Is it possible to understand (follow the story line) of Assassins Creed II, without having played Assassins Creed I?Is it worth finishing Assassin's Creed 1 before playing 2?Do I need to begin from the first game for the story of Assassin's Creed?Does it matter what order i play the assassins creed games?
How to find if SQL server backup is encrypted with TDE without restoring the backup
ssTTsSTtRrriinInnnnNNNIiinngg
What is required to make GPS signals available indoors?
Why do I get negative height?
How do I exit BASH while loop using modulus operator?
If a warlock makes a Dancing Sword their pact weapon, is there a way to prevent it from disappearing if it's farther away for more than a minute?
How can a day be of 24 hours?
How dangerous is XSS
How seriously should I take size and weight limits of hand luggage?
Why was Sir Cadogan fired?
Why was the shrink from 8″ made only to 5.25″ and not smaller (4″ or less)
Is it a bad idea to plug the other end of ESD strap to wall ground?
Why are UK visa biometrics appointments suspended at USCIS Application Support Centers?
Why is it a bad idea to hire a hitman to eliminate most corrupt politicians?
What is the opposite of "eschatology"?
Different meanings of こわい
Finding the error in an argument
Why is the sentence "Das ist eine Nase" correct?
OP Amp not amplifying audio signal
Where would I need my direct neural interface to be implanted?
GFCI outlets - can they be repaired? Are they really needed at the end of a circuit?
Can someone clarify Hamming's notion of important problems in relation to modern academia?
how do we prove that a sum of two periods is still a period?
What is an equivalently powerful replacement spell for the Yuan-Ti's Suggestion spell?
Is it possible to understand (follow the story line) of Assassins Creed II, without having played Assassins Creed I?
Is it worth finishing Assassin's Creed 1 before playing 2?Do I need to begin from the first game for the story of Assassin's Creed?Does it matter what order i play the assassins creed games?
I have never played any version of Assassins Creed but have read many good reviews about the series. In particular, the 2nd version (Assassins Creed II) seems to be most highly acclaimed.
Having never played the game, I figure I would start with Assassins Creed II, but I am afraid I would not understand the full story line/plot of version II, without having played Assassins Creed I. However, I don't necessarily want to invest all the time to play and beat Assassin's Creed I, only to get to the 2nd ('better') version.
Is it possible to understand the storyline plot of II simply by watching cutscenes from version I and/or reading wikipedia sites about version I? Would I be missing out on anything by taking this approach?
This is for the Xbox 360 incase that makes a difference.
assassins-creed-series
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
add a comment |
I have never played any version of Assassins Creed but have read many good reviews about the series. In particular, the 2nd version (Assassins Creed II) seems to be most highly acclaimed.
Having never played the game, I figure I would start with Assassins Creed II, but I am afraid I would not understand the full story line/plot of version II, without having played Assassins Creed I. However, I don't necessarily want to invest all the time to play and beat Assassin's Creed I, only to get to the 2nd ('better') version.
Is it possible to understand the storyline plot of II simply by watching cutscenes from version I and/or reading wikipedia sites about version I? Would I be missing out on anything by taking this approach?
This is for the Xbox 360 incase that makes a difference.
assassins-creed-series
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
A pic of Jeff Atwood as avatar ?
– Luc M
Jan 12 '13 at 17:47
To paraphrase from a comment on an earlier question: in playing from the beginning, you can really tell how Ubisoft adapted to the desires of their community. Each game was, in my opinion, progressively better than the one before it. So, do you need to play the first [game(s)]? No. Should you play them? Yes. =P
– Niro
Jan 12 '13 at 17:52
Hi @n00b ! This question is pretty close to a dupe of this one . There are a lot of good answers over there you might find helpful. In particular, I would advise you to skip the first and watch the cutscenes. There are some excellent parts you'll miss, but also a lot of frustrating parts. AC II improves a lot on the frustrating aspects, and future versions only get better.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 18:03
add a comment |
I have never played any version of Assassins Creed but have read many good reviews about the series. In particular, the 2nd version (Assassins Creed II) seems to be most highly acclaimed.
Having never played the game, I figure I would start with Assassins Creed II, but I am afraid I would not understand the full story line/plot of version II, without having played Assassins Creed I. However, I don't necessarily want to invest all the time to play and beat Assassin's Creed I, only to get to the 2nd ('better') version.
