I guess as an AC2 lover, I have to disagree.  I rarely end up in that combat situation where I'm forced to take out a lot of guys unless it's required by the story.  90% of the time, I make a plan and execute it without getting seen until after I make the kill, and I get that feeling of being a complete badass while I do it.  I hope to god they don't change Assassin's Creed, the formula they nailed with 2 is exactly what I want from the franchise, and my favorite part (the city building stuff) is what's getting the most attention from the team in Brotherhood.  Instead of your suggestions, I think they should just make a better tutorial that teaches people how to be a badass.  It felt natural to me, but more casual players might not figure out all of the mechanics and get the same experience.  That's not a knock on the players, but on the developers' lack of hand holding.

Nicely written piece, but I couldn't disagree with you more. While the first AC game did force you to partake in the droning combat too often, the plethora of stealth kills they added in 2 made me a true silent assassin. I could take guards down from above or sneak beside a group of guards using the crowds, then kill one from behind and two from the side. There were times I was forced to use the full combat system, but those times were rare.

By comparison, my experience playing the latest Splinter Cell felt tame and much more like just a simple shooting game with a win-button.

AC2 was a huge advancement on 1 and the multiplayer looks like a major addition to Brotherhood.

It sounds like you played AC2 a bit too straight forward to me. You give confronting guards as your only option when there are many stealth options available other than 'approach guard and slash sword.' You also bemoan not being able to use throwing knives like in the trailer... But you cam already do that in AC2.

Also, if you saw the potential art from AC4 which came out a few months ago then you would see that it looks like the game will be a larger departure from what we have seen so far, at least on the art front.

The idea of AC following the ideas of the recent Splinter Cell makes me shudder. That game wasn't that great at all.

Like Frank and Chris have said, all UM needs to do is tone down the emphasis on combat. It's going to take a couple of games before AC needs a refresh.

I can't really come up with anything new to say because I agree so much with the other commenters on this one. 

If you end up having to engage in a sword fight in Assasin's Creed, you're doing it wrong. I think it's a clever design move making the combat more realistic/tedious. You WANT to avoid it, and so you have an incentive to circumvent confrontation, and take the stealthy route.

Give it another go, I honestly think you're missing out on an amazing experience.

To each their own, but I still feel that playing stealthily in Splinter Cell allows you to be deadly AND quick. As I said in the article, Sam Fisher can clear a room in seconds, like a trained special operative should be able to. Ezio is much more of a badass in the trailers than he is in the game. When I said, he should throw knives, I didn't mean you can't throw knives in the game, but did you see how Ezio threw them in the above trailer? He throws two at a time, killing both guards instantly. In fact, all of the guards he kills are slain in a split second -- there's no counterattacking there. Another aspect I'd like to see redone is the approach to assassination. I think it would be awesome to sneak around during the night, wear disguises, or pretending to be on the target's side to get close to them. But, I guess there's no shortage of differing opinions on the Internet.

There's one common theme I'm seeing with the above comments, though. Everyone is saying that you can take a stealthy approach by AVOIDING combat. Now, I'm not saying I want to turn the game into some hack and slash, but a trained assassin should be able to do more damage without being detected.

P.S. Thanks for the front page promotion! I'm extremely appreciative!

I too was awfully curious how Ezio could blend into a crowd with such obvious clothing, I mean aren't assassins usually trying to blend in and not stand out?  I think it would be a great addition in the sequel to be able to dress in peasant clothes or something to disappear in addition to the other hiding options.  Other than that minor quibble I thought it was a fantastic game as well. 

The swordfighting is the result of impatience. If you waited a little bit, watched the guards movements and found the opportune moment to strike, you'd be a master assassin. And here you are, asking Ubisoft to make an easy mode for you. I think you're looking for Metal Gear Solid.

What you call an "easy mode," I call fun. Hanging from a ledge and memorizing guard patterns sounds like a pretty boring game mechanic. I prefer Assassin's Creed to Metal Gear Solid, but in my opinion (I am allowed to have an opinion, right?)  Splinter Cell's stealth gameplay trumps the both of them.

@Jordan, I do think people are being a little hard on you, but I also believe they have a point. As you did, I liked the direction Ubisoft went with Splinter Cell: Conviction (not quite enough to buy it, but I did co-op it with a friend.) That being said, I adore the Assassin's Creed franchise just the way it is.

I don't want Ezio or Altair to wade through hundreds of guards. That's not what assassins do. The whole point is that they are able to inflitrate, eliminate one target, and get out without being seen (or at the very least, with minimal notice.) What I want out of AC (and what I'm given by AC,) is a greater emphasis on a single kill. I get a target, I stalk him, and then strike when the time is right. That's exciting to me and many other AC fans.

AC2 opened the game up to people who enjoy playing the game differently. With the sheer amount of weapons availiable, you could choose to fight straight up and still be quite a force. All I really ended up needing was my hidden blade (and maybe a throwing knife or two for rooftop archers.)

And while your issues with the combat are valid, like others above have mentioned, direct combat is not the way the developers intended the game to be played. Even when you are in a situation where you are surrounded, the best strategy usually involves throwing sand in a group of guards' eyes and making a break for it.

It's also hard to make a case for a reboot when only two console iterations have been made. You have to let the franchise grow a bit.

And lastly, it does make sense that an assassin shouldn't be wearing such striking clothes, but with both Altair and Ezio meaning eagle (or bird of prey, etc.) those beaked hoods and flowing robes are a staple of the series. I don't think you can fault Ubisoft for sticking with an iconic character design. I still believe Altair is the coolest looking character in a video game ever and Ezio is only slightly below him on that list.

