The game is guilty of all the usual dialogue surrounding awesome and cool and based Ubisoft collectathons. I will just discuss why I think this game is better than the first while also highlighting some problems that I believe are unique to Assassin's Creed II.

The biggest and most obvious improvements are from gameplay changes and additions. The new addition that had the greatest impact on gameplay and just simply my enjoyment of the game is the inclusion of more assassination techniques. In the first game, assassination boiled down to walking up next to someone, stabbing them, and walking away. The build up towards the assassination attempt is what made the game as the actual killing was quite boring. In Assassin’s Creed 2, you get to jump from ledges and pull people off ledges and… I guess they really just added interactions with ledges. A simple change yet very important as it opens up the ways you approach playing the game a lot more. You can actually have the ability to be stealthy and sneaky if you are able to lead from unseen places to kill.

The parkour in this game was also greatly improved over the first. Though it still has massive flaws, it feels a whole lot better to run around in this game. You move significantly faster while performing actions like climbing and you have the ability to parkour off and on things you were unable to in the first game. Additionally, it seems like they put a little bit more work into creating environments that would be more interesting to traverse. It still has the problem of buildings repeating which causes the late game to become a real drag as all you’re doing is climbing the same buildings you already have 10 other times. However, there is significantly less repetition than there was in the first game, which is a meaningful thing to say as the game itself is much bigger.

A complaint I do have for this game, compared to the first, is found within the combat. Something about the combat in this game really bothered me. In the first game, the combat was quite fun even with how repetitive it was. It felt really good to perform counter attacks and the really basic combos, there was some weight going on. This game changes a couple things though. The combat feels lighter and the timing for moves in combat just seems sort of… off. This is not a situation of, “I can’t perform the combos, so I think the game is broken.” No, I can do all the things the game asks for just fine. The problem is that I needed to adjust myself. The rhythm to the combo attacks and counterattacks, which is supposed to be determined by visual and audio ques during the fight (mostly just the clink of swords hitting) do not actually match when you are supposed to attack like they do in the first game. There is some discrepancy that forces you to adjust your own rhythm. This does not affect how playable the game is, but it affects how satisfying the gameplay is. Given that there is a lot of combat in this game, and it is all basically the same fight copy-pasted, you would really REALLY hope the combat feels good. Alas, it feels mediocre.

Assassin’s Creed 2 also sort of just fails its main premise. This is a problem that the first game has and a problem that all the games after it that I have played also have. It fails to allow you to be a sneaky little guy. You can totally do some sneaking, and there are some fairly well rounded stealth sections. However, those sneaky little guy parts are outnumbered 1 to 5 compared to all the open combat encounters. Even still, virtually all the sneaky little guy portions head with you forcefully being RIPPED out of stealth and thrown into open combat without any ability to stop it. I wish they had invested more time and effort into making you feel like an assassin. I think they were aware how limited your “assassining” options are so they limited how much of the game could be spent being sneaky, as you would quickly realize how repetitive it is. I could write a whole other essay on this, but I will stop myself here. Just know, your sneaky little guy expectations that you might expect from a game called ASSASSIN’S Creed probably will not be met.

Assassin’s Creed 2 is slightly more visually appealing than the first and the music is about the same. I will say, the voice acting in this game was a big update compared to the first. Neither game has great voice acting, but I think the performances in this game were much more believable and immersive.

The first game had virtually no story. It was short and sweet. Assassin’s Creed’s lack of story was better than Assassin’s Creed 2’s inclusion of one. None of the characters are that likable and absolutely none of them have any depth at all. I do not find myself disliking any of them, but I am given almost no reason to care. The plot of this game is also just batshit insane. Like, genuinely, it is fairly disgusting. Ezio’s personal life and personal story are serviceable. But the overarching Assassin’s Creed plot is a disaster and honestly distasteful. They really jumped the shark with this on try #2. Can’t wait to see how brotherhood goes!

I have more to say about this game, but I am not really sure if a game like this is worth talking this much about. It is a simple, mind-numbing game. It certainly numbs the mind, so it is doing the job. The few improvements I mentioned over the first game are enough to push it a half star further than its predecessor, putting it in pretty alright game territory. It is a little bit of dumb fun and that is just about it.

One final note: DO NOT TRY TO PLAY THIS DOGSHIT ON THE SERIES X. I was forced to buy the remastered version of this game for the ps4 even though I had the 360 version. The 360 version on the series x and xbox one simply does not work since ubisoft's weird DRM shit is guaranteed to corrupt your save. I lost 5 hours of progress before switching over to the ps4. Please do not be like me.

Just a quick short review for this

I liked this game as mind numbing as it can be. It is a Ubisoft open world game, and a very early one at that. You do the same tasks over and over again for hours on end. The plot is nothing to write home about, as it is extremely predictable, and I think the setting is incredibly underused for how interesting the time and place are.

I can honestly write about all this games flaws for awhile here but I don't really know how valuable that is. I think most people should know what to expect from this game going into it these days. Again though, I liked this game. It is a game to just play and turn your mind off while doing so. This is what Ubisoft is best at doing.

Most of the actual assassinations are really interesting experiences and there was definitely a semi-large amount of time put into planning them in the games development. It is a fun experience to run around town, gathering information, creating a stragedy (no matter how railroaded it may be) and then going in for the kill. When everything works out just the way you wanted and planned it to, it is a great feeling. That is where this game shines. Honestly, if this game was an eighth of its length and included just those experiences, it would be an easy 4 stars. This game, like many others, shows that more is not always merrier when it comes to content in video games. It is the well thought out, quality experiences that make a game. Assassin's Creed shows it is able to give you that, just not without forcing hours of grinding the same couple of tasks before you can get to them.

My final thought is that this game does not look and sound awful. Sometimes the game can be very atmospheric, and I'd say the style really fits the game. Near the end I got tired of the lack of color but I couldn't imagine the game making a whole lot of sense if the crusades were not presented as drab and washed out in visuals. The music is nothing groundbreaking but it stands out and fits the aesthetic.

Final verdict, game can be really fun when it chooses it is time for you to have fun.