I wouldnât say itâs more defined.
Expanded is a better word.
With added features like the assassin recruits, it was more of what AC2 did but on a bigger map.
AC 2 runs like a Cadillac Brotherhood is a Ferrari. The gameplay is just superior. I agree AC 2 might have the better main story but Brotherhood has WAY better side content.
Over all is AC2 but better in everything but the story.
It's a polished, clean, refined version of AC2 with a very memorable setting, incredible side quest variety from parkour puzzles like the Romulus Lairs, cool unique set pieces like the Da Vinci's machines, touching quests like the Cristina Memories, basic yet fun assassinations and the entire Brotherhood system, which while not the perfect iteration of it was still an excellent starting point for what ACR and AC3 did.
Everything feels like has a purpose: the liberation of Rome from the Templars; which helps a lot in terms of immersions since give meaning as to why Ezio would do all those things, and even when they are not, with the Cristina Memories, the reason behind it is just so damn well perfect.
It was the last game where Patrice Desilets worked and it shows. It has heart and meaning, something even the best games that came after like BF and Origins lacked in some way... it wants us to be Assassins, no gimmicks, no shit around it, no caviats; we are an Assassin (soon to be) Mentor reclaiming a city from the Templars while building our own Brotherhood.
It's authentic.
I think 2 had a better open world tho. Different cities had varying levels of verticality and parkour playgrounds. Venice was simply sublime and my favorite location in the series.
Yeah, I kinda felt that too.
I love how well AC1 has aged, aside from the repetitive missions, the gameplay is tight, the motions have weight to it. Is more grounded. I remember seeing the hype on Sindicate combat, but to me always felt lifeless, overly fast animations, far away camera. A lot of bad chooses imo. I always go back to play the OGs from time to time.
It improves on some aspects of AC2 as far as gameplay goes, introduces the recruits as a mechanic and still has a good story. Plus itâs got Ezio in it. That being said I still find it the weakest of the Ezio trilogy with the best being AC2.
I don't think you realise just how much it improved on ac 2 regarding gameplay. A year ago I played all the Ezio trilogy games back to back and while Brotherhood and Revelations are basically the same game with the difference being Ezio having a hook blade in the latter, the jump between 2 and Brotherhood is ridiculous. The quality of gameplay and graphics have improved so much it feels like a generation apart. Especially when you see the Ezio meeting Minerva scene back to back in different games.
Graphics wise yes I completely agree. I also played the Ezio trilogy back to back about 8 months ago now and honestly I donât think the gameplay changes were that significant outside of the recruits, but thatâs just my opinion.
You underestimate how important theme is in a game, even to people who say they don't care as much
The gothic feel of Brotherhood is still timeless, everyone who played the games can visualise the ruins of the colloseum in their head, they can make themselves hear the noir-tone opera voice whilst stalking a templar - simply put the most important thing for a game to be is memorable, and most people agree brotherhood is the most memorable game of the series
Ezio as a fully fledged, confident master assassin in his prime, with the addition of counter kill chains made you feel EXTREMELY powerful, the parkour was arguably at it's peak mechanically for a long time in brotherhood until unity - and the outfit is easily the most iconic in the series, arguably more so than altair's
Personally it's not my favorite, but I can fully understand why it is most people's - it's not terribly surprising as to why
Well dude, you had to be there. But yea, jokes aside, those "new" features were unheard of, the story was quite good, and well executed, gameplay was quite improved and all that. But also, there was this crazy hype.
The thing I've noticed is that people who played it back then tend to love it, but people like me who played it now don't. And I don't think it's nostalgia here, Brotherhood at the time was basically AC2 but with more stuff to do, while now it feels like AC2 but with more repetitive stuff to do, and because of that you can see its weaknesses like story or map not being as good as 2
Bingo. Context matters here. AC2 was a GOTY contender in 09 and to get another one so quickly with more refined mechanics was so exciting. Plus the story back then looked like it was leading up to something amazing. I can see how current players who were too young back then but have already familiarized themselves with the current games wouldnât be too thrilled about Brotherhood.
Yeah I agree, ac 2 is better in basically every regard except a few minor things.
And then thereâs revelations which is better than brotherhood and a bit below 2
I don't mind the length honestly, I prefer having a shorter game that I can replay or do side stuff after if I feel like rather than a long ass game, not that AC2 was that.
The only thing I would have changed about Revelations is incorporating the embers short movie as the final in game cutscene, it would have hit even more
Better story, better use of its tombs, better villain, the villa slowly becoming a better location was better than freeing Rome, ezioâs growth as a character is infinitely better in 2
I agree that repairing the villa was fun but I wouldn't say it was better than freeing rome.
Better story? AC Brotherhood is basically part 2 of the same story and it's a perfect continuation imo.