Is it possible to understand the storyline plot of II simply by watching cutscenes from version I and/or reading wikipedia sites about version I? Would I be missing out on anything by taking this approach?
This is for the Xbox 360 incase that makes a difference.
assassins-creed-series
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
I have never played any version of Assassins Creed but have read many good reviews about the series. In particular, the 2nd version (Assassins Creed II) seems to be most highly acclaimed.
Having never played the game, I figure I would start with Assassins Creed II, but I am afraid I would not understand the full story line/plot of version II, without having played Assassins Creed I. However, I don't necessarily want to invest all the time to play and beat Assassin's Creed I, only to get to the 2nd ('better') version.
Is it possible to understand the storyline plot of II simply by watching cutscenes from version I and/or reading wikipedia sites about version I? Would I be missing out on anything by taking this approach?
This is for the Xbox 360 incase that makes a difference.
assassins-creed-series
assassins-creed-series
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
edited Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMEL
6,387145292
6,387145292
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
asked Jan 12 '13 at 17:30
n00bn00b
11614
11614
A pic of Jeff Atwood as avatar ?
– Luc M
Jan 12 '13 at 17:47
To paraphrase from a comment on an earlier question: in playing from the beginning, you can really tell how Ubisoft adapted to the desires of their community. Each game was, in my opinion, progressively better than the one before it. So, do you need to play the first [game(s)]? No. Should you play them? Yes. =P
– Niro
Jan 12 '13 at 17:52
Hi @n00b ! This question is pretty close to a dupe of this one . There are a lot of good answers over there you might find helpful. In particular, I would advise you to skip the first and watch the cutscenes. There are some excellent parts you'll miss, but also a lot of frustrating parts. AC II improves a lot on the frustrating aspects, and future versions only get better.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 18:03
add a comment |
A pic of Jeff Atwood as avatar ?
– Luc M
Jan 12 '13 at 17:47
To paraphrase from a comment on an earlier question: in playing from the beginning, you can really tell how Ubisoft adapted to the desires of their community. Each game was, in my opinion, progressively better than the one before it. So, do you need to play the first [game(s)]? No. Should you play them? Yes. =P
– Niro
Jan 12 '13 at 17:52
Hi @n00b ! This question is pretty close to a dupe of this one . There are a lot of good answers over there you might find helpful. In particular, I would advise you to skip the first and watch the cutscenes. There are some excellent parts you'll miss, but also a lot of frustrating parts. AC II improves a lot on the frustrating aspects, and future versions only get better.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 18:03
A pic of Jeff Atwood as avatar ?
– Luc M
Jan 12 '13 at 17:47
A pic of Jeff Atwood as avatar ?
– Luc M
Jan 12 '13 at 17:47
To paraphrase from a comment on an earlier question: in playing from the beginning, you can really tell how Ubisoft adapted to the desires of their community. Each game was, in my opinion, progressively better than the one before it. So, do you need to play the first [game(s)]? No. Should you play them? Yes. =P
– Niro
Jan 12 '13 at 17:52
To paraphrase from a comment on an earlier question: in playing from the beginning, you can really tell how Ubisoft adapted to the desires of their community. Each game was, in my opinion, progressively better than the one before it. So, do you need to play the first [game(s)]? No. Should you play them? Yes. =P
– Niro
Jan 12 '13 at 17:52
Hi @n00b ! This question is pretty close to a dupe of this one . There are a lot of good answers over there you might find helpful. In particular, I would advise you to skip the first and watch the cutscenes. There are some excellent parts you'll miss, but also a lot of frustrating parts. AC II improves a lot on the frustrating aspects, and future versions only get better.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 18:03
Hi @n00b ! This question is pretty close to a dupe of this one . There are a lot of good answers over there you might find helpful. In particular, I would advise you to skip the first and watch the cutscenes. There are some excellent parts you'll miss, but also a lot of frustrating parts. AC II improves a lot on the frustrating aspects, and future versions only get better.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 18:03
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
TL;DR: While you can start the series from the second game, I strongly advise to start from AC I.
--
I've only played the "main" titles of the game (AC I, AC II, AC II brotherhood, AC II revelation and AC III), so what I'm about to write here is only true for the main series of the game (Released for Xbox, PS and PC) and might not be true for the games on the hand held platforms or Facebook.
