Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
And all three have different stories.
AC 4 is a Pirate's Creed Game not Assassin's Creed Game.
Best AC game is AC2
The story around Pope Borgia wasn't quite that exciting. Even the Templar were reduced to mere missions. Though the beginning was great, the later game wouldn't stand the test of time.
AC Brotherhood was way too artificial and customized for the casual gamer, Ubisoft's source of money number one. Playing AC Brotherhood felt more like playing a superhero during the Italian Renaissance.
In AC Revelations a lot of stuff was back to good again, gameplay with surprises, the whole setting, and whole ambiance has been improving the atmosphere immensely. They tried to make it that way, so it plays again like one game, not like the continuous test parkour AC Brotherhood is.
Not really, it's just a snake in the garden in AC1. A massive plot hole is the eagle vision that was meant to detect the intention of others and various items around the world, it detected Robert de Sable, The Merchant king of Damasus and so forth as red, yet not the Grand Master of the Templar order until right at the end.
If it had worked as it should the Grand Master of the Templar order would of had his head mounted on a pike somewhere before the game had even started. So in that regard AC2 was just better.