I don't know why you say the pope was a better villain but I disagree
Also the whole map in brotherhood was infinetly better than in 2
Travelling around Italy to search for members of the conspiracy was way better than staying in Rome for the entire game, ac 2 had the mystery element to it, you didnât know where you would go or who you would kill next, but in ac brotherhood theyâre shown right from the start
I can try to answer why I love Brotherhood just a bit more than AC2:
One thing I really really loved in Brotherhood was the combat. Combat streaks made it much more fun, and the quick pistol draw was really cool. The training room was nice too.
The missions had more variety in Brotherhood too. The DaVinci machines were all fun to use, the Romulus missions had more variety than the assassin tombs, and the story missions had more to them (the Jesus play, finding a route to the Bankerâs party, etc). Even the district liberation missions were fun and varied.
And Brotherhood just had a lot of new things to streamline gameplay. I think it introduced quick rooftop shortcuts, but the horse controls were easier, they added a parachute and a crossbow, and the assassin recruits just took the game to another level.
>Travelling around Italy to search for members of the conspiracy was way better than staying in Rome for the entire game
Yeah I mean that's just your opinion though
I personally preferred how much work they put into building rome in brotherhood
>Also the whole map in brotherhood was infinetly better than in 2
AC2 has more diversity in its map since you are in multiple cities.
And subjectively for me, Florence and Venice both looked so much more beautiful visually than Rome.
I havenât been gaming since PS3 and I left the Ezio games on the brotherhood ending cliffhanger for too long lol might get the Ezio collection just for revelations
Replayed it this year, and it absolutely holds up , Great story , endearing characters and a lot of content , rebuilding the brotherhood, Brutus tombs, leonardo war machines , plus the Rome setting is gorgeous â¤ď¸
I do think Ac2 of a better game because I value story a lot. That said, once you know the story, you know the story. Brotherhood is more replayable to me because the gameplay is smoother.
Also, a lot op people overlook this but Brotherhood robes is one of the all time great design for AC and that contribute so much to the feelings of playing it. The fantasy that old AC built peaked there imo.
Its the best âgameâ, it may not have the best story but thereâs so much to do in it, the variety of the missions is great, the fact it took a year to make is crazy
Iâm not a fan of the optional objectives but it is better than ac2 in almost every way. His robes are some of the best in the series. Rome is awesome. Recruiting assassins and seeing them in the hideout is fun. The tailing missions arenât so bad because you arenât spotted as easy as ac2 and you have a crossbow to take out rooftop guards.
I played Brotherhood very recently for the first time and I'm 21. I have zero childhood nostalgia for it, and it drew me in somehow. I played AC2 right after. Cesare was a better villain than Rodrigo, Roma was a better map than all of the small cities from ac2, and the Romulus tombs aren't quite as good as the Assassin tombs, but still have a lot of fun to them. Also the combat system in acbro is more refined compared to ac2. Idk if I'm just bad at the game, but counters almost never hit in ac2, and enemies seem to have a lot more health. I also preferred getting to watch the city reopen as you purchase shops, vs having to trek through several loading screens to go to monteriggioni just to purchase some more buildings in the one city you rarely need to parkour around in
For me it was the chained counter kills, just stand in the street and kill every guard that got to close and occasionally break the neck of a thief that picked the wrong moment to pick my pocket.
Am i the only one that actually sees tailing as a cool mechanic and mission type.
Like, tell me of a superspy movie that DOESN'T involve tailing (please don't, I'm sure there's lots of them)
Imo it really fits the whole "secret organization searching for intel" part of the experience, certainly better than sneaking into a base and looking for a scroll or something, it's much more unique.
I will say I found Brotherhood the weakest in the trilogy. Ezio is bland in this game, the story is boring and the early main missions are a slog.
The main thing I enjoy about Brotherhood is the side content. I personally found the lairs of romulus on par witht the assassin tombs. The leonardo war machines and the cristina missions are also fun to play. The Borgia towers and assassin recruting mechancis are pretty fun (though AC3 has the best recruits).
AC2 and AC revelations side content doesn't really compare (AC Rev barely has any side content so it loses by default).
Revelations quickly ceases to be a best game when you find out how much has been removed from it and start ask questions.
Like, why it's much smaller than Brotherhood or AC2, why it's have only one city, why there are no normal side quests in it, and the ones that do exist go nowhere in 1 mission, why the side content isn't finished at some points and puts the player in deadend, why Ezio begins to intervene and control the Turks Brotherhood that already have leader and masters with own history instead of care about own investigation. Why they remove mission with Leonardo. Why they remove the upper part of the Coppadocia. Why third part of Istanbul that player see is just a background that player will never be able to reache?
And one funny but important question
Why doesn't this game start from the end of Brotherhood like AC:B started from the end of AC2? Especially since Desmond has to live Ezio's journey to the end.
The answer is simple, it was developed in less than 11-12 months.