Also, since AC II, Brotherhood and Revelations are all based around one main character I'll just call them all as AC II.
The AC series consists of 2 parallel story lines in each game, the story of Desmond, the main character, and the story of a particular ancestor. In AC I it's Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, in AC II, it's Ezio Auditore da Firenze and in AC III it's Connor. The story line of Desmond is continuing and enriches with every game, while the stories of the Ancestors are self contained and mostly do not continue into the other games, and since the ancestors didn't really know one about the other, if a previous ancestor is mentioned, there is a proper explanation about who he was and what is his importance to the story being told now.
Another thing is that just like many TV series, the game gives a "what happened in previous episodes" run-down in the start of each game.
So that when you start to play the game, no matter from what game you start, you will not feel left out of the plot, or that you have some hole in the plot. Especially if you've read the plot summaries, or watched the cut scenes.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, the games really do improve from one to next, especially from AC I to AC II, so if you'll start from AC II and then want to play AC I to replay the lost chapters, it'll be hard for you, as you'll be degrading you experience, instead of upgrading it. Not to say that AC I was a bad games, it wasn't and it's still a very good game, but the sequels are just much better.
An additional thing is the character of Desmond. While being the "real" main character Desmond, gets very little playing time, and stays very under developed in the games. By starting with Desmond in the first game, you are both pretty much in the same state of mind as you don't really know what is going on, and why are you in the situation that are in. I believe that discovering it gradually with him helps you connect to the character and care about him, while if you would start from the second game, where Desmond is already aware to most of what happens around him, and you are not really there will cause a disconnection between you and Desmond, which might make you not really care about the MAIN plot line of the game and the connection between the different episodes. For me the curiosity about what happens to Desmond was as much as an incentive to play the sequels as the wish to experience more of the Assassin's Creed fun game play.
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
add a comment |
I would recommend skipping the first game entirely.
The trio of AC2 games (AC2/Brotherhood/Revelations) are completely understandable without having played the first game - the character you play in AC2/B/R (Ezio) has nothing to do with the main character of AC (Altair) until Revelations, and even then there's little correlation between the events of Altair's chapters in Revelations and the events of AC1.
You'll be a bit behind with regards to Desmond's story, but so little happens to Desmond in AC1 that it's not that big a deal. He spends almost the entire game in two rooms, and the plot development in the game occurs almost completely at the end, where it concludes with a cliffhanger. Desmond is also bland, and probably the most boring part of all of the games I've played to-date. At least in AC2, the people you can talk to outside of the Animus are mildly interesting.
Gameplay wise, AC2 evolves the formula significantly from the first game. While AC was good for its time, there are a lot of rough edges that get significant polish in the second entry and onward. It's a bit like the way Super Mario Bros. 3 is a significant evolution from the original SMB. As a new gamer to the series, you can get your assassination "fix" much better from the later games, and although the first game was a landmark in the series, it hasn't aged nearly as well.
The only issue I'd have with getting into the series now is that the AC2 trilogy is very similar - if you play them back-to-back, you'll probably be extremely worn down by the time you get to the end of Revelations.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
A few notes. 1) I believe Altair makes a guest appearence in AC II as well, possibly in all of the AC Ezio games (you mention only Revelations). 2) Asker specifically mentioned viewing cutscenes/reading wikis to catch up - I assume while you recommend skipping the first game you wouldn't be against doing that right?
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 21:26
@EBongo, If Altair is referenced in the other AC2-series games, I think it is relatively tiny, maybe a 5 minute callback in a 8-10 hr game? There's a significant portion of AC:Rev that hinges on him, although you don't really have to know much of AC1 to get it. I would say if you spend more than around 5 minutes understanding Desmond from AC1, you're wasting your time :)
– agent86
Jan 12 '13 at 21:47
Yeah - You are fairly anti-Desmond though. He is a tool at times, but I do feel he adds some cohesion and interest to the story as a whole, if you can suspend disbelief and put yourself in his shoes. Yes, he Altair sequence in AC II is very short.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 22:00
add a comment |
I have never played ac1 but I started with ac2 and now brotherhood. I enjoy the game so much. I understand without playing ac1. However I think I will play ac1 just because I love them so much. And it all started with Desmond just being in a warehouse on ac2. Would like to know why or how it started. Hope this helps
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "41"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgaming.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f100326%2fis-it-possible-to-understand-follow-the-story-line-of-assassins-creed-ii-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
TL;DR: While you can start the series from the second game, I strongly advise to start from AC I.
