Perhaps if it was more integrated into the historical story? Instead of getting yanked out of the Animus to have the sci-fi adventures it was presented to you as you discovered more of the backstory?

Edit: vvv Ah, but they're only dead because of the sci-fi story. If that wasn't there, you'd be more willing to grow fond of the people in the history sections.

I think that if I had only played the first game, I would likely agree that the scifi aspect sucked, but I've played as far as AC:B at this point, and the scifi bits are what I'm looking forward to. I've heard that AC:R was a bit of a disappointment compared with AC2 and AC:B, but I've really grown fond of those folks operating the pirate animus. Far more so than any of the people I've met in the animus.

I suppose, that might partially be to do with the fact that the world outside the animus is still happening, but inside, all I can do is replicate what's already happened. The people are dead either way.

Definitely good of them to keep that angle in there. I mean, that is the main story arch of the series.

You say that like it's always a good thing. Like I should want to play pipe dream in my shooter, or enjoy a dancing mini-game in my open world action title. These "variances" actually have happened and annoyed the fuck out of me each time.

AC2 wasn't that bad, but it did throw in a ton of filler meant to add "varying gameplay" that I personally found much more monotonous and boring than the original game. You can disagree of course, that's your right. For me though the original was 10 missions or so of using social stealth to kill dudes and then it was over. It lasted no longer than I wanted it to and kept to the core gameplay. I liked that.

AC2 had be buying art, running errands, ten times more talking... it just felt bloated.

I disagree. The topic of this thread is "Assassin's Creed 1" so it's pretty clear that OP is asking about the first game and most probably haven't played any other yet. And our answer was also very clear: we didn't like sci-fi part in AC1. OP also asked whether it gets better and we answered that alas, it's quite bad in the whole game. You (and some others as well) said that it does get better in next parts of the game. And I appreciate your point of view - it's very good that you mentioned that next games are better - it should help OP (and other people as well) But nevertheless the question was about AC1 so whoever played that game is entitled to share his opinion. Knowledge about other games is not mandatory.

Just to keep it short: my point is: I don't like sci-fi part in AC1 yours (correct me if I'm wrong): the sci-fi part in the whole series is well implemented and very interesting. Those points do not contradict each other.

Varied gameplay is what keeps games interesting. How it's varied depends upon the genre of the game. For FPS games that often takes the form of pacing, where you have short periods where you're not shooting anything, but looking for an exit or a hidden passage way, to get you lulled into a false sense of security, before throwing in some more enemies.

It's one of the things that makes games like Quake and Doom so much fun.

Likewise in this case, it's a game about assassins, but he also needs information and sometimes the best way is sneaking in someplace, it's completely boring to have the same mission style each and every mission. The later games were so much more fun because it wasn't the same mission over and over again in different areas.

And of course developers can get it wrong, but good games always have some form of variety to keep the player engaged. Unless of course you're a fan of office work simulators.
If you haven't played more than the first game, then you don't really have any basis for judging the time outside the animus as it's a set up for things which haven't yet happened. AC1 had more serious issues that one should worry about in that game. Namely, the complete lack of variety in the portions where you actually play.

One of these days I'm going to have to try and finish it, but that variety aspect is far more problematic than the time outside the animus.

I see a lot of people in here decrying it as BS or pointless, but since they haven't played any of the other games, they aren't in any position to judge how well it worked. It's sort of like watching the first 20 minutes or so of psycho and complaining about it being a movie about embezzling money.

Last time I checked, this topic was called "Assassin's Creed 1". If it was "AC series", than your points would be valid.

It is. But if you actually bothered to read his post, his complaint is that there isn't really anything to do outside the animus chamber in the first game.

Yes, it's relevant that it doesn't really get much better in the first game. But, writing it off with such derision when you haven't played the second game, doesn't put you in a position to make that assertion.

The time outside the animus in the first game, is just so that you remembered that it exists. In latter games it becomes more important and the scifi aspect gets to be more compelling. They also make it a bit less clunky. For the series to work, you need to have that exposure early on that this is about developing skills for the real world.

What's worse is that by telling him that, it's more likely that he won't play the second or third games which are a lot more fun, where he gets to do a bit of running around like in the animus, but outside of the animus.

So, yes, if you haven't played any of the other games in the series, you shouldn't be commenting, because it doesn't get to the heart of what he's asking about.

This thread is a good start to the upcoming week. It's going to be juicy!

I may dissapoint you, I EOT here. :P

You forgot to say, "Bullshit."

;)

You know what I have better things to do with my time than to educate somebody that's going this far out of his way to be ignorant.

The OP is not well served by being spread this load of manure that you're selling. As I posted earlier, you're not answering the question that he was asking about.

You still fail to understand that sentences:

1. Story in AC1 is shit (mine)
2. It gets better (yours)

don't contradict each other. And you try to deny the right to say "AC1 story is shit" to everybody who hasn't played the whole franchise. And that just doesn't add up.

And it all started when you called people who didn't like AC1 and stopped playing all AC games after it "elitist whatever".

Honestly now your just being over protective and childish.
The out of animus interaction in 1 is a little lackluster yes but it's not actually bad as a story telling device on the proviso you do actually talk to Lucy and Vidic till they say it's time for bed and read all their emails after being locked in. A boatload of the background is set up in AC1 so I'm sorry you feel being removed from the animus for 10 whole minutes in a 10-20 hour game ruins it enough for you not to finish it... If you hate it that much SKIP IT FFS all you have to do is go straight to bed walk out log into the computer and go back to bed to be moved on to the next chapter each time. Thats maybe 1 minutes work every couple of hours. Hell you can even skip most of the stuff in missions you only need what 3 pieces of info to move on in the mission? If your not feeling completionist you can probably complete it in half an hour per kill

Yup. Skipping the ending sequence, which is like 0.5% of the game in Mass Effect 3, suddenly, makes that ending better.

You are saying that having no explanation at all (skipping) is better than the story itself. And it's argument pro for the story.

Yeah.

If you like the story in AC1, that's ok. But please, FOR FUCKS SAKE, stop denying everyone's right to say otherwise. Actual EOT this time :P