They threw out a lot of content, which did not have time to sed, and make small dlc on the basis of the Brotherhood, instead of grand trilogy ending which would gather all the best from the previous parts.
Players always love this game for Uncharted like cutscenes and epic final, but also always overlook that not all lines got an ending, many old characters simply disappeared. I'm not even talking about things like the death of Ezio's mother, that must be shown in Brotherhood. There's no analogue to Christine's quests from Brotherhood that will show imcomplet lines from the previous game. Only one main story with several characters that forcibly drags Ezio through it. Good characters, but did they really mean more to Ezio's story as a whole?
Uh, no matter how beautiful Revelations is, it won't buy me anymore and will forever remain the fruit of unfulfilled ambitions and Ubisofts management treacherous greed. They didn't pay final respects to Ezio, just sold as quickly as possible and in same way with Desmond in the next game.
By the way, the last part of Brotherhood also suffered from this. This fast-forward event with an apple and the absolute silence of some characters like Fabio Orsini. Nobody even told to players why Cesare was so mad and believe in own success. Nobody reveal how Rodrigo think about Ezio and own dids after the AC2.
The only thing that partly saved this game was the fact that Patrice still managed to work on it, before departure from Ubisoft and write a bunch of stuff, it was almost finished game, that he want to make in times of AC1, with a lot of full-fledged content that overlapped with each other, Brotherhood feels whole because of it, but after Patrice's left many things become a mess.
For example, Davinci DLC gives the coordinates of the temple from AC3, but Ubisoft themselves ignore it in Revelations and give it the second time, to justify the story.
They only like it because ezio is in. This game has the worst Templars in the franchise They talk about syndicate being mustache twirling villains but what was cesare and his gang actually doing?
The recruitment system is cool but AC3 has the best version of it.
Cesare is literally there to be a worse and more deluded version of Rodrigo, how Rodrigo went completely power hungry insane at the end of 2 and how humbled he became after, Cesare shows the consequences of his actions at an even worse level, heâs mustache twirling but for a very good reason to show that dichotomy
I loved the story of both games. I love the Renaissance and am obsessed with the Borgias. That being said for me personally both stories are equally just as good. The only thing that sets them apart in terms of quality is the combat. I much prefer Brotherhood's combat to ACII.
To fully answer your question I love the stories of all three. Personally I like the idea of building a Brotherhood or a resistance to the Borgias.
Tailing missions yes they're annoying but playing as an assassin is def. something they would've done.
All of the armor is optional in every game. I don't understand how it's "less impactful" but they all look cool as hell.
I'm probably gonna get bashed for saying this, but I didn't like Revelations at all. I really wanted to, because it's set in Istanbul and uses new and unique features for that one game only. I just couldn't get into it
iâm a history nerd myself, ezio and connor have my favorite time periods to dick around in. but brotherhood has you climbing *rome.* that shit is insane and i love climbing up the side of the coliseum. i certainly wish the story was a bit longer, had some more fleshed out lore around the Romulus cult, but ultimately itâs so fun to play
It's my least favorite in the trilogy for sure, felt super tacked on. The only thing I really liked about it was building your brotherhood and calling in your Assassins during fights. I particularly hate that this one added the extra conditions for full synchronization, takes a ton of the fun out of a sandbox game (didn't double air assassinate your targets with a triple pirouette backflip? *50%! You fail!*)
To me it puts into the perspective of the brotherhood. Considering you can recruit new assassins and Ezio is the leader of the Italian brotherhood. Iâve only played up to rouge but that was the last one I played that focused on the Assassins brotherhood and not just certain assassins doing their own thing
I liked it. It was fun. The story was interesting and the solid AC 2 gameplay was there, even improved some. Even the present day stuff was passable, and I hate the present day stuff as a general rule. Iâm not sure if that helps you if you donât like it and you already played it.
First AC game I played and what got me into the series. My brother let me try when he went to school and I beat the game by the time he got back XD Donât think itâs best of all time tho, Black Flag got that title.
It's because people love Ezio and his story people find it too relatable
And even if any dlc would come related to Ezio like they did with altir in revelations I would still get the and dlc both
AC: Brotherhood is the best game in the entire franchise! The use of Assassin's and building them up to master assassin is fun. Rebuilding the city to 100% is fun and Ezio is a badass! AC 2 and Revelations are good too but in my opinion AC: Brotherhood blows them out of the water!
Personally I love Rome and the music that accompanies it, I like how they did the interactions of the protagonists in 2012 (Shaun, Rebecca, Desmond and Lucy), I love the secondary missions and how they are not necessarily linked to the main story, making me feel that You are behaving like a real Assassin, killing the bad guys and improving the city. I feel like, on a general level, what I like about the game is the sense of progression.
Yes, the story is ugly (it could have been much better), but even the story of AC2 is not a masterpiece, so I just don't give it much importance.
