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

[the2real4mafol]

Jay520 said:

the2real4mafol said:
I don't get how you people don't like it.

the main story that is set in the past is good and has lots of key events from the time. While, Desmond's story itself is truly fucked up and is very hard to understand. Also, combat is simple and easy to grasp, which i like.

But over anything, it's always the location and the time period that makes the game for me. I just running along the rooftops of 16th century Rome or Istanbul, or through the forests outside of Boston and New York in the 18th century. No other game focuses on the past in such a way. It's just fun to explore these worlds sometimes.

But if anything, it's the multiplayer that sucks. That never was fun to play and the high level players are very over powered in my opinion

I admit this game is easy, but again that don't bother me. If you want a challenging game then look elsewhere.

Assassin's Creed III was one of my favourite games from the HD generation. I would give that 8.5 out of 10 though , while Assassin's creed II was definitely better (9.5 out of 10). That still remains the best in the series.

Had you talked about Assassin's Creed 1, i would agree

Again, people list secondary things like story, atmosphere, etc. as things which compensate for the weak gameplay. This is shocking.

Why can't you accept that I love the series and you hate it, i have no problem with your opinion. Accept mine. I admit it has it's flaws but i like it. If you hate it, just play other franchises, like the new Hitman or Far Cry, they are bound to have some challenge and better gameplay to them.