Assassin's Creed Timeline (Part 7) - Gameplay

In this final post on the Assassin's Creed series, I'm going to talk about arguably the most important aspect of the series - the gameplay itself.  I've left this discussion to last because so much of the development of the game mechanics has been influenced by the other factors in its development. The shifting focus of the series and changes in other aspects of the design of the games is inherently related to how the game is played. This truly should allow anyone to appreciate the myriad of factors that have to come together in order to create a cohesive gaming experience. Games should be designed such that all these factors come together effectively.

Initially the game was a concept and an ideal more than a comprehensively designed gameplay experience. It was a sandbox with the primary character as a free-running assassin, and this is entirely reflected in the way the game plays out. It represented an interesting experiment that delivered a large world to the player, but gave them fewer direct reasons to explore it, instead rewarding those who wanted to roam of their own accord. Structured gameplay was minimal and mostly consisted of a small stable of repetitive tasks.

Then the "reward" of long-winded speeches...

Yet the designers recognised the shallow nature of the first experience and sought to expand upon it. This was a vast success in the second game, with the transformation in narrative and gameplay design leading to a superior and varied experience for players. Some of additions were not particularly exciting, races in particular being a somewhat tedious addition, and these rapidly dropped in number in Brotherhood and Revelations.  The increased variety in mission design and even changes to mechanics and structure are of significant note throughout the series.

Providing tangible benefits from doing additional content is something the series has always tried to do, firstly by provided increased health, then subsequently by making the player money, advancing recruits, and allowing them to buy better gear to make the do more damage or increase their health. Unfortunately, the designers have never seemed to quite pull this off entirely successfully. The first game's side content just ended up being repetitive and tedious, and in AC2 it was quite feasible to end up rolling around in ridiculous amounts of money with nothing to spend it on. Brotherhood and Revelations did reign this tendency in by introducing big money sinks, but aside from a few key valuable items, most of the point of making money was to spend money to make more money. The design was such that the goal was just a goal that helped fulfill that same goal, so ultimately didn't feel that rewarding for the player.

Yeah, because that made sense...

Subtle changes to stealth mechanics both made stealth more successful and viable, but at the same time, perhaps made it feel less special and involving for the player. The ditching of the "active blending" from AC2 is perhaps the biggest step back for player involvement in stealth. Don't make stealth a simple "push button" like it was in the original game. That's neither challenging nor interesting for the player. It should require some effort on their part.

The changes to notoriety in Revelations came a close second to this step backwards when it came to gameplay. Managing notoriety was never particularly challenging, and seemingly this led the designers to believe that it wasn't particularly valuable. However, ditching it in favour of templar awareness was a very poor decision. Managing "templar awareness" for the sake of preventing a potential attack on an assassin den was far less personal and engaging, and had less direct impact upon the player. The player typically had to perform a significant number of "unacceptable" actions after hitting maximum awareness to provoke an attack, which meant that getting a full meter didn't seem like cause for concern. A notorious Ezio did potentially have to makes changes to his behaviour (even if small or subtle) to avoid attracting attention or at least minimising it.

The better choice would have been to tweak the consequences of attaining notoriety and making it more difficult to reduce notoriety. The abundance of posters made it a trivial task to keep notoriety low, and heralds could easily be bribed and then pickpocketed for a significant decrease in notoriety. If the number of posters had been dropped, and pickpocketing a herald resulted in a vast increase in notoriety, then a far better balance would have been struck. Or perhaps offering increased dangers but with a potential small bonus to performing actions/missions while notorious would have provided a better risk/reward system for players.

Plus no-one particularly wanted a tower defense minigame...

Finally, it would be remiss of me to fail to mention the combat and assassinations in the game in this discussion. The introduction of additional assassination methods as of AC2 made the series remarkably better. Actually being able to leap and kill someone, or toss them down onto the street while hanging on a ledge was a huge step forward for player freedom. But this isn't the only place where combat took a step forward.