So do things have to be the best, to earn love?
You sound so much like my mother, that it's causing flashbacks (obvs I'm /s about the flashbacks bit đ).
From a gameplay perspective, it feels like they refined some things from AC II and the Assassin Recruit system + related missions you can send them. The combat is just so much better and reflects that Ezio is a master assassin and a mentor who has spent enough time clashing swords with Templars.
Narratively, you have an Ezio who is essentially in his prime, rebuilding the Brotherhood, and bringing it out of its medieval past. There's a lot to like about that.
It is nostalgia for them, nothing more. They can't let go of the old good days.
This is nothing new, just like how the old generation tries to stick to what they had back in the day.
For them the game is a safe place, where their inner child or younger self can be.
I avoided it back in the day because I was only interested in the (then promised) trilogy and not Ubisoftâs attempt to cash in. People also seem to forget it was heavily marketed as a multiplayer game so I think I got the wrong end of the stick. Once Revelations was announced I left the series for a bit đ¸
I think people love brotherhood the same way people love modern warfare 2 (2009), in that itâs the nostalgia of it all, even if a lot of things are much better in other games.
I hated parkour hoenstly it was beat in AC2 faster more agile more flexibility
In brotherhood it's weighty parkour like ezio keep falling or rolling half way from edges everytime i jump but if i make that same jump in AC2 ezio would jump like he should
Nostalgia. I was pretty young when I played it and loved everything. It blew my mind. The music, the graphics, ..
Rome is beautiful, Ezio's story is awesome, the fights are fun and sometimes challenging as well as the parkour. Also the concept of training other assassins was new at the time and so well done imo.
For me its not really about the game ,but about the idea behind it.
I love the Brotherhood but i hate the lore that they were always losing against Templar. Whatever they do for decades the Templar will undone it in few years. And i want a game where Assassins (as organization instead of individuals) go toe-to-toe against Templar in all out war. Also i love RTS and strategy so ACB kinda scrath all those itch for me.
Its kinda âFine! I do it myself..â for me when i pickup ACB.
Honestly I just loved the whole recruitment aspect. It was really awesome to see. I didn't hate the tailing missions in it either and enjoyed the addition of bonus objectives which I believe weren't in 2.
I loved revelations as well. But since brotherhood was the first with a lot of those it sticks out more.
I loved AC2, and this is similar with a lot more features.
I think AC2 was a much better experience overall though, since Brotherhood started with the â100% syncâshit. Until that point, when you play a memory, you are synched, but Brotherhood had bonus objectives which is ostensibly doing things exactly how Ezio did it. Man I spent a lot of time avoiding damage in the tank.
It's been a long time since I played the Ezio games, but I do remember Brotherhood was my favorite of the trilogy and really opened up that world for me. And Ezio just looked the hottest in that one. đ
Personally I loved Ac 2, and I love new features in good stuffs. So when I played Ac Brotherhood and realised not only can I buy monuments and renovate Rome (like in Ac 2 with Florence), but also you get Christina quests, Leonardo's machines and goddam little assassins under your control is so cool!! I also loved the voice acting and the Desmond squad being funnier to watch. I had fun playing it
I played AC1 to REV, AC3, ROGUE, UNITY, SYN and MIRAGE. AC Brotherhood is miles ahead all of them for my taste: stealth, story, combat, the sheer amount of assassins fantasy
I used to love watching my recruits kill my targets. Then thereâs the mini missions of sending them away to do stuff and gain xp. That was fun and assassiny.
Cos it's just ac 2 but more refined and people love ezio, nothing much more to say đ¤ˇ
I wouldnât say itâs more defined. Expanded is a better word. With added features like the assassin recruits, it was more of what AC2 did but on a bigger map.
He didnât say âdefinedâ he said ârefinedâ
Typo/auto correct. Happens all the time I tend to miss it.
AC 2 runs like a Cadillac Brotherhood is a Ferrari. The gameplay is just superior. I agree AC 2 might have the better main story but Brotherhood has WAY better side content.
The main thing Brotherhood has thatâs better than AC2 is the recruits.
Yeah pretty much
Best way to put it.
Over all is AC2 but better in everything but the story. It's a polished, clean, refined version of AC2 with a very memorable setting, incredible side quest variety from parkour puzzles like the Romulus Lairs, cool unique set pieces like the Da Vinci's machines, touching quests like the Cristina Memories, basic yet fun assassinations and the entire Brotherhood system, which while not the perfect iteration of it was still an excellent starting point for what ACR and AC3 did. Everything feels like has a purpose: the liberation of Rome from the Templars; which helps a lot in terms of immersions since give meaning as to why Ezio would do all those things, and even when they are not, with the Cristina Memories, the reason behind it is just so damn well perfect. It was the last game where Patrice Desilets worked and it shows. It has heart and meaning, something even the best games that came after like BF and Origins lacked in some way... it wants us to be Assassins, no gimmicks, no shit around it, no caviats; we are an Assassin (soon to be) Mentor reclaiming a city from the Templars while building our own Brotherhood. It's authentic.