--
I've only played the "main" titles of the game (AC I, AC II, AC II brotherhood, AC II revelation and AC III), so what I'm about to write here is only true for the main series of the game (Released for Xbox, PS and PC) and might not be true for the games on the hand held platforms or Facebook.
Also, since AC II, Brotherhood and Revelations are all based around one main character I'll just call them all as AC II.
The AC series consists of 2 parallel story lines in each game, the story of Desmond, the main character, and the story of a particular ancestor. In AC I it's Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, in AC II, it's Ezio Auditore da Firenze and in AC III it's Connor. The story line of Desmond is continuing and enriches with every game, while the stories of the Ancestors are self contained and mostly do not continue into the other games, and since the ancestors didn't really know one about the other, if a previous ancestor is mentioned, there is a proper explanation about who he was and what is his importance to the story being told now.
Another thing is that just like many TV series, the game gives a "what happened in previous episodes" run-down in the start of each game.
So that when you start to play the game, no matter from what game you start, you will not feel left out of the plot, or that you have some hole in the plot. Especially if you've read the plot summaries, or watched the cut scenes.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, the games really do improve from one to next, especially from AC I to AC II, so if you'll start from AC II and then want to play AC I to replay the lost chapters, it'll be hard for you, as you'll be degrading you experience, instead of upgrading it. Not to say that AC I was a bad games, it wasn't and it's still a very good game, but the sequels are just much better.
An additional thing is the character of Desmond. While being the "real" main character Desmond, gets very little playing time, and stays very under developed in the games. By starting with Desmond in the first game, you are both pretty much in the same state of mind as you don't really know what is going on, and why are you in the situation that are in. I believe that discovering it gradually with him helps you connect to the character and care about him, while if you would start from the second game, where Desmond is already aware to most of what happens around him, and you are not really there will cause a disconnection between you and Desmond, which might make you not really care about the MAIN plot line of the game and the connection between the different episodes. For me the curiosity about what happens to Desmond was as much as an incentive to play the sequels as the wish to experience more of the Assassin's Creed fun game play.
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
add a comment |
TL;DR: While you can start the series from the second game, I strongly advise to start from AC I.
--
I've only played the "main" titles of the game (AC I, AC II, AC II brotherhood, AC II revelation and AC III), so what I'm about to write here is only true for the main series of the game (Released for Xbox, PS and PC) and might not be true for the games on the hand held platforms or Facebook.
Also, since AC II, Brotherhood and Revelations are all based around one main character I'll just call them all as AC II.
The AC series consists of 2 parallel story lines in each game, the story of Desmond, the main character, and the story of a particular ancestor. In AC I it's Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, in AC II, it's Ezio Auditore da Firenze and in AC III it's Connor. The story line of Desmond is continuing and enriches with every game, while the stories of the Ancestors are self contained and mostly do not continue into the other games, and since the ancestors didn't really know one about the other, if a previous ancestor is mentioned, there is a proper explanation about who he was and what is his importance to the story being told now.
Another thing is that just like many TV series, the game gives a "what happened in previous episodes" run-down in the start of each game.
So that when you start to play the game, no matter from what game you start, you will not feel left out of the plot, or that you have some hole in the plot. Especially if you've read the plot summaries, or watched the cut scenes.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, the games really do improve from one to next, especially from AC I to AC II, so if you'll start from AC II and then want to play AC I to replay the lost chapters, it'll be hard for you, as you'll be degrading you experience, instead of upgrading it. Not to say that AC I was a bad games, it wasn't and it's still a very good game, but the sequels are just much better.
An additional thing is the character of Desmond. While being the "real" main character Desmond, gets very little playing time, and stays very under developed in the games. By starting with Desmond in the first game, you are both pretty much in the same state of mind as you don't really know what is going on, and why are you in the situation that are in. I believe that discovering it gradually with him helps you connect to the character and care about him, while if you would start from the second game, where Desmond is already aware to most of what happens around him, and you are not really there will cause a disconnection between you and Desmond, which might make you not really care about the MAIN plot line of the game and the connection between the different episodes. For me the curiosity about what happens to Desmond was as much as an incentive to play the sequels as the wish to experience more of the Assassin's Creed fun game play.