The variety in enemies provided a significant improvement in combat across the series. Requiring players to switch up their tactics a little made combat more interesting, even though the difficulty has never really ramped up across the games. The variety in weaponry provides a range of tools that allows the player to switch up their killing method and their attack style, from fast and furious to slow but lethal. The only potential drawback here is that as the series has progressed, there are arguably too many options with too little difference between them. Why is the crossbow more advantageous than knives, and which bomb loadout should the player use, and how useful are they really? There's a lot of choice, but the differentiation between those choices seems minimal, meaning that those choices don't really seem to offer a whole lot to the player.

Crossbows and throwing knives and assassins... oh my!

The greatest problem with combat is that the player doesn't really ever feel like they are under significant threat, and even when they can take a sound beating quickly (as can happen in Revelations), it doesn't really provide that sense of threat or danger to the player with any meaningful feedback until the player is almost dead. Just like the concept of the animus itself, there's very little "tactile" or tangible feedback to the player. Combat has never been difficult or a challenge because the fighting system has very little individual complexity. There's no combos like a fighting game or real individual move variety like a beat-em-up. Mostly it's a simple choice of "enemy X, attack A", enemy Y, attack B" with little to no difference in overall approach. There's no fluidity to the system that allows for the player to have free flowing combat when compared to something like Batman: Arkham Asylum/City. If the Assassin's Creed series wants to continue to develop, this is they key area of gameplay that designers really needs to concentrate on.


Overall, the first four entries in the Assassin's Creed has been interesting titles. With varying strengths and weaknesses, this franchise offers an insight into how developers seek to change their formula and attempt to keep a series fresh while retaining true to the core premise of a series. If all the strong points of the series were combined in a single title, you'd have a truly excellent game, but the difficulty that the design team seems to have had thus far is picking how to tweak those aspects to obtain the right balance to fit the overall creative direction. I'll likely make another post on how well they have (or haven't) managed this when I get around to playing Assassin's Creed 3 - until then, I'm calling a close to my commentary on this series.

Assassin's Creed Timeline (Part 6) - Presentation

With the Assassin's Creed series, an aspect that warrants particular mention is the presentation of the game, not just in terms of graphics and art style, but the means in which events, characters and landscapes are provided to the player. No, I haven't played the third game yet, so I can't add it to the ongoing discussion.

The series started off with an expansive yet minimalist presentation style. Cutscenes were done such that the player always retained control of Altair with their semi-interactive style, with the only real non-interactive sequences being the panoramic camera sweeps upon approaching a city for the first time, or synchronising from a viewpoint. Even when control was removed from the player, the cinematics conveyed a sense of scale and completeness of the environment. AC1 was presented as a giant and finely crafted sandbox for the player to explore with as few constraints as possible, and the presentation and gameplay supported this.

The problem with an enormous sandbox is that it can potentially result in a limited about of designed gameplay, an inherent problem of the original game. Thus AC2 came in with its expanded story, but consequently a more prescriptive presentation style. The quicktime events of the cutscenes disappeared, which while perhaps making the player feel less involved, it ensured that the presentation of the cinematic sequences were crafted for maximum effect, with every shot delivering nuance of story and character. While this does lose some freedom for the player, the increased impact of the narrative is arguably worth it.

Not having to worry about "glitches" was ultimately a blessing for cutscenes

The quicktime button events of AC2 were far worse, but these (fortunately) happened infrequently enough that the player didn't really have to worry about them, they didn't make much difference to the cutscene sequences, and they were mercifully dropped after this game.

A changing presentation resulted in a tighter experience from a narrative and gameplay perspective, and focused the player on specific areas and zones. Vast areas that were explored a single time (if at all) were ditched in favour of smaller environments that the player could become familiar with. This helped provide additional impact for the more personal story of Ezio, as it helped the player associate with the concept that he was fighting for people and places that he cared about. While this was perhaps slightly undone by the near identical assassin recruits you trained and promoted, it still increased the player's level of engagement with the setting.