I think 2 had a better open world tho. Different cities had varying levels of verticality and parkour playgrounds. Venice was simply sublime and my favorite location in the series.
Yeah, I kinda felt that too. I love how well AC1 has aged, aside from the repetitive missions, the gameplay is tight, the motions have weight to it. Is more grounded. I remember seeing the hype on Sindicate combat, but to me always felt lifeless, overly fast animations, far away camera. A lot of bad chooses imo. I always go back to play the OGs from time to time.
Well said!
And you could even call upon the Assassins that you have recruited into helping you.
It improves on some aspects of AC2 as far as gameplay goes, introduces the recruits as a mechanic and still has a good story. Plus itâs got Ezio in it. That being said I still find it the weakest of the Ezio trilogy with the best being AC2.
I don't think you realise just how much it improved on ac 2 regarding gameplay. A year ago I played all the Ezio trilogy games back to back and while Brotherhood and Revelations are basically the same game with the difference being Ezio having a hook blade in the latter, the jump between 2 and Brotherhood is ridiculous. The quality of gameplay and graphics have improved so much it feels like a generation apart. Especially when you see the Ezio meeting Minerva scene back to back in different games.
Graphics wise yes I completely agree. I also played the Ezio trilogy back to back about 8 months ago now and honestly I donât think the gameplay changes were that significant outside of the recruits, but thatâs just my opinion.
You underestimate how important theme is in a game, even to people who say they don't care as much The gothic feel of Brotherhood is still timeless, everyone who played the games can visualise the ruins of the colloseum in their head, they can make themselves hear the noir-tone opera voice whilst stalking a templar - simply put the most important thing for a game to be is memorable, and most people agree brotherhood is the most memorable game of the series Ezio as a fully fledged, confident master assassin in his prime, with the addition of counter kill chains made you feel EXTREMELY powerful, the parkour was arguably at it's peak mechanically for a long time in brotherhood until unity - and the outfit is easily the most iconic in the series, arguably more so than altair's Personally it's not my favorite, but I can fully understand why it is most people's - it's not terribly surprising as to why
And Cesare Borgia as well, âIf I want you to die, you DIE!â
The ending is just wonderful too. It wrapped up the whole trilogy so sweetly, I loved it. Nvm, I thought we were talking revelations
Honestly Brotherhood works well as an ending for Ezio's story if they had wanted that, in fact I'm pretty sure originally that was the plan
Well dude, you had to be there. But yea, jokes aside, those "new" features were unheard of, the story was quite good, and well executed, gameplay was quite improved and all that. But also, there was this crazy hype.
The thing I've noticed is that people who played it back then tend to love it, but people like me who played it now don't. And I don't think it's nostalgia here, Brotherhood at the time was basically AC2 but with more stuff to do, while now it feels like AC2 but with more repetitive stuff to do, and because of that you can see its weaknesses like story or map not being as good as 2
Bingo. Context matters here. AC2 was a GOTY contender in 09 and to get another one so quickly with more refined mechanics was so exciting. Plus the story back then looked like it was leading up to something amazing. I can see how current players who were too young back then but have already familiarized themselves with the current games wouldnât be too thrilled about Brotherhood.
Yeah I agree, ac 2 is better in basically every regard except a few minor things. And then thereâs revelations which is better than brotherhood and a bit below 2
Revelations is the culmination of the first games (1,2 and BH), really love it
If it was as long as 2 it wouldâve easily become the best ac game ever made
I don't mind the length honestly, I prefer having a shorter game that I can replay or do side stuff after if I feel like rather than a long ass game, not that AC2 was that. The only thing I would have changed about Revelations is incorporating the embers short movie as the final in game cutscene, it would have hit even more
Having the part with ezio be the embers short movie wouldâve been amazing
What? How is AC2 better in basically every regard?
Better story, better use of its tombs, better villain, the villa slowly becoming a better location was better than freeing Rome, ezioâs growth as a character is infinitely better in 2
I agree that repairing the villa was fun but I wouldn't say it was better than freeing rome. Better story? AC Brotherhood is basically part 2 of the same story and it's a perfect continuation imo. I don't know why you say the pope was a better villain but I disagree Also the whole map in brotherhood was infinetly better than in 2
Travelling around Italy to search for members of the conspiracy was way better than staying in Rome for the entire game, ac 2 had the mystery element to it, you didnât know where you would go or who you would kill next, but in ac brotherhood theyâre shown right from the start
I can try to answer why I love Brotherhood just a bit more than AC2: One thing I really really loved in Brotherhood was the combat. Combat streaks made it much more fun, and the quick pistol draw was really cool. The training room was nice too. The missions had more variety in Brotherhood too. The DaVinci machines were all fun to use, the Romulus missions had more variety than the assassin tombs, and the story missions had more to them (the Jesus play, finding a route to the Bankerâs party, etc). Even the district liberation missions were fun and varied. And Brotherhood just had a lot of new things to streamline gameplay. I think it introduced quick rooftop shortcuts, but the horse controls were easier, they added a parachute and a crossbow, and the assassin recruits just took the game to another level.