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
add a comment |
TL;DR: While you can start the series from the second game, I strongly advise to start from AC I.
--
I've only played the "main" titles of the game (AC I, AC II, AC II brotherhood, AC II revelation and AC III), so what I'm about to write here is only true for the main series of the game (Released for Xbox, PS and PC) and might not be true for the games on the hand held platforms or Facebook.
Also, since AC II, Brotherhood and Revelations are all based around one main character I'll just call them all as AC II.
The AC series consists of 2 parallel story lines in each game, the story of Desmond, the main character, and the story of a particular ancestor. In AC I it's Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, in AC II, it's Ezio Auditore da Firenze and in AC III it's Connor. The story line of Desmond is continuing and enriches with every game, while the stories of the Ancestors are self contained and mostly do not continue into the other games, and since the ancestors didn't really know one about the other, if a previous ancestor is mentioned, there is a proper explanation about who he was and what is his importance to the story being told now.
Another thing is that just like many TV series, the game gives a "what happened in previous episodes" run-down in the start of each game.
So that when you start to play the game, no matter from what game you start, you will not feel left out of the plot, or that you have some hole in the plot. Especially if you've read the plot summaries, or watched the cut scenes.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, the games really do improve from one to next, especially from AC I to AC II, so if you'll start from AC II and then want to play AC I to replay the lost chapters, it'll be hard for you, as you'll be degrading you experience, instead of upgrading it. Not to say that AC I was a bad games, it wasn't and it's still a very good game, but the sequels are just much better.
An additional thing is the character of Desmond. While being the "real" main character Desmond, gets very little playing time, and stays very under developed in the games. By starting with Desmond in the first game, you are both pretty much in the same state of mind as you don't really know what is going on, and why are you in the situation that are in. I believe that discovering it gradually with him helps you connect to the character and care about him, while if you would start from the second game, where Desmond is already aware to most of what happens around him, and you are not really there will cause a disconnection between you and Desmond, which might make you not really care about the MAIN plot line of the game and the connection between the different episodes. For me the curiosity about what happens to Desmond was as much as an incentive to play the sequels as the wish to experience more of the Assassin's Creed fun game play.
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
TL;DR: While you can start the series from the second game, I strongly advise to start from AC I.
--
I've only played the "main" titles of the game (AC I, AC II, AC II brotherhood, AC II revelation and AC III), so what I'm about to write here is only true for the main series of the game (Released for Xbox, PS and PC) and might not be true for the games on the hand held platforms or Facebook.
Also, since AC II, Brotherhood and Revelations are all based around one main character I'll just call them all as AC II.
The AC series consists of 2 parallel story lines in each game, the story of Desmond, the main character, and the story of a particular ancestor. In AC I it's Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad, in AC II, it's Ezio Auditore da Firenze and in AC III it's Connor. The story line of Desmond is continuing and enriches with every game, while the stories of the Ancestors are self contained and mostly do not continue into the other games, and since the ancestors didn't really know one about the other, if a previous ancestor is mentioned, there is a proper explanation about who he was and what is his importance to the story being told now.
Another thing is that just like many TV series, the game gives a "what happened in previous episodes" run-down in the start of each game.
So that when you start to play the game, no matter from what game you start, you will not feel left out of the plot, or that you have some hole in the plot. Especially if you've read the plot summaries, or watched the cut scenes.
HOWEVER, in my opinion, the games really do improve from one to next, especially from AC I to AC II, so if you'll start from AC II and then want to play AC I to replay the lost chapters, it'll be hard for you, as you'll be degrading you experience, instead of upgrading it. Not to say that AC I was a bad games, it wasn't and it's still a very good game, but the sequels are just much better.
An additional thing is the character of Desmond. While being the "real" main character Desmond, gets very little playing time, and stays very under developed in the games. By starting with Desmond in the first game, you are both pretty much in the same state of mind as you don't really know what is going on, and why are you in the situation that are in. I believe that discovering it gradually with him helps you connect to the character and care about him, while if you would start from the second game, where Desmond is already aware to most of what happens around him, and you are not really there will cause a disconnection between you and Desmond, which might make you not really care about the MAIN plot line of the game and the connection between the different episodes. For me the curiosity about what happens to Desmond was as much as an incentive to play the sequels as the wish to experience more of the Assassin's Creed fun game play.
