. You can set the difficulty by choosing your style of play and your objectives.
Always avoiding drawing the attention of citizens, courageous citizens and archers is not easy, for example. It also helps if you run to the closest hiding spot whenever you get hit.
I would like to see the following in AC3:
1. New setting and new hero. Ezio Auditore Da Firenze truly is my favorite video game character of all time and you can't top Renaissance Italy for a timeframe/setting. But it's time for him to hang it up. He's run his course. A descendant of Ezio, obviously will be the protagonist. And we've all heard Colonial America or the French Revolution as probable settings in the next game.
2. Most important. Truly balanced combat. Obviously, the new assassin will have to be far-better-than-average in personal combat. But it needs to be balanced. My one, one and only complaint about AC2 and ACB was the ridiculously easy combat. Ezio was invincible. You couldn't be defeated unless you consciously put the controller down and let yourself get wailed on. The only real way to die was from a high fall. That needs to be re-engineered. That was something AC1 got more right than AC2 and ACB did. I dreaded facing a Templar in combat right at the beginning of the game. Very easy to get owned. They also need to stop the only-one-enemy-attacks-at-a-time problem. They need to make a group of guards/soldiers a real threat. Also, if the series moves forward in the future timeline-wise, they need to incorporate firearms in a fair and balanced way; in terms of both using them yourself and how your enemies use them. In fact, this could be the great equalizer in the game, if done properly.
Ideally, you should be able to make it through the game without dying once in combat, but only if you're really, really good. Make it a real challenge. Punish a mistake in combat with severe consequences.
3. Much greater advancement of Desmond's story. It needs to progress faster and we need to find out more about what's going on in the present time.
Agree fully with number 2. I have had my fun with playing "god mode" as Ezio, but another game as a super god like assassin would make me really dissapointed. I want the freedom of gadgets again, but I want to have some fear that I could actually die from the enemy at some point.
Enemies should really do more damage. A lot of metal armor shouldn't protect you from 35 sword strikes.. Lol
Also, you shouldn't be able to block attacks infinitely. You should get hit after the third attack or something. This would require the player to use the dodge skill more often. Also, things like archers with terrible aim kinda ruin things. I mean you could be walking in a direction and they would miss.
I think the next one should give the player only a few weapons/gadgets. Maybe the essentials of a more technologically advanced time period for an Assassin would be the hidden blade, short sword, long sword, gun (maybe an old-timey pistol if it's from colonial America or the French Revolution) and a poison blade/mechanism. I just want to feel vulnerable again (I hope I never say that in real life).
Also, I think the overall look of the Assassin should change, as well. Past games have had perfectly tailored outfits for the main character. How about including the white hood, but the rest of his clothes would be tattered and dirty. Also, NO CAPE. That thing just gets on my nerves now!
I agree, as do many others, that the combat needs to be more balanced and generally challenging.
For AC:B the combat was supposedly designed to be more challenging for the player with the introduction of the "strike first, strike fast" method. But despite this making the comabt ever so slightly more interesting and attack-based it still wasn't chellenging, just a little faster!
I agree, as do many others, that the combat needs to be more balanced and generally challenging.For AC:B the combat was supposedly designed to be more challenging for the player with the introduction of the "strike first, strike fast" method. But despite this making the comabt ever so slightly more interesting and attack-based it still wasn't chellenging, just a little faster!
I never struck first. All I did was wait for a guard to attack (which was pretty quick), then counter and kill-streak the rest...
Exactly my point 
This is what I always do too. The use of the counter-kill is supposedly less effective now but when it can lead to an infinite chain of kills (through the use of pure button mashing and analogue stick wiggling in many cases), its still extremely useful.
Even with the "more aggressive AI", counters and killstreaks aren't difficult as only occasionally will a guard interrupt your streak. He can quickly be dealt with by countering/blocking midstreak with 
and then attacking as normal to continue the streak.
There is no challenge whatsoever and, while it may look cool, very few people appear to be striking first, or fast for that matter.
Striking first is as fast as waiting for a counter attack. 
Haha. Too true! The supposed combat system rehaul was just a big joke. I still enjoy fighting and its pretty fun to wipe out a whole group of guards but after 3 games of it, something drastic needs to be done for the next game...
I'd like a two-hit system. Every guard goes down in two solid hits, but so do you. The first hit puts you into critical [the cool-looking critical from ACI, not the uninspired ACII/B critical state], the second hit desynchronizes you.
I'd like a two-hit system. Every guard goes down in two solid hits, but so do you. The first hit puts you into critical [the cool-looking critical from ACI, not the uninspired ACII/B critical state], the second hit desynchronizes you.
I like that idea a lot. Like, one proper hit to break the defense, then continuing for the kill. Timing has to be right and elite guards take more hits to break defense. 
I liked reading all this guys, It's everything I'd want to say about the franchise without feeling like a templar for saying it. keep the creed alive!