If it wasn't for the repetitive missions AC1 would have been the best IMO.

AC2 was amazing. Venice and Florence were great , Ezio and the other characters were fun. But unfortunately AC2 is where the games start to get dumb.

Combat feels automatic nowadays.

ACIII was clearly rushed. It has the worst campaign, most inconsistent gameplay and worst design.

Ok, so I'm trying to platinum Assassin's Creed 2. I've beaten the story and the DLC. In order to get the Fly Swatter achievement (kick a guard while on the flying machine), will I have to start a new game? Is there any way at all to get it without starting over? I'd rather not redo the story mode just for one little trophy, but I will if I have to.

http://www.trueachievements.com/viewcomment.aspx?commentid=296647#vch

Ah, this is the kind of think I was hoping for! Thank you! :D

Does anybody know why they decided to change the combat after brotherhood? I mean the combat in brotherhood was perfect. I would spend hours trying to perfect and complete the challenges. It was quite similar to Batman's combat but i would say even better due to variety of moves you needed to do to deal with different enemy types. Whereas with Batman its mostly counter attacking and timing.

Anyways i dont think AC3 was bad because of glitches...i hardly came across any during my PS3 playthrough. But the game was a mess. Literally it was a mess. i cant find a better word to describe it. The game is all over the place...insanely long tutorial/intro...switching from Kenway to the main character...going from the towns to the wild...no real pacing to the story....urgh. Complete mess. I really tried so hard to get into the game

Strange, I platinumed it recently and had no problems with glitches etc on ps3. Only issue was the final chase sequence in the storyline, to get it to 100%. But, truthfully, it wasn't even glitched or difficult, there was just a specific, non-direct way of doing it. 

Sure, the game is a lot different from the Ezio trilogy, but its a mainstream, yearly released title, dedicated to drawing in as many people as possible to keep it going, rather creating unique quality off of single missions, unfortunately. 

Shinobi-san said: Does anybody know why they decided to change the combat after brotherhood? I mean the combat in brotherhood was perfect. I would spend hours trying to perfect and complete the challenges. It was quite similar to Batman's combat but i would say even better due to variety of moves you needed to do to deal with different enemy types. Whereas with Batman its mostly counter attacking and timing. Anyways i dont think AC3 was bad because of glitches...i hardly came across any during my PS3 playthrough. But the game was a mess. Literally it was a mess. i cant find a better word to describe it. The game is all over the place...insanely long tutorial/intro...switching from Kenway to the main character...going from the towns to the wild...no real pacing to the story....urgh. Complete mess. I really tried so hard to get into the game

Brotherhood's combat was extremely easy, and one of the few things with which I can credit AC3 is that it was more challenging.

Like you, I had no problem with bugs, and I agree completely. The story was a mess, Connor was rubbish and completely inconsistent, the cities were dull and lifeless, there was little meaningful side content, the hunting and trading were pointless, and the ending was one of the worst I have ever seen.

If its still a glitchy game on release it really wont matter what version it is.

Yeah I was let down by how inaccurate some parts were, but not many games/movies are historicaly accurate.