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
edited Dec 18 '15 at 20:23
Community♦
1
1
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
answered Jan 12 '13 at 19:56
SIMELSIMEL
6,387145292
6,387145292
add a comment |
add a comment |
I would recommend skipping the first game entirely.
The trio of AC2 games (AC2/Brotherhood/Revelations) are completely understandable without having played the first game - the character you play in AC2/B/R (Ezio) has nothing to do with the main character of AC (Altair) until Revelations, and even then there's little correlation between the events of Altair's chapters in Revelations and the events of AC1.
You'll be a bit behind with regards to Desmond's story, but so little happens to Desmond in AC1 that it's not that big a deal. He spends almost the entire game in two rooms, and the plot development in the game occurs almost completely at the end, where it concludes with a cliffhanger. Desmond is also bland, and probably the most boring part of all of the games I've played to-date. At least in AC2, the people you can talk to outside of the Animus are mildly interesting.
Gameplay wise, AC2 evolves the formula significantly from the first game. While AC was good for its time, there are a lot of rough edges that get significant polish in the second entry and onward. It's a bit like the way Super Mario Bros. 3 is a significant evolution from the original SMB. As a new gamer to the series, you can get your assassination "fix" much better from the later games, and although the first game was a landmark in the series, it hasn't aged nearly as well.
The only issue I'd have with getting into the series now is that the AC2 trilogy is very similar - if you play them back-to-back, you'll probably be extremely worn down by the time you get to the end of Revelations.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
A few notes. 1) I believe Altair makes a guest appearence in AC II as well, possibly in all of the AC Ezio games (you mention only Revelations). 2) Asker specifically mentioned viewing cutscenes/reading wikis to catch up - I assume while you recommend skipping the first game you wouldn't be against doing that right?
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 21:26
@EBongo, If Altair is referenced in the other AC2-series games, I think it is relatively tiny, maybe a 5 minute callback in a 8-10 hr game? There's a significant portion of AC:Rev that hinges on him, although you don't really have to know much of AC1 to get it. I would say if you spend more than around 5 minutes understanding Desmond from AC1, you're wasting your time :)
– agent86
Jan 12 '13 at 21:47
Yeah - You are fairly anti-Desmond though. He is a tool at times, but I do feel he adds some cohesion and interest to the story as a whole, if you can suspend disbelief and put yourself in his shoes. Yes, he Altair sequence in AC II is very short.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 22:00
add a comment |
I would recommend skipping the first game entirely.
The trio of AC2 games (AC2/Brotherhood/Revelations) are completely understandable without having played the first game - the character you play in AC2/B/R (Ezio) has nothing to do with the main character of AC (Altair) until Revelations, and even then there's little correlation between the events of Altair's chapters in Revelations and the events of AC1.
You'll be a bit behind with regards to Desmond's story, but so little happens to Desmond in AC1 that it's not that big a deal. He spends almost the entire game in two rooms, and the plot development in the game occurs almost completely at the end, where it concludes with a cliffhanger. Desmond is also bland, and probably the most boring part of all of the games I've played to-date. At least in AC2, the people you can talk to outside of the Animus are mildly interesting.
Gameplay wise, AC2 evolves the formula significantly from the first game. While AC was good for its time, there are a lot of rough edges that get significant polish in the second entry and onward. It's a bit like the way Super Mario Bros. 3 is a significant evolution from the original SMB. As a new gamer to the series, you can get your assassination "fix" much better from the later games, and although the first game was a landmark in the series, it hasn't aged nearly as well.
The only issue I'd have with getting into the series now is that the AC2 trilogy is very similar - if you play them back-to-back, you'll probably be extremely worn down by the time you get to the end of Revelations.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
A few notes. 1) I believe Altair makes a guest appearence in AC II as well, possibly in all of the AC Ezio games (you mention only Revelations). 2) Asker specifically mentioned viewing cutscenes/reading wikis to catch up - I assume while you recommend skipping the first game you wouldn't be against doing that right?
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 21:26
@EBongo, If Altair is referenced in the other AC2-series games, I think it is relatively tiny, maybe a 5 minute callback in a 8-10 hr game? There's a significant portion of AC:Rev that hinges on him, although you don't really have to know much of AC1 to get it. I would say if you spend more than around 5 minutes understanding Desmond from AC1, you're wasting your time :)
– agent86
Jan 12 '13 at 21:47
Yeah - You are fairly anti-Desmond though. He is a tool at times, but I do feel he adds some cohesion and interest to the story as a whole, if you can suspend disbelief and put yourself in his shoes. Yes, he Altair sequence in AC II is very short.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 22:00
add a comment |
I would recommend skipping the first game entirely.
