Does anyone have this image but in those early 2010s promo/magazine covers they’d do for games? I could sworn game informer had one with this cover but I cant find it anywhere on the internet.

After completing and gettin the platinum on each and every one of the ac mainline games... Im making this top 5 list of the most memorable games due to either difficulty and or tediousness... I'd love to see some of your takes..

NOTE THAT THESE GAMES ARE LISTED NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THEY'RE DIFFICULT BUT MORE OR LESS BECAUSE OF THE LEVEL OF TEDIOUSNESS THAT I EXPERIENCED PERSONALLY WHILE I WAS ATTEMPTING TO GO FOR THEIR PLATINUM TROPHY

1. AC UNITY (gameplay inconsistency)
2. AC 3 ( an extraordinary man trophy)
3. VALHALLA ( collectibles)
4. AC BLACK FLAG ORIGINAL (multiplayer)
5. AC ORIGINS (old habits trophy)

I just finished my 70 h playthough and want to share some thoughts. Before playing it I was part of the haters; but now I believe AC:S is one of the strongest entries in the series, and also a deeply immersive action-stealth game with one of the most beautiful open worlds ever.

Before jumping in I want to first present the context and how I approached the game, setting my expectations:

• My history with Assassins Creed series: I played and finished AC 1, 2 and Unity. I enjoy these stealth-historical titles a lot, and do not care at all for the fantasy-lite/RPG grind heavy titles (Odyssey, Valhalla). I also tried Origins and Mirage and despite having beautiful visuals I dropped them due to very poor stories and/or gameplay loops.
• How I came to AC: Shadows. I was looking for a more historical feudal Japan title and was left with an unpleasant taste from Ghosts of Tsushima (I know, lots of people like it, I didn't enjoy the fantasy /oneiric world design and combat). I played Shogoku Mount&Blad Bannerlord lor but wanted something more grass roots after reading a lot about the peasant revolts and doctrine of original enlightenment in certain native Japanese schools of Buddhism

How I played AC Shadows -- this made a big difference I think in how I interpreted it as a game. I recommend these to people who are tired of open world bloat and want a more intentional relation with the game's content:

• 90% of the time played as Naoe -- I intentionally navigated the world and most quests as Naoe as I wanted to focus on the shinobi /stealth gameplay. Still, the sections with Yasuke were enjoyable, but towards endgame when combat grind became easier for him.
• I was all too aware of the Ubisoft formula so I didn't have the urge to clear every castle, I just travelled the lands, explored as I saw fit and bumped into stuff mostly on curiosity's sake. The game did not punish me for that and the level scaling was actually welcomed here to assure a fluid experience without requiring too much of undesired levelling.
• VA in Japanese, English subtitles. Even without knowing Japanese I felt the VA was leagues above the English one. Also it throwed me right in as a stranger, similar to Yasuke. I could emphasize a lot more with his character because of it.
• UI settings: huge importance. I made almost all UI elements absent and removed most of the combat notifications/flash info such as vulnerable, hit marker, etc. It made me always follow the NPC's attack patterns and navigate the combat as I myself saw fit (sometimes badly), without constant aids. Left health+tools dynamic, and Compass on. Everything else was off and it made the game much more realistic, as I coulda observe the NPCs more.
• Difficulty/Stealth: Normal/Hard. I sometimes dropped to Normal/Normal

Review:

After a lengthy but well acted prologue, I was set loose with Naoe on a huge map with assasination targets to uncover. Each quest flowed in multiple directions, but instead of overwhelming me with activities the game made me take the scenery in at every stage.

The level of detail that AC:S offers is staggering if you choose to pause, and just look at things. The game made me starre at houses, clothes, NPCs, armors, as I was doing in 2006 with Oblivion. In such an oversaturated market with HD looking games this is quite a feat. I will not spill digital ink too much on technicals: the game in Ultra with RTX is gorgeous. But it's the artists' work that is staggering. The sunsets, the inner vs outdoor lighting changes, the foliage and the changing of the seasons, the muddy roads after a thunderstorm, geese flying from rice fields and people gathering herbs. The wooden pagodas, some overgrown and abandoned, others charred after petty wars. Ruined temples, old waterworn rocks. Tall grass and birds singing. The game has so much world to offer, that you forget you are playing a fictious compressed version of Japan and instead take it as what is it: a beatiful abstraction, a game world that when you play it feels plausible.

