Sections

Assassin’s Creed: first game is the ‘purest,’ says creator

Tuesday, 31st July 2012 12:20 GMT By Dave Cook

Assassin’s Creed creator Patrice Désilets has explained why he feels the first game in the saga is the purest and why he feels it surpasses other entries in the series.

In an interview, Désilets – formally of Ubisoft – reveals why he feels so strongly about the first Assassin’s Creed: “I like the first Assassin’s Creed because it’s the purest one. There’s a bunch of stories that you can have, but it’s all in your head. You have to create your own adventures.”

“Whereas in Assassin’s Creed II,” Désilets continued, “we created the adventures for you and you’re following them. For me, the first one is an amazing toy. The second one is the real game with rules and missions and it’s really precise. But personally I like the poetry of the first one. It’s pure.”

Assassin’s Creed 3 is out October 30. What do you think? Does it look more pure than the original?

Thanks Edge-Online.

Latest

9 Comments

  1. Demigod

    Except making your own stories isn’t always a good thing, especially when you are playing a named and somewhat fleshed out character. You want to progress the story to see how their story their character progresses.
    Assassins creed 1 is a fun game, in parts, but fails in that the “side quests” that you actually need to do to progress are all the same in the three cities , pickpocket, beat up, save woman and repeat in each distinct all to unlock one more assassination. The basic mechanics are there and can be fun but got monotonous fast.
    AS2 may have fed us an adventure but it worked so much better because we had more purpose and more variety in what to do.

    #1 2 years ago
  2. Moonwalker1982

    To me it was a huge huge dissappointment and my faith in sequels really wasn’t big. Until ACII came out and it turned out to be great.

    #2 2 years ago
  3. TheBlackHole

    I loved it. AC1 was one of my favourite games that year. I’ve enjoyed the sequels, but the first stands up on its own.

    #3 2 years ago
  4. freedoms_stain

    The thing about the 1st game is this, good ideas, fantastic world design, bad gameplay.

    I can forgive the niggles of AC1 because it was the 1st game in the series, it was ambitious and it fell short in a bunch of categories, but on balance I mostly enjoyed the game.

    2, and Brotherhood, some things have changed, but personally I keep finding the games a let down. Combat is still really crappy (imo) and I still find the auto-parkour tedious, these are the things for me they need to make fun for me to want to spend more than £5 on the games. I also find it strange that they still haven’t included some basic stealth options in the game when so many of the fucking missions mandate DO NOT BE DETECTED.

    I’d also like to see an end to “escape the circle” type alert events, not just in AC but all games that use them.

    I got a crossbow, Can I please aim it myself? pretty please? How about ballistics, critical headshot multipliers and decreasing damage over range instead of making it a 15 foot auto-aim auto-kill piece of shit?

    One of the biggest criticisms about the 1st game was the repetitive nature of the pre-assassination reconnaissance you had to do, but rather than just make it more interesting they pretty much ripped it out of the game in exchange for hand holding. That kind of sucks.

    Oh, and can we PLEASE have difficulty options in the next game? I completed Brotherhood a few weeks ago and it was ridiculously fucking easy from start to finish with no option for a harder difficulty – lame.

    #4 2 years ago
  5. absolutezero

    I just for once would like to do a full scale assassination on a high value target and not make a massive spectacle out of it.

    Imagine being able to use some degree of Hitman style tools to take out specific targets with pieces of the World, poisoning food, pushing off bridges anything other than charging straight into a huge group and jump stabbing someone. Or getting spotted miles before even getting near a target and having to counter kill 50 guys.

    They built the huge beautiful World and you just start suspecting its all a waste of time because you just pulled a stupidly over the top murder in broad daylight in the middle of a huge crowd and now you can just walk about.

    #5 2 years ago
  6. Gheritt White

    I agree with TheBlackHole. AC1 is still my fave of the series, repetition and all, although it’s closely followed by the sublime AC:B.

    #6 2 years ago
  7. Cobra951

    I remember watching video reviews for AC1. While the reviewers were droning on about shallowness and incompleteness, all I could think of was how much I wanted to play what I was seeing! I think this is why the game was so successful, despite its well-known shortcomings. The action looked too new and inviting to pass up, no matter what else was wrong with the product. It was one hell of a first step in the right direction. As he said, a terrific toy, if not quite a full game.

    #7 2 years ago
  8. roadkill

    I agree with the creator. :)

    #8 2 years ago
  9. Fnoros

    @6: the assassins in the game are based off of a real group that operated during the crusades. the public spectacle was the entire point of their assassinations, it was meant to send a clear and public message. However, the difference between real life and the game is that the assassins were expected to either kill themselves or die fighting afterwards, but that might not make for the funnest (or longest) game in the world.

    #9 2 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.