hedwards: Fluff?
You mean fluff like varied game play?
StingingVelvet: 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.
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.
hedwards: If you haven't played the other games,
you're exactly the sort of person that shouldn't be commenting on the scifi angle as it's a story that presumably spans the entire series from AC to AC3, I haven't played AC:R or AC3 yet, but it does span through AC:B so, it probably goes all the way.
Ghorpm: 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.
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.