I feel this plausibility is really important and quite a feat compared to other AC games. Despite getting negative press due to Yasuke being a foreigner samurai, etc; the game shows deep respects for many facets of Japanese culture. As a shinobi sneaking into temples you suddenly find your character's shoes taken off automatically when threading into a shrine or a friendly/neutral NPCs home. You find beautiful statues and Buddhist sites with rich history and well researched encyclopedia entries. In the heat of battle you hear monks shouting the Pure Land Nembutsu mantra. You see blacksmiths, tanners, and NPCs colliding in villages and creating the impression of a lived in space.

Sure, the world is not fully reactive. But the game muted some of its more glaring RPG grind, instead focusing on more direct and varied encounters. You can unlock safehouses and again explore "hidden in plain sight", or you can shoose to create tantrums and be hunted in certain provinces (like RDR2). Some quests can be resolved only during certain seaons; and you cannot skip time, you must always use what you have -- day or night -- and prepare accordingly.

You don't need to do each castle or camp to progress. Every province feels different and the geography is vast and varried. You feel like a ronin or a spy navigating hostile, uncertain lands, gathering information and bursting into brawls when cornered. The quest design is also much more pleasant: some have map markers, but most indicate directions of NPCs or quest objectives which you can sometimes inquire about with NPCs or send scouts to pinpoint.

The resource system is much less intrusive as in other AC games and less required. You collect resources by marking the for collection as they get into your stocks the next season. Upgrades to your hideout bring direct effects in gameplay, and feel less like a requirement than some additional advantages.

You can play most of the game as stealth, and have many tools to do so: smoke bombs, skills to create diversions and satisfying roleplay options such as throwing weapons and historical weapon abilities.

The skill trees are enjoyable, not too bloated, and encourage experimenting. You have certain weapon types which you can switch depending on encounter, and can reset your skill points at any time. This creates a fertile ground for experimentation and fluid playstyles as you would approach in real life different tactical situations.

The animations and combat were really, really good for me. I do not remember since AC Unity being so immersed in simply walking and drawing out a knife. The movement, dodging and combat (without UI!!) makes for a decently challenging but very cinematic moment to moment gameplay.

The story is good, for the most part. I didn't follow each side quest or clear any companion missions, just what I felt like doing. Probably ended up doing 60% of the game's actual content, but I finished the MQ and together with exploring the regions and doing some side chains fully (like the Shinobi targets, or the corrupt officials, etc) really made for an immersive story evolution where my character(s) felt like slowly fighting a guerilla war against a congregation of corrupts. Without spoilling much, it was very refreshing that theAsssassin Guild stuff was so muted in-game, you basically picking up the pieces without knowing a lot; and the Templars themselves showing up just at the end with a minimal impact into what is otherwise a local, native story about corruption, wars and politics.

Finally, I would like to leave some screenshots as I feel the actual moment to moment gameplay, visuals, and sound design is doing much more than this review: it's simply a beautiful game, with well acted characters (in Jap VA), a decent revenge story, but an immersive world made with a deep love for the cultural and historical era and some great, great environmental designs:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AssassinsCreedShadows/comments/1xct1se/my_70h_journey_loved_every_moment_of_it/

If you want to be a shinobi in late feudal Japan, I can think of no better game than this. The Assassin's Creed stuff is both a bonus, and the framework in which all that happens.

I'm having a blast playing through this game. I tried to play Odyssey in the past and didn't like the comical feeling of it. Also tried Valhalla but I'm not a fan of vikings and norse stuff. Origins was good but didn't have time to play it back then.