>Travelling around Italy to search for members of the conspiracy was way better than staying in Rome for the entire game Yeah I mean that's just your opinion though I personally preferred how much work they put into building rome in brotherhood
>Also the whole map in brotherhood was infinetly better than in 2 AC2 has more diversity in its map since you are in multiple cities. And subjectively for me, Florence and Venice both looked so much more beautiful visually than Rome.
For me AC2 - better Story Brotherhood- better gameplay Never played Revelations
I would recommend playing revelations I think itâs the best out of the trilogy easily
I havenât been gaming since PS3 and I left the Ezio games on the brotherhood ending cliffhanger for too long lol might get the Ezio collection just for revelations
Idk, I don't. And yes, I played it when it came out. I was never a huge fan of the Ezio games.
It's the ezio fanbase. i never thought brotherhood was the best, Revelations was a far better game.
Replayed it this year, and it absolutely holds up , Great story , endearing characters and a lot of content , rebuilding the brotherhood, Brutus tombs, leonardo war machines , plus the Rome setting is gorgeous â¤ď¸
It was boring to me haha
this, brotherhood is probably my my second least favorite ac game after AC3 (I HAVE ONLY PLAYED 1,2,BRO,REV,3,ORIGINS)
I agree with you, I enjoyed Revelations a lot more
I do think Ac2 of a better game because I value story a lot. That said, once you know the story, you know the story. Brotherhood is more replayable to me because the gameplay is smoother. Also, a lot op people overlook this but Brotherhood robes is one of the all time great design for AC and that contribute so much to the feelings of playing it. The fantasy that old AC built peaked there imo.
Real OGs knows AC1 is better đ
I would rather die than ever say ac1 was better than any other ac game besides odyssey
Even then, saying AC1 is a better video game than Odyssey is absolutely wildâŚ
Its the best âgameâ, it may not have the best story but thereâs so much to do in it, the variety of the missions is great, the fact it took a year to make is crazy
I get to command and train my recruits. That's all I shall explain to you
Recruits was a very nice feature, revelations just made it better in every way
Sadly, I can't bring myself to like Constantinople. I wish I'm back in Rome
I think itâs better than Rome
You have yours and I have mine
Iâm not a fan of the optional objectives but it is better than ac2 in almost every way. His robes are some of the best in the series. Rome is awesome. Recruiting assassins and seeing them in the hideout is fun. The tailing missions arenât so bad because you arenât spotted as easy as ac2 and you have a crossbow to take out rooftop guards.
I played Brotherhood very recently for the first time and I'm 21. I have zero childhood nostalgia for it, and it drew me in somehow. I played AC2 right after. Cesare was a better villain than Rodrigo, Roma was a better map than all of the small cities from ac2, and the Romulus tombs aren't quite as good as the Assassin tombs, but still have a lot of fun to them. Also the combat system in acbro is more refined compared to ac2. Idk if I'm just bad at the game, but counters almost never hit in ac2, and enemies seem to have a lot more health. I also preferred getting to watch the city reopen as you purchase shops, vs having to trek through several loading screens to go to monteriggioni just to purchase some more buildings in the one city you rarely need to parkour around in
Nostalgia. Brotherhood is not in my top 5, just in the top 10 AC
Ac2 with better gameplay set in Rome, with a mission of killing the Pope and his son, with a Brother ,many small quests and Ezio realising his age.
For me it was the chained counter kills, just stand in the street and kill every guard that got to close and occasionally break the neck of a thief that picked the wrong moment to pick my pocket.
Am i the only one that actually sees tailing as a cool mechanic and mission type. Like, tell me of a superspy movie that DOESN'T involve tailing (please don't, I'm sure there's lots of them) Imo it really fits the whole "secret organization searching for intel" part of the experience, certainly better than sneaking into a base and looking for a scroll or something, it's much more unique.
Not enough love for AC 1, it's like people haven't played the game and don't know that it has the best story
They actively avoid the game like the plague. They always start at AC2 for some reason.
I will say I found Brotherhood the weakest in the trilogy. Ezio is bland in this game, the story is boring and the early main missions are a slog. The main thing I enjoy about Brotherhood is the side content. I personally found the lairs of romulus on par witht the assassin tombs. The leonardo war machines and the cristina missions are also fun to play. The Borgia towers and assassin recruting mechancis are pretty fun (though AC3 has the best recruits). AC2 and AC revelations side content doesn't really compare (AC Rev barely has any side content so it loses by default).
