My wife and I absolutely love the modern Prince of Persia trilogy, especially Sands of Time and Warrior Within. We liked the second one and also rather enjoyed Sands of Time.
I have yet to play the 2008 Prince of Persia game, but will soon and expect at least a somewhat neat experience.
My question is about Assassin’s Creed, though. I know the same company made this game and its sequel, but are these Prince of Persia-like platformers or something else?
What other games are they like? I’ll be playing on the PC using Xbox controllers if that matters.
They’re similar, but not similar enough that I’d posit a fan of one would necessarily be a fan of the other – though certainly there’s significant overlap in the audiences.
Assassin’s Creed revolves in large part around puzzling out how to climb structures and get across town with your abilities. This can range from the simple, such as just getting on top of something to reveal more of your map (though it can be rather difficult on occasion), to much more complex (races, avoiding being seen, using it to set up assassinations, etc). There are, of course, some times where you have to get between point A and B as soon as possible. Other times you use the buildings as an aid to not being seen.
There is combat, but a lot of it is rather simple, you usually spam counter, and if you can’t use one of the counters for the specific weapon you’re facing. Most of the interesting stuff (IMO) comes in the quick kills when an enemy has just noticed you but not gone into alert, or before they notice you at all (i.e. the Assassination part) – there are numerous ways to kill people if they haven’t noticed you, from crossbow to wrist mounted gun (makes noise and will probably get you caught by everyone else), to jumping on them from rooftops to pulling them into stacks of hay. If enemies see the bodies, they’ll start looking for you.
They’re very good games, and clearly share similar inspirations in the platforming elements, but they’re pretty fundamentally different IMO. Not the least of which way is that AC is an open world game with some linear levels, whereas Prince of Persia is almost solely linear. I’d guess you’ll probably like them, but I don’t think it’s a sure bet.
Also, the first one really wasn’t great, but I’m not sure I’d advocate avoiding it. At the very least I enjoyed watching the story a lot more than I would reading it, but I can’t ignore that the gameplay flow was atrocious and plodding at many points (mostly due to lack of variety).
AC2 >> AC 1 But I’d still recommend you play through the series starting with AC1, moving to AC 2 (you’ll appreciate the improvements) and unless you absolutely can’t have enough Desmond/Ezio and are desperate for more of essentially the same - I would skip the 2 AC2 subtitled entries.
Ubi turned the series into a yearly thing and put out two sub-titled AC2 entries focused on Ezio and Desmond, and well, like I said, unless you adore the lore and the game and can’t get enough, I’d skip them.
I played through most of both and got totally burned out on the series to the point where my interest for AC3 was 0 until very recently. And my interest isn’t very high even now.
So go AC1 -> AC2 -> Read the story of the two subtitled games -> AC3.
In terms of a comparison with Prince of Persia… PoP is a much more linear experience, with a lot more emphasis on action platforming. AC features a sandbox world that you get to explore at, more or less your leisure, while tackling quest missions (usually assassinations) on the side which moves the game’s narrative forward.
Other than Ubisoft’s blunder with the yearly release thing for the series, the only thing I can complain about is the premise of Desmond and the animus machine (this isn’t really a spoiler - it’s explained in the first game within the first 5 minutes but just in case…)
The premise is that scientist have created a machine that can allow you to relive the life of an ancestor - DNA memory as it where. Ridiculous, B-movie junk sci-fi stuff. The characters involved in this near future world tie in politically with what happens in the past, once you start to explore the lives of your ancestors, but it’s otherwise nonsense that I wish would have never been added to the game. The lore would have bee more interesting if the game was purely about how the assasin’s guild was created/was involved in various historical periods, IMHO.
The games as a whole are a ton of fun, narrative issues aside, they keep you engaged in the mechanics of the game, leaving room for mastering aspects of exploration and combat, while throwing in new toys to play with as well as providing new situations which force you to try new things.
That’s actually what happened to me, as well. I didn’t even finish the last Enzio game. I wanted to be stoked about AC3 but from what it seems, it’s going to be a USA USA USA Rawr Freedom!! fest. The developers say that it’s not, that the Assassin will kill on both sides, but I have yet to see anything whatsoever that proves that.
Some of the sequences are very similar to sequences in Prince of Persia. E.g. pull a level which starts a timer and then try to run through an obstacle course before time runs out. There are fewer giant saw blades or pits full of spikes, though!