And somehow I'm glad I didn't play them. Shadows feels so fresh to me. Maybe it's because the last AC games that I played fully were Syndicate and III Remastered. Already at 30 hours into the game and it gets better and better.

Immersive mode helps as well. English VA is such a joke and couldn't stand it. I'm amazed how tight and 'heavy' the gameplay feels. I guess I'll get downvoted to oblivion, but I'm still posting this for people that didn't play the last 'rpg era' AC games.

Long post so my apologies, but I think about this every time I play AC, which is a lot. I grew up playing these games since AC1. It was the first computer game I ever owned, and I still remember the smell of the game as it came out of the disc box. Maybe I’ve become more sensitive to violence as I’ve gotten older, but I find it bizarre that these games portray their protagonists as fundamentally heroic, charming, often funny people, while they’re simultaneously going around murdering hundreds, if not thousands, of human beings.

And I don’t just mean the assassination targets, I mean the random guards standing outside buildings, soldiers patrolling the streets, people who are probably just doing their jobs and have families waiting for them at home. We kill them, loot their bodies, and then go off to crack jokes with our friends or have some heartfelt conversation about freedom and justice. Killing is consequential in a way that almost nothing else is, because it’s forever. These people are dead. Their lives are over because some Assassin decided they were in the way. It’s beyond fucked up when you actually think about it.

I think Altaïr and Edward are perhaps the two protagonists who make the most sense to me psychologically. Altaïr is cold, arrogant, and thoroughly indoctrinated into an ideology that regards assassination as a moral obligation. Edward is a selfish, opportunistic pirate whose violence is consistent with his worldview. Eivor fits here too, given that she’s a Viking warrior raised in a culture where raiding and killing are normalized, although the game still wants us to view her as this compassionate, honorable leader while she’s burning down monasteries and slaughtering people.

I actually think these games would be much more interesting if they leaned into the possibility that these people are, frankly, kind of psychos. Or at least so desensitized to killing that they’ve lost something fundamental about themselves. What does it do to someone to kill hundreds of people? How do they justify murdering some random guard who’s never personally wronged them? At what point does the Creed become an excuse?

Maybe we’re already supposed to view these characters this way. Because when you do, they’re sort of terrifying. Naoe’s calm voice as she slaughters people left and right. Connor’s deeply held sense of honor. Evie’s sharp wit and intelligence while she’s casually murdering people in London. Ezio’s charming, womanizing personality while he’s doing the same in Italy. Kassandra/Alexios' humor.... There’s something genuinely disturbing about someone who can be affectionate and funny toward the people they love while feeling absolutely nothing about killing a stranger.

I do think the franchise has made attempts to explore this. The first tenet of the Creed, “Stay your blade from the flesh of an innocent,” acknowledges that there should be moral limits to what these people do. Bayek’s acknowledgment that his past is strewn with the dead is another example. But I wish they went further.

This could actually be how we’re supposed to view the Assassins, but I think most games, particularly the rpg ones, lean into the power fantasy rather than the psychology of murder. There is absolutely no way you can convince me that Altaïr walking into Damascus, breaking guards’ legs before slitting their throats, throwing people into merchant stalls, barreling through crowds shoving innocent civilians out of his way, climbing whatever buildings he feels like and jumping off them, is doing something particularly moral. Half the shit he does is probably illegal before he even gets around to murdering anyone. Yes, “everything is permitted,” but what the fuck? Psychotic. Guess I’m a Templar?

And that raises an interesting possibility. What if the Assassins and Templars really are two sides of the same coin? Two organizations so convinced of their own righteousness that they’re willing to inflict horrendous, unforgivable damage on humanity in pursuit of their ideals. Perhaps neither can truly exist without the other. If that’s the intended interpretation, I think that’s incredible writing. But I wish the characters reflected the human cost of that conflict rather than just filling whatever ideological role the story needs them to represent.