Admit it, you liked seeing other people dive off Tiber Island

There was an overall improvement in the graphical quality of the series as well. While the long draw distance to see vast panoramas has remained fairly constant, the diversity and complexity of the environments has provided some really stunning scenes for the player to view. The fact that the series deals with some pretty amazing architecture definitely doesn't hurt at all, but the art team still manage to pull the detail off with definite skill.

The improvement in the character models and facial appearance is also noteworthy, which was fairly essential given the increased focus on a more cinematic presentation, leading to more close up shots of character's faces that requires that higher level of fidelity. The ability to choose a desired colour scheme for Ezio's outfit was just another small bit of icing on the cake that added a little more character.

So many different colours, yet somehow no outfit looks inconspicuous...

In the first four games, Assassin's Creed moved from wide empty areas to tightly crafted cities. While the impressive nature of the level design of the original game cannot be denied, a narrower focus has probably allowed more players to better appreciate the level of detail and effort that has gone into creating the environments for each game. The presentation of the series has improved along the way even if the scope diminished, and it could be argued that the games became better as a result.

New Screenshot

Just a quick post today in the middle of my Assassin's Creed posts to demonstrate some more of the work I've been doing on The Shattered War. Dialogue has been occupying a vast majority of my time lately, but I've managed to get another level done and have a screenshot for your viewing...

It might look serene, but who knows what's around that next corner?

There are only a few levels I have left to complete, but I'll probably be trying to focus on more dialogue work and getting voice actors to fill the remaining roles for the adventure in the near future.  The vast majority of the dialogue work at the moment is getting the scripts into a readable and understandable format for potential voice actors or getting voice cuts integrated into the game itself. Once that's complete, I'll be putting out a full audition list of all remaining characters that need to be voiced. Stay tuned!

Assassin's Creed Timeline (Part 5) - Narrative and Writing

First things first: Big spoiler alert. I will be discussing the story of all the first four Assassin's Creed games, so if you haven't played everything before Assassin's Creed 3 and don't want events ruined for you, stop reading NOW. 

In my series of posts on Assassin's Creed, I've been talking about each individual game, with some reference to how they fit together. For a couple more posts, I'd like to look at the development of the series of a whole and some specific aspects of design and development. It should come as no surprise to regular readers of this blog that the first thing I want to look at is the writing for the series.

The first game is front loaded with exposition, which is both slightly clunky and very bold. For a AAA title to start off with a lot of dialogue just to set the scene is unusual, but it relies on the unique premise in order to pique the interest of the player and maintain their interest. For the most part, it works. The problem is that this technique is maintained through the entire series, as though the designers either expect players to come in fresh for each title, or to have forgotten what came before. Admittedly, televisions shows often give a recap of previous weeks, and they're often seen only a week apart, as opposed to a year or more as is the case with video games. The manner of delivery in AC is just a little more forced - the writers and cinematic team haven't yet come up with a natural method of giving a recap.

Cue Desmond confused face

An interesting aspect of the writing in AC is that it has multiple layers of storytelling. The primary story of each game is centred around the ancestor whose life Desmond is reliving via the Animus, so far, Altair or Ezio. The storytelling in these is reasonably solid, though there has been a distinct increase in quality as the designers have worked out the best way to use the tools at their disposal to create a cohesive and coherent interactive and cinematic experience.

Outside (and inside) of the main story of the Animus, there are other pieces of narrative that fit into the overall plot. The puzzles that hint to a vast conspiracy tracking through major historical events that many people will recognise helps to push this aspect of the storytelling in a clever fashion. The fact that the player has to work to find these puzzles, and then many contain messages that are encoded with ciphers or written in morse code or the like adds to the flavour, though of course a quick trawl of the Internet can uncover all the answers with minimal effort.

Who would have ever though of delivering conspiracy theories through chess?