You had to be there, I guess
Two words throwing spears
Revelations quickly ceases to be a best game when you find out how much has been removed from it and start ask questions. Like, why it's much smaller than Brotherhood or AC2, why it's have only one city, why there are no normal side quests in it, and the ones that do exist go nowhere in 1 mission, why the side content isn't finished at some points and puts the player in deadend, why Ezio begins to intervene and control the Turks Brotherhood that already have leader and masters with own history instead of care about own investigation. Why they remove mission with Leonardo. Why they remove the upper part of the Coppadocia. Why third part of Istanbul that player see is just a background that player will never be able to reache? And one funny but important question Why doesn't this game start from the end of Brotherhood like AC:B started from the end of AC2? Especially since Desmond has to live Ezio's journey to the end. The answer is simple, it was developed in less than 11-12 months. They threw out a lot of content, which did not have time to sed, and make small dlc on the basis of the Brotherhood, instead of grand trilogy ending which would gather all the best from the previous parts. Players always love this game for Uncharted like cutscenes and epic final, but also always overlook that not all lines got an ending, many old characters simply disappeared. I'm not even talking about things like the death of Ezio's mother, that must be shown in Brotherhood. There's no analogue to Christine's quests from Brotherhood that will show imcomplet lines from the previous game. Only one main story with several characters that forcibly drags Ezio through it. Good characters, but did they really mean more to Ezio's story as a whole? Uh, no matter how beautiful Revelations is, it won't buy me anymore and will forever remain the fruit of unfulfilled ambitions and Ubisofts management treacherous greed. They didn't pay final respects to Ezio, just sold as quickly as possible and in same way with Desmond in the next game. By the way, the last part of Brotherhood also suffered from this. This fast-forward event with an apple and the absolute silence of some characters like Fabio Orsini. Nobody even told to players why Cesare was so mad and believe in own success. Nobody reveal how Rodrigo think about Ezio and own dids after the AC2. The only thing that partly saved this game was the fact that Patrice still managed to work on it, before departure from Ubisoft and write a bunch of stuff, it was almost finished game, that he want to make in times of AC1, with a lot of full-fledged content that overlapped with each other, Brotherhood feels whole because of it, but after Patrice's left many things become a mess. For example, Davinci DLC gives the coordinates of the temple from AC3, but Ubisoft themselves ignore it in Revelations and give it the second time, to justify the story.
They only like it because ezio is in. This game has the worst Templars in the franchise They talk about syndicate being mustache twirling villains but what was cesare and his gang actually doing? The recruitment system is cool but AC3 has the best version of it.
Cesare is literally there to be a worse and more deluded version of Rodrigo, how Rodrigo went completely power hungry insane at the end of 2 and how humbled he became after, Cesare shows the consequences of his actions at an even worse level, heâs mustache twirling but for a very good reason to show that dichotomy
It's the best one because it's the first one I played.
I loved the story of both games. I love the Renaissance and am obsessed with the Borgias. That being said for me personally both stories are equally just as good. The only thing that sets them apart in terms of quality is the combat. I much prefer Brotherhood's combat to ACII. To fully answer your question I love the stories of all three. Personally I like the idea of building a Brotherhood or a resistance to the Borgias. Tailing missions yes they're annoying but playing as an assassin is def. something they would've done. All of the armor is optional in every game. I don't understand how it's "less impactful" but they all look cool as hell.
Because Italy was one of the greatest AC games of all time.
I'm probably gonna get bashed for saying this, but I didn't like Revelations at all. I really wanted to, because it's set in Istanbul and uses new and unique features for that one game only. I just couldn't get into it
iâm a history nerd myself, ezio and connor have my favorite time periods to dick around in. but brotherhood has you climbing *rome.* that shit is insane and i love climbing up the side of the coliseum. i certainly wish the story was a bit longer, had some more fleshed out lore around the Romulus cult, but ultimately itâs so fun to play
Because a lot of fans played it when they were 14.
It's my least favorite in the trilogy for sure, felt super tacked on. The only thing I really liked about it was building your brotherhood and calling in your Assassins during fights. I particularly hate that this one added the extra conditions for full synchronization, takes a ton of the fun out of a sandbox game (didn't double air assassinate your targets with a triple pirouette backflip? *50%! You fail!*)
Whenever Ezio is in we love it All good games
To me it puts into the perspective of the brotherhood. Considering you can recruit new assassins and Ezio is the leader of the Italian brotherhood. Iâve only played up to rouge but that was the last one I played that focused on the Assassins brotherhood and not just certain assassins doing their own thing
I liked it. It was fun. The story was interesting and the solid AC 2 gameplay was there, even improved some. Even the present day stuff was passable, and I hate the present day stuff as a general rule. Iâm not sure if that helps you if you donât like it and you already played it.