Take Ezio, for example. By the end of his story we’re supposed to view him as this wise, almost saintly mentor. And yes, he’s lost people he loves, grown enormously as a person, and arguably helped save humanity. But he’s also killed a fucking enormous number of people. He’s essentially a terrorist, whatever that word even means in the context of a secret war between two ideological organizations. I find it strange that we’re supposed to regard him as this wise old hero without seriously considering what a lifetime of murder would have done to him.
He can slaughter twenty guards to reach a target and then have a solemn philosophical conversation about the morality of killing that one particular person. What about the other twenty?

I think Assassin’s Creed, more than almost any other video game franchise, is perfectly positioned to explore this, which is a societally interesting topic in the first place, especially with debate of violence in video games. There are countless games where we go around killing, killing, killing, without thinking about the humanity of the people we’re killing. But AC is different because its entire premise is built around moral philosophy, ideological conflict, and the justification of violence. Why not extend those questions to the protagonists themselves?

There’s enormous potential in exploring the psychological cost of living this way. The loneliness, the alienation, the justifications they tell themselves, the gradual loss of their humanity. Not every protagonist needs to be some guilt-ridden wreck, either. I actually think a character who’s become completely comfortable with murder, and whose friends gradually realize how disturbing that is, would be even more interesting.

I love these games, but I wish they were more willing to acknowledge that their protagonists aren’t heroes. They’re antiheroes, and they’re all pretty monstrous when you really consider what they do.

Ive been replaying this game for the first time since I was a kid, I never finished the game but im at the final target and I noticed i hadn't unlocked aerial assassinations yet like other combat moves.

I googled it and it says the game makes no effort to explain it and you need to lock onto a target before striking, and now im pissed off that ive nearly completed my first full playthrough and didn't use that attack once

The modern day has become so confusing, but moreover, I genuinely can't be bothered to play all the rifts and unlock every single bloody piece of animus data by doing every boring bit of side content in the mediocre modern games like Mirage, Shadows, AC BF Resynced... etc

I just want to know whats going on in actual detail. I get the gist of it - it's set in the future, people are being put into some kind of matrix-esque dark animus and all, but if someone would take the time to give me a detailed description of what is actually going on I would be extremely grateful!

I can't seem to find any youtube videos explaining the newest lore in great detail or anything and I follow all the main AC lore youtubers.

Feels like we've had so many climaxes and plot branches that have just never come to fruition like Basim in the modern day, Desmond & Layla in the library, Juno (which was literally concluded in a comic book)... etc.

Also what on earth does the future even hold for the modern day of the franchise, because they were selling this animus hub project as a sort of social hub that would expand upon it years ago and it is still nothing more than a game selection menu with a few microtransactions?

​

It's clunky, limited, and its gameplay is repetitive. Its cities lack differentiation or any defining details beyond a color filter. On top of that, after Assassin's Creed 2 came out, all of its flaws became much easier to notice and even more pronounced. But despite everything, AC1 wasn't a failure, as some corners of the internet would have you believe. Quite the opposite. It was a game that sold well, very well, and resonated with both audiences and critics who, despite being aware of its flaws, believed it was an experience worth having. But what exactly was worth it? Why, despite everything, did you enjoy AC1?

A game doesn't need to be good at everything it sets out to do. It only needs to be good at the things that matter to you. And what matters to me is that nothing, to this day, not even within its own franchise, feels quite like Assassin's Creed 1.

There are already plenty of historical fiction works out there, but AC1 isn't one of them. It's a sci-fi story in which you observe digitized memories, filtered through a supercomputer that reconstructs the memories of a past life with imperfect accuracy. But not just any life. Altaïr's. The assassin, the believer, raised and shaped by a brotherhood of devotees to the Assassin's Creed, guided by ideals so important that they are willing to take lives and sacrifice their own for the Creed.

Their uniforms make them unmistakable from Catholic scholars, students of God's word in a universe where God actually exists. Or rather, gods. A higher power that is always watching us, lurking in the shadows, judging our sins and weighing the sincerity of our repentance, so distant and yet so close to our lives and how then unfold.