The trio of AC2 games (AC2/Brotherhood/Revelations) are completely understandable without having played the first game - the character you play in AC2/B/R (Ezio) has nothing to do with the main character of AC (Altair) until Revelations, and even then there's little correlation between the events of Altair's chapters in Revelations and the events of AC1.
You'll be a bit behind with regards to Desmond's story, but so little happens to Desmond in AC1 that it's not that big a deal. He spends almost the entire game in two rooms, and the plot development in the game occurs almost completely at the end, where it concludes with a cliffhanger. Desmond is also bland, and probably the most boring part of all of the games I've played to-date. At least in AC2, the people you can talk to outside of the Animus are mildly interesting.
Gameplay wise, AC2 evolves the formula significantly from the first game. While AC was good for its time, there are a lot of rough edges that get significant polish in the second entry and onward. It's a bit like the way Super Mario Bros. 3 is a significant evolution from the original SMB. As a new gamer to the series, you can get your assassination "fix" much better from the later games, and although the first game was a landmark in the series, it hasn't aged nearly as well.
The only issue I'd have with getting into the series now is that the AC2 trilogy is very similar - if you play them back-to-back, you'll probably be extremely worn down by the time you get to the end of Revelations.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
I would recommend skipping the first game entirely.
The trio of AC2 games (AC2/Brotherhood/Revelations) are completely understandable without having played the first game - the character you play in AC2/B/R (Ezio) has nothing to do with the main character of AC (Altair) until Revelations, and even then there's little correlation between the events of Altair's chapters in Revelations and the events of AC1.
You'll be a bit behind with regards to Desmond's story, but so little happens to Desmond in AC1 that it's not that big a deal. He spends almost the entire game in two rooms, and the plot development in the game occurs almost completely at the end, where it concludes with a cliffhanger. Desmond is also bland, and probably the most boring part of all of the games I've played to-date. At least in AC2, the people you can talk to outside of the Animus are mildly interesting.
Gameplay wise, AC2 evolves the formula significantly from the first game. While AC was good for its time, there are a lot of rough edges that get significant polish in the second entry and onward. It's a bit like the way Super Mario Bros. 3 is a significant evolution from the original SMB. As a new gamer to the series, you can get your assassination "fix" much better from the later games, and although the first game was a landmark in the series, it hasn't aged nearly as well.
The only issue I'd have with getting into the series now is that the AC2 trilogy is very similar - if you play them back-to-back, you'll probably be extremely worn down by the time you get to the end of Revelations.
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
answered Jan 12 '13 at 20:54
agent86agent86
109k76363546
109k76363546
A few notes. 1) I believe Altair makes a guest appearence in AC II as well, possibly in all of the AC Ezio games (you mention only Revelations). 2) Asker specifically mentioned viewing cutscenes/reading wikis to catch up - I assume while you recommend skipping the first game you wouldn't be against doing that right?
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 21:26
@EBongo, If Altair is referenced in the other AC2-series games, I think it is relatively tiny, maybe a 5 minute callback in a 8-10 hr game? There's a significant portion of AC:Rev that hinges on him, although you don't really have to know much of AC1 to get it. I would say if you spend more than around 5 minutes understanding Desmond from AC1, you're wasting your time :)
– agent86
Jan 12 '13 at 21:47
Yeah - You are fairly anti-Desmond though. He is a tool at times, but I do feel he adds some cohesion and interest to the story as a whole, if you can suspend disbelief and put yourself in his shoes. Yes, he Altair sequence in AC II is very short.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 22:00
add a comment |
A few notes. 1) I believe Altair makes a guest appearence in AC II as well, possibly in all of the AC Ezio games (you mention only Revelations). 2) Asker specifically mentioned viewing cutscenes/reading wikis to catch up - I assume while you recommend skipping the first game you wouldn't be against doing that right?