Perhaps the biggest weakness of the narrative is that of the overarching plot of the series: some cataclysm that will wipe out the Earth if Desmond doesn't do something to stop it. This was introduced right at the end of the second game, though there were vague hints of this before. The problem with this is that despite every character within the game being so interested in Desmond, and him apparently having many important assassin ancestors, he doesn't really feel that significant to the player. He's a protagonist who the player doesn't really know anything about and never really sees much.

In AC1 Desmond wanders around slowly inside Abstergo. In AC2 he follows Lucy out of Abstergo and jumps around in a warehouse. He does the most in AC:B, where he gets to run around Monteriggioni and around and inside the Colosseum, but then in AC:R does virtually nothing again. The problem isn't just that the players don't really know who Desmond is, but that the modern story is doled out with such huge gaps in between that there isn't any continuity of his story. Even worse is that the intentional ambiguity of the story and the "first" beings is that it obscures key facts. How many people knew that the reason that Desmond stabbed and killed Lucy at the end of Brotherhood was because she had actually switched sides to the Templars? I'm guessing it would be a very small number.

Who are you, Desmond?

The vague nature of the overarching plot is obviously so that the writers can maintain a sense of mystery over the upcoming disaster and the solution to survive it, but this vagueness just comes across as poor writing or their inability to come up with any plausible or concrete. It feels like they're relying solely on this "ancient powerful beings" trope to justify the more extravagant ideas that they can come up with to further the conspiracy and the series.

The "Apple" as shown in AC1 had a vague religious air to it, but this was supplanted in subsequent games by the concept that it was created by some past super race of beings than somehow are still talking to Desmond through his ancestors... or by some method that's never really explained. Inside the Animus they don't seem to be heard by the others he's with, and in Brotherhood they communicate to him directly but no one else seems to hear a thing. It's just... magic. This might seem a little nit picky given some of the stuff that happens, but there's a difference between stretching believability and just throwing all pretenses of reality straight out the window. The later really begins to happen (to the detriment of gameplay) at the end of Brotherhood. Running around and brainwashing/killing enemies using the Apple was not only dull from a gameplay perspective, but didn't really make any sense with what had previously happened.

Don't worry, Ezio, a wizard did it.

The stories of Altair and Ezio, as a counterpoint, are typically well delivered. The way their two lives are brought to a cohesive conclusion at the end of Revelations is particularly satisfying. The only potential drawback here is that it definitely feels as though Ezio's story could have been condensed somewhat. Brotherhood and Revelations may represent different stages of Ezio's life, but the games feel as though they were attempting to artificially extend the storyline without adding a great deal of new content. They feel more like the design team experimenting with new gameplay mechanics while throwing small bits of narrative to fuel experience - ultimately it's just Ezio collecting the Macguffin(s). This isn't to say that the stories are uninteresting, and there are some nice turns in the plots of both, but they really don't push the envelope as much as they coud.

What remains to be seen is how the designers will up the ante with AC3 in their narrative. Hopefully they will push it in a direction that will develop the strength of the "main" plot, or at least provide some clarity in its delivery of that part of the story.

Assassin's Creed Timeline (Part 4) - Revelations

The fourth Assassin's Creed game is the final chapter in the life of Ezio Auditore, seeking to close the story arc started in the second game. Unfortunately for the Revelations (AC:R), it really feels like its primary purpose is to close off those loose ends in the storytelling and to tinker with the edges of the series' formula. I'll be steering clear of any real plot spoilers, so feel free to read to keep reading even if you haven't played it.

The premise of this game is that Desmond's brain is going into overload thanks to the countless hours he has been putting into the Animus machine reliving the memories of his ancestors, so he can no longer tell the difference between his own reality and that of Altair and Ezio. This means living out the end of both their tales, as well as coming to terms with his own past.