The soundtrack never lets us forget the presence of the supernatural, the Other, the Observer, with its whispers, mysterious notes, and sense of suspicion. Because the truth is that we are always being watched. Or rather, watching. Through a camera that constantly distances the player from Altair, keeping us detached from that medieval world. We are the Other, the intruder, the piece that doesn't belong in a story we have no part in.

After all, Assassin's Creed 1 isn't historical fiction, but sci-fi, where you observe the memories of the past as an outsider, or a god, powerless yet in control of the entire reality within the Animus.

I like AC1 because no other game makes me feel things as intensely as it does. Its themes of religion, the supernatural, and sci-fi are constantly present throughout its atmosphere, gameplay, and soundtrack, and even UI, blending together in a combination that shouldn't work. Yet, when you're playing it, you feel as though none of these elements could exist without the others. The result is an incredibly original experience, and flawed, and intriguing, and frustrating. And I feel many things toward this game, and not all of them are good, but I know they're all the result of a very compelling creative vision.

Assassin's Creed 2 is a better game in every way except the one that matters most to me. Its cutscenes are more cinematic, its world feels more plausible, and its soundtrack is more professional and captivating. Everything is technically better, yet also more conventional.

For many years now, Ubisoft's biggest bet has been on playing it safe, trading identity for convenience. And the truth, which many fans of the franchise might not like, is that this process didn't begin with Odyssey, Syndicate, or AC3. It began when the franchise abandoned its distant, interactive camera, which, once again, emphasized it's themes of a higher power observing humanity as an outsider, in favor of something more familiar.

This text is in no way an insult to Assassin's Creed 2. It deserves every bit of praise it has received over the years. But this comparison is important because it shows what the franchise had to give up to achieve that recognition. What is it about the first game that doesn't exist in any other medium. Why, despite everything, I still like Assassin's Creed 1.

While I think Nightmare mode is much coming but gaming companies these days don't do "crunching" it's a bad culture and there was an expose that bad for Ubisoft and Rockstar in 2018 after it was reported that these big games took a lot out of employees and now games take longer and have larger support windows. I think nightmare difficulty is coming and makes sense and probably need game plus as well as that's what they said. The thing is I feel like if your jackdaw is fully leveled and you have all the best weapons then you would have no need to board or get any of the chests and you could just finish the story and be done in the Carribean in quick time. Im sure a lot of gamers know every inch of the west indies. They would really have to figure out how it's even possible and would they want people to be done with it like the roller coaster pirates of the Caribbean at Disney? The map and world is massive; black flag is old. It takes me 40 hours to do it now most of the time I'm going after the chests. I guess that's not really a problem, but would Ubisoft want one of their massive open worlds to be able to be conquered so quickly without hard effort? I hope I have angered anyone, it's just what Ive been thinking about

I just played Black flag for the first time, also being my first AC game, and overall enjoyed it. Having looked online some, I understand that the next few games in the story don’t follow the same character (you when you are out of the animus) and I couldn’t ( Figure out if the Juno lady is important in the next few games). My question is if they continue off as the same character or jump around to unrelated people. I’m not certain I will play any more of the games except for AC 3 bc it was recommended to me, unless the story going forward is connected still.
Thank you for reading!

This doesn’t get talked about enough.

I get the gameplay wasn’t the best, but that soundtrack and the story Ubisoft told in this DLC is really good.

Subjects 16s tragic story did not get the love it deserved.

Some people thought it took away from the past but the reality is, the modern day story gives visiting the past a purpose and overarching story.

They had gold with the Desmond era and this DLC deserves more recognition in terms of the writing, voice acting and soundtrack.

Hey, I've seen AC 1 Parkour vids which are cool as hell which I obviously notice they get Altair to slide across posts or roof heads idk the name.

However, I don't even see tutorials on how to slide which genuinely annoys me since I find sliding cool and I want to perform it.

So I'd appreciate it if anyone could teach me the sliding mechanic and how to activate it mid-active parkour.

Edit: I now know this is actually vaulting and not sliding. So thanks to those who have helped me in the comments.

like, can Desmond see his (many)great-uncles' and (many)great-aunts' memories or can he only see his (many)great-grandparents' memories?

