Why Everyone Prefers Assassin’s Creed II to the Original – Except Me

A game disc in each hand, I stand in front of my well-worn PS3 with a dilemma. When it comes to Ubisoft’s Assassin’s Creed series, I’ve always had two favourites; the original game, Assassin’s Creed, and its immediate sequel, Assassin’s Creed II. But which deserves the title of ‘King’ of the series: the flamboyant Ezio da Firenze, or the arrogant Altaïr Ibn-La'Ahad? It’s a tough one to call. When it comes to popular opinion, the debate is apparently pretty one-sided. No matter who you ask, the answer always seems to be the same – Assassin’s Creed II. In fact, many people were so quick to answer me, it seems as if there is little to debate about.

There are various reasons why this appears to be the case. Some found the often repetitive tasks before each assassination in AC of scaling the viewpoints, aiding citizens, pick-pocketing information from lackeys, and listening in to informative conversations, a turn off – one which was not removed but made much less repetitive in the second game.

For others, the introduction of many more side quests in AC II, such as the improvements of the family villa, or the variety of other mini storylines to follow, made the second game a much more interesting, complete game. Another aspect that came out was a comparison of the main protagonists and their character development. Ezio’s Italian charm made him a much more likeable character than the often cocky Altäir. The more complete character arc of Ezio, following him from birth, through his discovery of the order, to his maturity as an assassin, meant that Ezio was easy to connect to. With Altäir, you jump right in to his selfish actions which cause his demotion in the Order of Assassins – not exactly a great introduction!

A wider variety of weapons are introduced in AC II (including the fantastic two-handed warhammer – now there’s a way to ‘assassinate’ someone!), as well as a bunch of new combos and moves. Also, when it comes to the awesome vistas from the viewpoints, AC II wins easily. As much as the views in the original were pretty cool, panning around renaissance cities such as Florence, Venice and Rome totally blew your mind. It made scaling those all-important outlooks pretty worthwhile. Ubisoft seemed to have taken a lot of feedback from players of AC, developing the stuff we liked to make it better, and cutting back on the repetitive content that made it harder to connect, creating a game that was thoroughly enjoyable.

Given all this, it’s hard to imagine how anyone could argue that the first Assassin’s Creed was better. Well, for some strange reason, I am going to have to disagree with you all. The original AC was always more enjoyable for me than its sequel. Why, I hear you ask? It’s simple really. Despite the repetitiveness of Altaïr’s tasks, despite the great improvements and developments in Assassin’s Creed II, the original always felt more true to the concept than the others. In other words, the original felt more, well, assassin-y, and true to the idea of accessing Desmond’s ancestral memories.

Everything about the original gameplay revolved around acting as much like an assassin as possible. It made sense that before every assassination Altaïr, the master assassin, would have to go through the routine of assessing the area through the viewpoints, gaining allies through helping citizens, and acquiring as much information as possible by interrogating, pick-pocketing, and eavesdropping. Although doing this was repetitive, removing this repetition from Assassin’s Creed II took away from the incredibly well-structured concept of the original. Even the fight dynamics in Assassin’s Creed were focused upon subtlety and focus, whereas Assassin’s Creed II and its main character, Ezio, were much more gung-ho, allowing him to become more like Conan the Barbarian than a trained assassin.

As well as this, the game tutorials, and interface, were much more geared towards the concept of a computerised access of memories. To step outside the ‘Assassin’s Code’ of subtlety in Assassin’s Creed was always disastrous, and the player always had to plan each move carefully, or risk losing all important synchronisation. For Ezio, synchronisation felt more like health, and keeping him alive was an altogether easier prospect than keeping Desmond synced to Altaïr. The markers on the game map in cities and whilst travelling acted like signposts left by the technology Desmond was plugged into, showing him memories which, if accessed, would allow him better synchronisation with his Holy Land ancestor Altaïr. Cutting down on these did make AC II more seamless, and less repetitive, but made the game feel less like the concept’s intentions. As interesting and plot-developing as the variety of side quests were in AC II, they seemed to me an unnecessary aside from a plotline where the intention of those accessing Desmond’s ancestors’ memories was to get as much important information as quickly as possible so as to get there before their enemies. I never connected with Ezio’s villa renovations – which seemed more like something out of The Sims, or even an episode of MTV’s Cribs.

So, stood in front of my PS3, which game would I choose to insert into my dusty console to replay? Which do I think deserves to be described as the best in the series? Despite popular opinion, it has to be Assassin’s Creed. Yes, Assassin’s Creed II did develop on and improve the gameplay and content of the original. Yes, much of Assassin’s Creed was repetitive, and often laboriously difficult. But for me, that repetitive content was an essential part of a game which introduced a concept that was completely original to the gaming world, a concept which fascinated and engaged many people, and gained the Ubisoft series a loyal group of players that went on to play the other sequels. Assassin’s Creed was unique to its time. Standing alone, Assassin’s Creed was by far the more unique game, and truer to the Assassin’s Creed plot and concept – by a long, long way.