Care to explain how? I really don't see it.

I'm with Kantor on this one. The second one was by far the better game.

Although I actually enjoyed the first one, I can definately see why people would hate it. Second one took the best bits of AC1 and added and improved on them in every way, shape and form.

yea imma go with the second its much better. i like altairs name but him as a character was not really developed. though the psp version delved into it much better.

Its just the whole game feels very casualized. compared to the first one

First it's the gameplay, i actually liked the first games mission strucuture where you go around eaves dropping on people and all the investigation to get enough information about the target before you assassinate him. The game felt like a simulator in that sense that you felt like you were the assassin.

I actually took my time with the game, walking slowly among the crowds, using mostly ladders to get up on the buildings, scouting around. like a real assassin, playing cautiously, you didn't have to do that you could just barge in running all over the place attracting attention because it was pretty easy to dispose of the guards etc. but i liked that aspect of the game.

I didnt finish the second game i just couldnt go on anymore. The story felt i don't know very mainstreamed or something. Ezios family is murdered now he's out for revenge. I liked the story in the first better, first it felt more focused than the second one. Second i liked that it was somehow more mysterious at first you didn't know why you were assigned to kill these men, it unfolded at a very nice pace.

Altair changes throughout the game, compare him to the very first sections of the game, he doesnt give a crap about the assassins code, he kills that innocent man in the beginning, he doesnt hide just rushes in and he "compromised the brotherhood". And he is punished for it aswell, and later changes mostly through his assassinations.

Assassinations is another part of what i liked about the game. the dialogues (or maybe monologues) were better in the first game when you assassinate your targets. At first you get some information about what they were doing and sort of why. Later with all the new information Altair gathers he starts asking himself if what he is doing is right. That's another part i disliked about the second game, people complained they talked for too long so ubisoft cut it down, just felt dumbed down somehow

I didnt like the part about restoring your villa, feels like another part, people complained there was too little to do so Ubisoft again put in something useless. Or perhaps there were some use for it, as i said i didnt finish the game so maybe later in the game you actually had some use for it. I didnt like all the different swords and armors, feels like every game today needs some sort of RPG element, i have no idea why. The weapons i the first game was enough.

Same thing reminds of L4D people complained about not enough weapons, so in L4D2 they put in several new weapons but they were basically the same, you point and shoot to kill zombies. It's not like the ak47 has spreadfire and the m16 has piercing shots  their function is basically the same. (but thats another topic)

Back to Assassins Creed 2, its not all bad though, i enjoyed some of the new things, small things. Like being able to go in to the Water (why the hell couldnt altair do that) some of the new moves, like  pull-a-guy-of-the-ledge move. Another move i liked was that you can run on on beams and at the end of the building there were these metal (lights or whatever) you could use to swing around the corner of the building and keep on running, the small things were what i liked about Assassin's Creed 2.

anyway i think thats all... 

Still i'll have to try and get through the game.

I should point out that I really really love Assassin's Creed games, I played the first 3 times for achievements and stuff, and I could just run around the rooftops for a week constantly, and I have to go with Kantor on this one

Assassin's Creed 1 had a brilliant concept, but it was so appallingly designed in so many ways. The mission structure was just diabolical, go to a city, find viewpoints, sit on a bench and then go and kill the target... Finding the viewpoints was good, but the whole thing was so repetitive and the story was rather dull. There was NO variety. There are also other things, such as the lack of the ability to just run around the game later, or any side missions what so ever and the twist was amazingly obvious

AC II just did everything right from the first one. It kept the fundamentally great concept, but then added a great story, variety and pretty much everything that you could want. Brotherhood was just more of the same, but still brilliant, especially with your own Assassin's

AC I was still a good game, but it should have been so much better, and that is what Assassin's Creed II was, with another interesting setting (the only thing AC III needs to be brilliant)

AC2 is better than it in every way. I like to KNOW my main characters. And Ezio is just a better character then Altair (who i know nothing of). Plus, the gameplay is improved. There is just no way you can like part I better than II. Its like saying you like uncharted 1 better 2. Which again, makes no sense.