AC:R is set almost exclusively in Constantinople (Istanbul), following the single city plan of its predecessor. While the change in architecture is a definite bonus, Constantinople feels significantly smaller than Rome and there are certain areas that the player where the player must traipse back and forth repeatedly. While some effort has been made to speed up crossing the city with ziplines that allow the player to traverse the rooftops more rapidly, these tend to be in short supply in the areas that are covered a lot. Furthermore, it's quite easy to explore a large amount of Constantinople from very early on in the game, and as such players don't get that sense of gradually exploring and uncovering more locations as time passes. While this supports the open nature of the world, it ends up detracting from the game rather than adding to it. Not being able to go somewhere makes players want it more.

Too much freedom can be a bad thing...

Retained from the previous game is the concept of assassin towers and assassin recruits, allowing you to train and call upon assassins whenever you like. The mission system has also received an upgrade, allowing Ezio to manage the assassins to conduct a campaign to regain control of European cities from the templars. This actually makes the missions feel a bit more "real" and make the player feel a little more invested in them by making sure that missions are conducted on a regular basis to ensure a city regained does not fall back into templar hands. Assassins can also go on "master" missions, where Ezio will accompany and assist the recruit to train them, which is a really nice touch. These missions offer a different angle to the gameplay and really let the player take on the role of mentor.

Who would have thought teaching could be so much fun?

The mechanics and controls have changed again slightly for AC:R, allowing players to more easily wield and use melee and ranged weapons in combat. This is a valuable thing, as the difficult bar of the combat is raised again, and there are some enemies that can really dish out serious damage in a short period of time. While this increased challenge is a good thing, the feedback from the combat feels extraordinarily weak. Sometimes it is possible to lose a large amount of health very quickly without even realising, leaving the player wondering what they did wrong.

AC:R also continues to add to Ezio's arsenal, providing even more options for dispatching, disabling or distracting opponents. The ability to easily throw enemies to the ground, use them as mobile free-running obstacles or dispatch them with the countless weapons in your arsenal really gives players the freedom to fight in pretty much whichever style they choose. AC:R does potentially take it to a point where there are too many weapons, so you can end up spending time thinking about your options rather than simply doing. The addition of bombs and bomb crafting adds a new strategic element to missions, but for the most part they really don't seem to be worth the effort and micromanagement required. It's an extra level of fuss over and above the effort of recruiting and training assassins, and that already pulls the player out of the meat of the "real" game enough.

I can do without these

Another major new mechanic introduced to the game is that notoriety has been replaced with Templar Awareness. When this meter fills, then crimes can result in templars attacking one of the Assassin Dens, which are the replacement for the Assassin Towers in AC:B. These attacks result in a tower defense minigame where you must place assassins to defend against the onslaught of attacking templars to retain control of your base. Unfortunately it's not a very well designed or particularly interesting tower defense game, and people wanted to play a tower defense game, they'd buy a tower defense game.

To change up the gameplay, you get a few sequences where you play as Altair and Desmond, which are a nice touch, but these really seem to come too infrequently to feel like the game is living up to the promise of its advertising, or even the premise of its story. The game is still almost exclusively about Ezio, with Altair and Desmond feeling relegated to minor characters. In the case of Desmond, this is actually a relief, because his gameplay elements are like a first person platform game crossed with tetris. First person platforming is almost always a bad idea, and AC:R is not one of the rare exceptions that makes it fun or enjoyable.

And I can definitely do without this

The presentation of the game has been stepped up another increment; the cinematics and storytelling elements are arguably stronger than previous games, and the designers have managed to weave in some really visually impressive sequences and places. A giant underground cavern complete with waterfalls is one of the most spectacular settings in the game to date, and given the locales it has covered, that's saying something. Constantinople itself is wonderfully realised, and definite justice is given to the architecture and aesthetic of the city. The music also picks up again, with the addition of Lorne Balfe to co-write Jesper Kyd injecting some new musical ideas into the soundtrack, which really help the feeling of the game after the somewhat lacklustre music of AC:B.


