Assassin's Creed 1-2 are two of the worst games ever created

[Runa216]

Jay520 said:

Runa216 said:

Jay520 said:

What you mentioned about combat doesn't seem to disprove my point. I already acknowledged blocks and counterattacks as being the dominant form of combat. There are offensive attacks, but you cannot do them on most opponents because they spam block and they'll counterattack you. From my experience with grabbing, you can't grab most opponents because they'll immediately push you off. Stealth/ranged attacks were extremely uncommon in AC2 as well. That leaves 90% of the combat being block/counterattack and dodge/counterattack. It makes the combat incredibly boring as you sit there and wait for the opponents attack. The other 10% consists stealth and ranged attacks, and the few times that you can actually be offensive and grab/attack an opponent.

So the Batman Arkham Asylum and City games must also be terrible becuase it's the same basic ideas.  A bunch of dudes surround you and you time your attacks, blocks, and counters with their attacks.  That game got hailed for its combat. 

Batman is leagues ahead of Assassin's Creed in terms of combat.

Firstly, in Batman, you could actually be offensive and attack most enemies. You don't have to passively sit back and wait for the enemy to attack before you can kill him. That makes Batman's combat more satisfying than Assassin's Creed easily. That way, you don't have any breaks in combat, and each battle feels like a steady flow of attacks/counterattacks. On the other hand, in Assassin's Creed, there is no sense of flow. There are plenty of offputting breaks in combat in Assassin's Creed when you're waiting for the enemy to attack so you can counterattack.

Secondly, the variety of enemies, combos, and equipment makes encounters ten times as diverse as Assassin's Creed. There's about 5-6 different types of equipment that you can use facing any enemy. There are many different enemies that each require different combos, and sometimes different equipment. After your combo meter reaches a certain level, you can use four different special combos, etc.  Some enemies require you stun them, some require you to jump over them, some require you use a beat-down combo, etc.

And lastly, Batman's combat actually offers you a challenge. You can't just sit back and press the counterattack button because that won't kill the enemies. You have to actually take the offensive, while simotaneously looking out for attacking enemies. You feel much more alert and active while playing Batman than in Assassin's Creed. 

I could go on and on about why Batman trumps Assassin's Creed in combat, but I haven't played it in a while, so I can't be totally accurate about everything. Are you really telling me that Assassin's Creed combat is remotely comparable to that of Batman? Really?

Yeah, I think we're done here.  Pretty much everything you just said defending the game you like can be easily applied to the game you're saying is the worst ever.  If you can't see the hypocrisy and the blatant absense of objectivity here, there's nothing more I can do for you.