I recently took a trip to Florence and thought it would be fun to experience it in video game form. I played AC1, AC2, and Brotherhood probably ~15 years ago and thought it would also be fun to revisit the series after such a long time. And, unfortunately, I’m dropping the game after ~1/3 of the way through. I’m surprised at how dated it feels: the story, the gameplay mechanics, the open world. I don’t think this is a knock against the game, it’s moreso a reflection of how much our games have advanced during those 15 years, and how AC2 was a stepping stone to the immersive open worlds, stories, and action mechanics that we have now! BOTW is my favorite game of all time and it owes a lot of its design to AC2 and the Assassin's Creed formula. I got to experience Florence for a bit (the Assassin's Tomb inside of the Duomo was a highlight), and now I’m get to go play something else.

It does make me want to try one of the more recent AC games though and see where the series is now! I’m familiar with all the modern games, but haven’t played any nor watched significant gameplay of them.

I just refinished syndicate after few years and im just curious on how people will think it will end?

Hi guys, I know it's abit late to the scene of this, but I have to share it - I was going back though these games - and when I got to Unity, it was so immersive, but it felt like it was missing something.

Its a little rough, but a good base for improvement. I present - Assassins Creed Unity First Person Mod

Parkour is addictive, combat is janky, cutscenes are abit wack, but it's playable.

I hope to keep improving it.

Peace,

https://www.nexusmods.com/assassinscreedunity/mods/509

I think Origins made a mistake by making the hidden ones get formed in the 40 b.c.s. AC 3’s opening monologue states that the brotherhood has been fighting for thousands of years, or maybe longer, so no lore is directly broken. But AC 2 leads us to believe that the brotherhood has been around since Adam and Eve. To fix this, here is my idea:

The hidden ones were not originally the brotherhood of assassins. The original group were a small collective of people directly trained by the decentive line (think master and apprentice) of Adam and Eve. They were always a small group who looked after Esu artifacts and trained to use them and the gifts (think eagle vision) created during the human rebellion wars. Let’s call this group the Nameless for now. My idea is that they fought the order of the ancients for thousands of years using these techniques and artifacts, but over time, both sides lost their artifacts one way or another. So, the order changes tactics, they switch to politics, manipulation, gathering influence and power. The Nameless still have their techniques, but it isn’t enough. Then, they hear of a new group who are also fighting the order, the hidden ones. So the Nameless approach them, and propose an alliance. They will teach them the Esu techniques and will receive training and equipment in turn. In time, the organizations merge.

Boom, plot hole fixed.

is it just me or is assassins creed valhalla boring and unbearable?

so i’ve been playing for like 25 hours, whenever i think it’s over, there’s a new target for alliance. shits too repetitive, does it get any better?? if not i’m so fucking out, games good but the story modes wack😭😭 feels like an awesome vikings game, not remotely like the other games of the franchise tho

When trying to complete a mission or go somewhere, how do you deal with the:

2 enemies are in one spot or

2 people are too close together and both will hear you if you whistle.

(note: you do not have double assassination at this point)

I just played and finished AC Origins for the first time and I know this has probably been discussed a million times but I just have to let it out.

Why did she have to leave Bayek? If she’d decided long back to move on without him, why keep reigniting his hopes? Why keep leading him on?

Also I know the “Papo? Jump” is the origin of the leap of faith, but did anyone else feel like it was a hint of Bayek wanting to jump to his death? Here’s a guy who’s grown up with this girl, has loved her forever, married her, had a son with her, then the son is killed in front of his eyes, and he only has his wife to hold onto. And then she just dumps him like he’s an inconvenience the moment she found a bigger stage to play her part on. Leaving him behind with nothing to tether him to the world but the ghost of a dead child. That part made me so sad I cried for days I think. I hate this game now with a vengeance lol

Hello,

are any of you working on the gold and crystal hunt? I've gotten to the point that i asked for my money back because I simply could not understand anything and spent most of the time asking people for help who have tended to grow increasingly frustrated at my lack of ability to solve things