Assassin's Creed is one of the most elegant games you'll play, tastefully done-up in period attire, implementing character movement with a helter-skelter flair. The premise is a masterstroke of artfulness, letting Ubisoft explain away design limitations as problems with the Animus, its in-game era-straddling virtual reality machine.
It's also one of the messiest games you'll play. Once disappointingly lean, Ubisoft's magnificent sandbox now sags under the weight of things to climb, kill, find and buy. The process of accumulation continues with Assassin's Creed: Revelations, the final Assassin's Creed to feature Renaissance lady-killer Ezio da Auditore as (sort of) leading man, and the first to take place in multi-coloured Constantinople, bridging point between Christian and Muslim Europe.
Ezio himself is a pleasant surprise. Now well into his fifties, he's a far more sympathetic character than Assassin's Creed 2's purring, slash-shirted rogue, a taciturn old charmer who's at his most touching when writing (between sequences) to his sister Claudia. Ezio's advancing age also gives Ubisoft a chance to show off its upgraded engine, drawing out every wrinkle and grey hair.
A Revelation in storytelling?
Appropriately enough, we're getting ahead of ourselves. Desmond Miles, Ezio's present day descendent, is comatose when the game begins, his mind adrift deep in the Animus interface. Waking on an eerily-lit desert island overseen by enormous, literalised blocks of data, he's told he must relive Ezio's later years (and, through Ezio, those of the original game's protagonist Altair) in order to piece together his own, fragmented psyche.
Besides serving as a palette-cleanser between spells in Constantinople, the Animus Island also hides the game's most interesting innovations: first-person trips through Desmond's childhood memories that also recall Valve's Portal. Past the first mission at least they're pleasantly testing - large room puzzles you beat by conjuring white blocks into existence, segments of Desmond's bio sprayed Splinter Cell: Conviction style across walls.
Hookblades also have their applications in combat, yanking the ever-vexatious Templar guards around, but you'll have far more fun with bombs. Crafted at stations around the city or in your Assassin's Dens, they range from sticky gas mines through aural decoys to delayed-release canisters of blood, fooling NPCs into thinking they're critically wounded. You don't have to use them, but you'll discover interesting ways to set up assassinations or elude pursuers if you do.
15 comments so far...
jakandtom94 on 14 Nov '11 said:
More of the same, huh? Fine by me
OXM ETboy on 14 Nov '11 said:
Indeed. Just keep your Templar Awareness gauge low.
DeadMenDontSpam on 14 Nov '11 said:
Still going to play this to death as with every assassins creed game. But go onto multiplayer before I can't get a game like brotherhood. Just as a side note you marked it down as not changing from previous titles but in some games you don't even mention how not innovated they are, like mw3. ( I know they are not the same type of game but still.)
andy24king on 14 Nov '11 said:
Assassins Creed is by far and away the best when its comes to stealth and action with an excellent storyline. Ezio is a blast, but I don't understand why he is sooo different in Revelations. Brotherhood was awesome, hopefully more of the same in Revelations, I've only played about 15 mins of it.
And Ubisoft, forget the critics, keep Ezio in our lives. Brilliant!!!
wishface on 14 Nov '11 said:
I'd like to hear more about the multiplayer. Apparently you can create guilds.
Metalratex on 14 Nov '11 said:
That tower defense thing has the most complaints so far by reviewers.
CunningSmile on 15 Nov '11 said:
No offense to you Ed but is there a conspiracy at Future publishing? This review reads very similar to the one in your sister mag Xbox World. Both of you mark it down for not really innovating (you actually have a blog today saying why CoD not innovating is a good thing) but both give MW3 top marks despite the fact they haven't innovated since someone said "I'm a bit bored with WW2, why not set it now" and both of you brush over the multiplayer, an area that has apparently seen a lot change and evolution and which tends to get MW3 most of it's marks.
Either way I know which one I'm getting (hint, it isn't the higher scoring one with a campaign I can finish in a single sitting)
OXM ETboy on 15 Nov '11 said:
It's a fair point that the review doesn't cover multiplayer in depth - I wrote it for the mag, where word counts are limited. I'll do a follow-up piece this week for the online stuff.
There's no conspiracy at work, no
I haven't read the Xbox World review. As regards the MW3 comparisons - I've yet to play the new COD for longer than a couple hours, but it's apples to oranges, and we did explicitly address the question of innovation in the review text. Matt's blog post is about asset reuse - something all sequels share - not conservative design.
CunningSmile on 15 Nov '11 said:
Please don't think I was having a go as I do have a lot of respect for your writing style (particularly your blogs and editorials) and the staff at XBW, I was just curious about a seeming trend.
OXM ETboy on 15 Nov '11 said:
I didn't think you were!
As I said, it's a fair point that this doesn't cover multiplayer in detail. Glad you like our style.
I'm considering doing another mammoth blog post on why Call of Duty "gets away" with flaws other games are low-balled for. One point would be that Call of Duty is immediately fun, or at least engaging, whereas something like Assassin's Creed takes its sweet time unlocking stuff like bombs and recruitment. AC also doesn't quite nail the balance between things to do and things you want to do. Buying businesses, climbing up buildings to grab glittery collectibles, counter-killing mobs, hiding from guards... none of these activities really grab me, or at least, not any more.
theatticusera on 15 Nov '11 said:
The fact that this is similar to the previous games doesn't bother me too much. I'm absolutely hooked on the story and I MUST PLAY IT!
OXM Jonty on 17 Nov '11 said:
I sort of want to play it, but I feel like I can't because I never finished Brotherhood. Given the absolute nonsense that was the end of AC2, this is highly illogical behaviour.
SidTheSloth on 18 Nov '11 said:
Every year i tell myself i don't want to play it and then i buy it anyway and really enjoy it - the repetitive quests aside!! Grrr. I think thats my biggest criticism of the games (and reading the other articles and the blog it would seem others too) is that most of the missions are put there to stop you getting to the story.
The story, as Jonty alludes too, well who knows where that's heading next. The ending of ACII was a major lowpoint of the series for me storywise. Brotherhood built it all back up again (if you had the patience to play through it) but almost chose the same suicide ending route just to provide the inevitable cliffhanger - be interesting to see how this one ends as they claim to tie up ezio/altair!
Inevitably (and maybe i should change my signature to this), it'll have to wait until post-skyrim. Add it to the ever-growing to-do/play pile - when did gaming become more like work than a hobby?!
wishface on 18 Nov '11 said:
This is a good game, but unlike Brotherhood I feel the tutorial aspects, the explanations, are vague. I feel a bit lost trying to get to grips with what's going on in Constantinople.
Chameleon on 23 Nov '11 said:
What's the 3D like?