Some of the gameplay borders on the fantastically ridiculous, but there are some great missions to be had here. One of the amusing highlights is Ezio taking on the role of one of the much hated minstrels from previous games, complete with self-aware out-of-tune singing, indicating the game doesn't need to take itself too seriously all the time. The only real drawback is the "full synchronisation" requirements of AC:R. If the player does not meet the extra requirements of the mission, then they only achieve 50% synchronisation rather than 100%. This makes the player feel punished for not achieving it, rather than feeling as though they gain a benefit for doing so. There also appear to be no additional memory bonuses granted to the player, which means full synchronisation feels like a chore rather than an avenue for additional fun.

Ezio picked the right career. He's no minstrel.

Overall, AC:R is an enjoyable entry in the series, but it's definitely the weakest game except for the first one. It's quite short, experiments with a number of new ideas that don't quite work, but still manages to get the core experience of Assassin's Creed right. The main problem with AC:R is that it doesn't do terribly much new that feels innovative or dramatically better than its predecessors. It's still a lot of fun and delivers more of what players have come to expect, but never really feels like it makes a step forward to really grab the player and whet their appetite for this year's full sequel.

If you've been interested in the series at all, it's worth playing, but it's probably not something that would warrant a full-price purchase. At the very least, it leaves the player satisfied that they've brought the stories of Altair and Ezio to a satisfying conclusion, and it does so in a manner that is fun and interesting to play.

I'll be looking at the series as a whole in a couple of upcoming posts, covering gameplay, presentation and storytelling, as these four games offer a really interesting insight and example of how a series can change and adapt while retaining true to its roots.

Assassin's Creed Timeline (Part 3) - Brotherhood

Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood (AC:B) is a seamless transition from AC2, starting immediately after the events of the previous game. A brief narrated video is all the player gets in terms of an introduction before the game thrusts them into the game proper, back into the role of Ezio Auditore and Desmond Miles.

Unlike the previous two games, AC:B is set almost entirely in a single location, the city of Rome. There are a few short segments in alternate locations, but Rome is where the bulk of the gameplay occurs. The introduction is one of these, but unfortunately is one of the weakest part of the game. It doesn't offer much in the way of a meaningful tutorial for new players, but also doesn't really cater to existing players in a terribly interesting or engaging manner.  Once this is over, then the player heads to Rome and the player mostly remains here. This turns out to be both a blessing and a curse.

The exploration aspects of the game are significantly reduced as a result of this single location, and there's not quite the same sense of wonder as exploring locations like Jerusalem or Venice. The modelling of landmarks like Castel Sant'Angelo, Roman Forum and the mighty Colosseum is very impressive and detailed, but it doesn't have quite the large scale spectacle of the previous two games. There are also a number of missions and activities that see Ezio covering the same ground repeatedly, so there are certain areas that the player can feel they are seeing too frequently.

Rome is beautifully created, but I wanted more big vistas

Conversely, this tighter focus means the player becomes more at home in the setting of game, and is able to recognise and navigate via landmarks much easier. This leads to a welcome familiarity, and provides a sense of growing in knowledge just as Ezio would have gained in his journey to becoming a master assassin. The player can learn routes and quicker means to move about, which can give them an edge when trying to escape from guards or hunt a target.

As with previous games, AC:B does briefly remove most of the player's equipment a short way into the game, but even more so than AC2, is very quick to return it again. This is largely a power balance issue, reducing Ezio's health and his better weapons that would allow him to kill enemies with little effort. The good thing is that Ezio's range of equipment is mostly given back fairly swiftly, the main thing players have to wait for is the improved swords, maces and daggers that are faster and more effective against enemies. Even better is that the player is given a few extra weapons with which to dispatch enemies. The addition of the crossbow is particularly nice, especially given it was featured as a weapon in the opening/trailer cinematic for the original Assassin's Creed, but had never been available until now.

About time we got this!