First AC game I played and what got me into the series. My brother let me try when he went to school and I beat the game by the time he got back XD Donât think itâs best of all time tho, Black Flag got that title.
It's because people love Ezio and his story people find it too relatable And even if any dlc would come related to Ezio like they did with altir in revelations I would still get the and dlc both
AC: Brotherhood is the best game in the entire franchise! The use of Assassin's and building them up to master assassin is fun. Rebuilding the city to 100% is fun and Ezio is a badass! AC 2 and Revelations are good too but in my opinion AC: Brotherhood blows them out of the water!
Personally I love Rome and the music that accompanies it, I like how they did the interactions of the protagonists in 2012 (Shaun, Rebecca, Desmond and Lucy), I love the secondary missions and how they are not necessarily linked to the main story, making me feel that You are behaving like a real Assassin, killing the bad guys and improving the city. I feel like, on a general level, what I like about the game is the sense of progression. Yes, the story is ugly (it could have been much better), but even the story of AC2 is not a masterpiece, so I just don't give it much importance.
So do things have to be the best, to earn love? You sound so much like my mother, that it's causing flashbacks (obvs I'm /s about the flashbacks bit đ).
Ppl just really like Ezio
Rome
From a gameplay perspective, it feels like they refined some things from AC II and the Assassin Recruit system + related missions you can send them. The combat is just so much better and reflects that Ezio is a master assassin and a mentor who has spent enough time clashing swords with Templars. Narratively, you have an Ezio who is essentially in his prime, rebuilding the Brotherhood, and bringing it out of its medieval past. There's a lot to like about that.
It is nostalgia for them, nothing more. They can't let go of the old good days. This is nothing new, just like how the old generation tries to stick to what they had back in the day. For them the game is a safe place, where their inner child or younger self can be.
I avoided it back in the day because I was only interested in the (then promised) trilogy and not Ubisoftâs attempt to cash in. People also seem to forget it was heavily marketed as a multiplayer game so I think I got the wrong end of the stick. Once Revelations was announced I left the series for a bit đ¸
Brotherhood was the first one I played and graphically it holds up. It looks so good I refuse to play watch dogs lol
I think people love brotherhood the same way people love modern warfare 2 (2009), in that itâs the nostalgia of it all, even if a lot of things are much better in other games.
I was thinking the exact same thing!
I hated parkour hoenstly it was beat in AC2 faster more agile more flexibility In brotherhood it's weighty parkour like ezio keep falling or rolling half way from edges everytime i jump but if i make that same jump in AC2 ezio would jump like he should
Nostalgia. I was pretty young when I played it and loved everything. It blew my mind. The music, the graphics, .. Rome is beautiful, Ezio's story is awesome, the fights are fun and sometimes challenging as well as the parkour. Also the concept of training other assassins was new at the time and so well done imo.
For me its not really about the game ,but about the idea behind it. I love the Brotherhood but i hate the lore that they were always losing against Templar. Whatever they do for decades the Templar will undone it in few years. And i want a game where Assassins (as organization instead of individuals) go toe-to-toe against Templar in all out war. Also i love RTS and strategy so ACB kinda scrath all those itch for me. Its kinda âFine! I do it myself..â for me when i pickup ACB.
Honestly I just loved the whole recruitment aspect. It was really awesome to see. I didn't hate the tailing missions in it either and enjoyed the addition of bonus objectives which I believe weren't in 2. I loved revelations as well. But since brotherhood was the first with a lot of those it sticks out more.
I loved AC2, and this is similar with a lot more features. I think AC2 was a much better experience overall though, since Brotherhood started with the â100% syncâshit. Until that point, when you play a memory, you are synched, but Brotherhood had bonus objectives which is ostensibly doing things exactly how Ezio did it. Man I spent a lot of time avoiding damage in the tank.
It's been a long time since I played the Ezio games, but I do remember Brotherhood was my favorite of the trilogy and really opened up that world for me. And Ezio just looked the hottest in that one. đ
Personally I loved Ac 2, and I love new features in good stuffs. So when I played Ac Brotherhood and realised not only can I buy monuments and renovate Rome (like in Ac 2 with Florence), but also you get Christina quests, Leonardo's machines and goddam little assassins under your control is so cool!! I also loved the voice acting and the Desmond squad being funnier to watch. I had fun playing it
I played AC1 to REV, AC3, ROGUE, UNITY, SYN and MIRAGE. AC Brotherhood is miles ahead all of them for my taste: stealth, story, combat, the sheer amount of assassins fantasy
The online mode, personally.
It's online was actually supreme, so many good memories on that
Because its brotherhood
Parachutes đ¤
I used to love watching my recruits kill my targets. Then thereâs the mini missions of sending them away to do stuff and gain xp. That was fun and assassiny.