Ubisoft made an interesting choice with Splinter Cell, bringing a franchise that was getting a little tired back to the limelight. But AC's stock is still on the rise (as evidenced by both sales and this very comment thread,) and until it dips, I'm happy to let Ubisoft hold onto the reins.

You say "AVOIDING combat", but I don't see a difference in lining up a sweet double assasination then executing a plan to kill all the guards and getting a melee kill and autokilling someone with that feautre in Splinter Cell.  I've read over your counter argument in the comments several times, but I just can't make sense of it.  I've been trying really hard to understand what point you're trying to make, and everytime I come up with "I don't like AC because I always take the combat route which doesn't hold up after awhile."  Whatever I guess, to each their own.  It's impossible to convince someone to like a game that they don't like for whatever reason, that's another argument altogether.  My final comment will be, "I hope to god they don't listen to you, leave my Assassin's Creed alone."

@Chris That's the thing, I don't take the combat route, but almost every mission still involves me having to fight or run away from a fairly large group of enemies. I don't understand why most of you don't want the character to simply have the ability to quickly dispatch a group of baddies. Those of you that love sneaking and eliminating just that one target can still do that. If a player is like me and enjoys taking out a few guards on the way there, why shouldn't they have the option to do it fluidly and stylishly?

In my article, I said, "I want to have a plan and be able to enact it as quickly as possible. Ezio should kill the target and escape before any of the guards have a clue as to what happened." Frankly, I don't think this can be done in Assassin's Creed 2. No matter what, you're going to have to fight or escape from guards on the way out. I think most of the above commenters are just afraid of change. If implemented, my advice would just give the player more options.

Something else to consider is that Spliter Cell is a very gun-centric type of game and AC is a very melee-focused game. That could be what the root of your "not killing them fast enough" issue.

If all else fails, how about this compromise? Ubisoft has changed SC into more of the type of game you want. AC remains the type of game I and the other commenters want. Why can't we be happy with our respective games? What good does turning AC into SC do? Then Ubisoft would have two homogenous games in different settings, which is really just undercutting themselves. From a business and creative standpoint, making the two franchises as unique as possible is the best course of action.

I think you're taking the Assassin's Creed to Splinter Cell comparison too literally. My main point was that Ubisoft took a stealth-based character and made stealth based gameplay more advantageous to the player. Previous Splinter Cell games limited Sam Fisher's abilities when he was hiding in the shadows facing multiple enemies. I'm not saying that Assassin's Creed show suddenly implement a mark and execute feature, but like Sam Fisher, they should give a future protagonist the skills to quietly kill a small group of guards and navigate rooftops without being investigated or detected every 15 seconds. I'm not saying that the game should force you to play this way, but it should leave the choice of approach up to the player.

Also, I do appreciate the feedback, despite our differing opinions. :)

Well, while I'd have to disagree that AC2 didn't let me play like an assassin, I would say that the control system still needs work. AC2 was a big improvement on the first game but I think most of you would agree that on the rare occasion you got stuck in a fight with a large group of guards, the system was very clunky. Jordan, I don't know if you've played Arkham Asylum, but that game pretty much nailed its combat mechanic. It had a level of depth to it that let skilled players pull of totally badass moves but even on its most basic level you still felt like Batman. The combat felt fluid but brutal and pretty much a perfect fit for the kind of fighter Batman was. I'd imagine a similar style of combat for someone like Ezio would work. Not a 'win' button, but a system that felt fluid and allowed for the kind of situation you talk about where you can deal with a group of guards without instantly slowing the pace of the game.



Personally I'd be happy if they tightened up the controls a bit and gave you a few more stealth options. Even though AC2 was a much better stealth game than the first, I'd still like them to give you some more abilities to stay hidden from guards.



 

Wow! I don't know how I didn't think of Arkham Asylum's combat system. Richard, everything you said was right on the money. When I was playing it, I was amazed how such a simple system could make you feel like such a badass. I think if Ezio had a similar fighting style -- while still allowing the above people to play their quiet but deadly method -- the combat and pacing of the game would be much more fluid.

I think there is a level of compromise between what you're saying and how the others play the game. I mean, I can see why the setting would make Ubisoft think of giving you various weapons to play with and making the combat based on counters and dodges. Yet when you think about it, both Ezio and Altair spend 90% of the game running across rooftops, climbing buildings and hanging off ledges. Then when they are faced with a group of guards all that athleticism and those acrobatics disappear and they stand planted on their feet. I think there's a place for the swordplay, but they could add another level to the combat that allows you to use that athleticism in a fight.

Exactly. To me, it seems backwards that these strong, agile characters who are usually on the offensive would resort to blocking or hauling tail. AC2's counterattacks are time-consuming and quickly grow old, whereas Arkham Asylum allows the player to actively take down foes with no shortage of stylish moves.

I don't see why you're complaining. All the "problems" that you "see" are already fixed for Brotherhood. First of all their giving us BAM (Brotherhood Assist Move) and also they're making the fighting way more fluid, like in Batman: AA. So, please do some research before you complain and also, from what you said I can tell that you're playing the game wrong because you're getting chased way too much. Also, Ezio is an Assassin, not a spy or a stealth operative.

I think if they messed with the combat mechanics too much, you'd end up with what equates to another God of War brawler-type game, and the entire point of being an assassin would be diminished by the fact that you could just plow your way through the streets to safety.  Not that this sounds like a TERRIBLE game mind you, but I play Assassin's Creed 2 to ...assassinate.  Not be the next Kratos.

 

I think it's alright the way it is.  I can't wait for the next installment (though I'm not very interested in playing Brotherhood, and I have yet to progress far in the second game thanks to the PC DRM limiting me to playing it on a console when I can, but that's an entirely different rant).