Freedom of movement and the variety of moves available also increases once again in AC:B, as does the difficulty of the enemies. The game requires players to implement a variety of tactics to overcome enemies; a further improvement from AC2 where it was still sometimes possibly to defeat opponents through brute force and/or perseverance. Quick kills and kill streaks pose a new means to end lives, and the ability to leap from horseback to horseback assassinating enemies is somehow far more enjoyable than it has a right to be.

These killing abilities come in handy when attempting to kill a fleeing templar captain, which happens when attempting to establish a new assassin tower within Rome. This new gameplay element involves Ezio trying to get close to the target without being spotted, as when Ezio is seen, the captain will attempt to flee to the safety of the templar controlled tower, and Ezio must kill him before he does. Doing allows the player to recruit new assassin allies, which can be summoned to assist during missions to kill targets without Ezio have to dirty his hands or attraction too much attention. These allies can make some missions laughably straightforward, but it's a nice extra assassination tool to have in the player's arsenal.

With friends like these... we'll need some more enemies

Another highlight is include the addition of "full synchronisation", where extra "memories" (read: missions from Ezio's past relating to a love interest named Cristina Vespucci) become available upon completing a mission while meeting certain additional requirements. These can include: finishing under a time limit, killing enemies in a certain fashion, not being detected, taking a limited amount (or no) damage, among others. This is an excellent way to pose an additional challenge to players without them feeling too penalised if they do not succeed. These bonus missions also serve to flesh out Ezio's character a little more; he really does start to feel like a fully realised character who has evolved from the brash youth of AC2.


One area where the game does take an unfortunate step back is mobile blending, again returning to the simplistic "hit A to blend" option to hide withing a moving group of people. The game also starts to fall apart a bit in the tail end with a series of missions that are fairly simplistic and a little bit tedious. The management of numerous assassins by sending them on missions and training them up can also feel a little repetitive and dull, even though they are fun to call on in the middle of missions or just generally roaming about the city.

"And then I stole his horse... "

The only other real shortcoming is that it doesn't really feel like it offers much that is terribly new or innovative in long term gameplay. There are a few segments where the gameplay is switched up with Leonardo's war machines, or a few different mechanics, but none of these really offer anything that feels like a huge step forward for the series. It really feels like an extension of AC2 rather than a whole new entry to the series, even though the designers did step up a notch in terms of mechanics and even the storytelling and overall presentation feels more polished. The drawback is that the ending once again feels rushed and the story of Desmond is notably lacking in content and context throughout most of the game.

AC:B is very enjoyable game despite feeling like "more of the same" of its predecessor. There are changes and improvements made around the edges, and Ubisoft really seem to have filled out the gameplay and getting sufficient variety into the mechanics and the art of killing to give the player and Ezio a complete and manageable set of tools with which to dispatch his enemies. Stick through the slightly laborious opening to get into the meat of the game, and you'll be glad you did.

Assassin's Creed Timeline (Part 2) - Assassin's Creed 2

Picking up from where the last post on Assassin's Creed left off, Assassin's Creed 2 steps in right after the end of the first game. With a brief bit of exposition, the game throws you into the role of Desmond Miles, and you're witness to the birth of the new "protagonist" for the game, one Ezio Auditore. Then you're thrust back into the modern world, and forced to escape the building of your captors. This would likely be a little bit jarring for people new to the series, but it serves as a quick entry point into the series for those who missed the first game. Tossing them into the deep end, but at the same time meaning that they don't actually need to backstory of the first game in order for this one to make sense. It's a not a bad trick, and straddles a nice line between continuity for old players and introduction for newcomers.

What it does significantly better than its predecessor is the way that it introduces gameplay elements to the player. While Assassin's Creed (AC1) made players go through a series of tutorials to learn the mechanics, AC2 integrates those tutorials with the story in order to gradually add to the player's repertoire and push the narrative at the same time. While this could be annoying if the player were forced to run around as a brash youth delivering letters and beating up miscreants, it doesn't take too long before Ezio starts to become a real assassin and get down to the business of stalking and killing his targets.