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 21:26
@EBongo, If Altair is referenced in the other AC2-series games, I think it is relatively tiny, maybe a 5 minute callback in a 8-10 hr game? There's a significant portion of AC:Rev that hinges on him, although you don't really have to know much of AC1 to get it. I would say if you spend more than around 5 minutes understanding Desmond from AC1, you're wasting your time :)
– agent86
Jan 12 '13 at 21:47
Yeah - You are fairly anti-Desmond though. He is a tool at times, but I do feel he adds some cohesion and interest to the story as a whole, if you can suspend disbelief and put yourself in his shoes. Yes, he Altair sequence in AC II is very short.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 22:00
A few notes. 1) I believe Altair makes a guest appearence in AC II as well, possibly in all of the AC Ezio games (you mention only Revelations). 2) Asker specifically mentioned viewing cutscenes/reading wikis to catch up - I assume while you recommend skipping the first game you wouldn't be against doing that right?
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 21:26
A few notes. 1) I believe Altair makes a guest appearence in AC II as well, possibly in all of the AC Ezio games (you mention only Revelations). 2) Asker specifically mentioned viewing cutscenes/reading wikis to catch up - I assume while you recommend skipping the first game you wouldn't be against doing that right?
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 21:26
@EBongo, If Altair is referenced in the other AC2-series games, I think it is relatively tiny, maybe a 5 minute callback in a 8-10 hr game? There's a significant portion of AC:Rev that hinges on him, although you don't really have to know much of AC1 to get it. I would say if you spend more than around 5 minutes understanding Desmond from AC1, you're wasting your time :)
– agent86
Jan 12 '13 at 21:47
@EBongo, If Altair is referenced in the other AC2-series games, I think it is relatively tiny, maybe a 5 minute callback in a 8-10 hr game? There's a significant portion of AC:Rev that hinges on him, although you don't really have to know much of AC1 to get it. I would say if you spend more than around 5 minutes understanding Desmond from AC1, you're wasting your time :)
– agent86
Jan 12 '13 at 21:47
Yeah - You are fairly anti-Desmond though. He is a tool at times, but I do feel he adds some cohesion and interest to the story as a whole, if you can suspend disbelief and put yourself in his shoes. Yes, he Altair sequence in AC II is very short.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 22:00
Yeah - You are fairly anti-Desmond though. He is a tool at times, but I do feel he adds some cohesion and interest to the story as a whole, if you can suspend disbelief and put yourself in his shoes. Yes, he Altair sequence in AC II is very short.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 22:00
add a comment |
I have never played ac1 but I started with ac2 and now brotherhood. I enjoy the game so much. I understand without playing ac1. However I think I will play ac1 just because I love them so much. And it all started with Desmond just being in a warehouse on ac2. Would like to know why or how it started. Hope this helps
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I have never played ac1 but I started with ac2 and now brotherhood. I enjoy the game so much. I understand without playing ac1. However I think I will play ac1 just because I love them so much. And it all started with Desmond just being in a warehouse on ac2. Would like to know why or how it started. Hope this helps
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
I have never played ac1 but I started with ac2 and now brotherhood. I enjoy the game so much. I understand without playing ac1. However I think I will play ac1 just because I love them so much. And it all started with Desmond just being in a warehouse on ac2. Would like to know why or how it started. Hope this helps
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
I have never played ac1 but I started with ac2 and now brotherhood. I enjoy the game so much. I understand without playing ac1. However I think I will play ac1 just because I love them so much. And it all started with Desmond just being in a warehouse on ac2. Would like to know why or how it started. Hope this helps
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
answered 4 mins ago
JeannieJeannie
1
1
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Jeannie is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Arqade!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fgaming.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f100326%2fis-it-possible-to-understand-follow-the-story-line-of-assassins-creed-ii-with%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
A pic of Jeff Atwood as avatar ?
– Luc M
Jan 12 '13 at 17:47
To paraphrase from a comment on an earlier question: in playing from the beginning, you can really tell how Ubisoft adapted to the desires of their community. Each game was, in my opinion, progressively better than the one before it. So, do you need to play the first [game(s)]? No. Should you play them? Yes. =P
– Niro
Jan 12 '13 at 17:52
Hi @n00b ! This question is pretty close to a dupe of this one . There are a lot of good answers over there you might find helpful. In particular, I would advise you to skip the first and watch the cutscenes. There are some excellent parts you'll miss, but also a lot of frustrating parts. AC II improves a lot on the frustrating aspects, and future versions only get better.
– EBongo
Jan 12 '13 at 18:03