Ezio goes from apprentice to master assassin

This is where things start to get interesting. The concept of stealth and getting close to a target have been reworked significantly. Whereas previously stealth involved joining a specific group of white robed scholars by pressing a button, the player is now able to actively and organically blend with a group of people by walking into the middle of the group and keeping pace with them. This subtle change makes a huge difference to the flow of the game, and makes the player participate in the act of hiding within a group of people rather than simply pushing a button and watching it happen. It is possible to fall out of step with the group, which can be annoying, but again this actually makes the player feel like they're actively being engaged by the gameplay mechanic rather than simply pushing a button and then waiting. The similar improvements to escaping from guards (which includes making it a more challenging task) make the player feel more like an assassin who is actively working to fly under the radar.

The game is also fairly keen to give you new assassination techniques: killing someone from a ledge by leaping on top of them, hanging onto the edge of the building and pulling your unsuspecting prey off, or killing someone from the safety of a hay bale. A second blade to assassinate two people at once is also a welcome addition, especially when combined with the aforementioned leap. These were a massive step forward for the series as well. These really add to the stealth aspects of the game, and are wonderful for those players who love to spend a lot of time doing parkour along rooftops. No longer do you have to get down on the ground and potentially lose the element of surprise, but you simply leap down and kill your target in a single move. The addition of poison and a pistol felt less useful and interesting for the most part, but were a nice touch to have something different at your disposal.

Going down...

Timed race missions are a fairly mundane addition to the gameplay, as the scope for varied paths to succeed are limited, so it's basically just learning the correct route to succeed. Courier missions are much the same. The assassination missions are where things get more interesting, and there is a bit of variance in how these play out, requiring the player to use different skills in order to find, track and kill their target.

Timed platforming in the assassin tombs is a distinct lowlight, as are the chase scenes present in these, as catching your prey is a fairly counterintuitive process, and is poorly done to boot. It's impossible to catch a fleeing templar except at a specific point, so even if you're ahead of the game and theoretically have gotten ahead of the person you are chasing, they magically jump forward in the chase sequence to make it "fair". The same applies if you fall a long way behind. The templar will obediently wait for you at the next checkpoint until you figure out the alternate route needed to reach him. It feels cheap, contrived and unnecessary.

Chasing these guys was less fun

While some of these side options for gameplay aren't the highlight of fun within the whole experience, when combined with the main missions of the game, they supply a lengthy and varied experience for players. The game isn't just a visual sandbox like AC1, but is a truly flexible and free flowing sandbox where you get to play out many different scenarios, and you can even attempt many of them using different approaches. Want to stalk your target and kill them in secret? Sure. Want to draw your sword and charge in the front gate, killing everyone in your path? Sure, that's allowable in many cases as well. With an increased number of tools and gameplay mechanics at your disposal, AC2 allows freedom in a way that AC1 never managed.

Another positive I have to mention are the improvements in the presentation. Gone are the length expositional dying cutscenes. While these were okay in AC1, the fact that they were really the only way to push forward the story made the storytelling a bit forced. Also, the fact that every victim would give you a long winded speech felt somewhat ridiculous. The storytelling is much more frequent and you also get some information delivered through conversations you hear while preparing for an assassination rather than direct exposition to Ezio or the player. The experience feels much more realistic and believable, and as a result is a far more engaging tale. The music also deserves a special mention, as there are some truly excellent tracks from Jesper Kyd that play during the game. The track "Heart" that is featured when the title of the game is finally displayed (which takes a little while) is one of the many standouts.

While the ending of the game feels a little bit lacklustre, the journey throughout is superb and provides a great deal of breadth and depth in experiences. It's also quite a long game - you can expect to rack up many hours exploring and completing missions. AC2 delivers on the promise of the first game. It expands the gameplay and mechanics to let the player not only let the player travel and free run through expansive and wonderfully created cityscapes, but to truly adopt the mantle of a master assassin.