In other words "hey it's a video game and you gotta learn things in order". Next you are going to tell me that Other M was brilliant. Also I'd care more about what Altair was going through if he wasn't a phenomenally shitty character. He has no personality other than being a dirtbag. I was told as much before I played AC1 but I was not fucking prepared for how unlikeable this guy is. And this is the guy that the series has rigorously jacked off in all three Ezio games?
In other words the story thematically described the importance of patience and mirrored this theme directly in the combat system.
Also, Altair actually has a pretty good character arc, where he goes from headstrong arrogance into a patient person, willing to work with others, and hold honor above all other attributes. Horrible voice acting may have made this change less pronounced, but its there, and I'm surprised you wouldn't notice.
The story is stupid so we shouldn't care basically. That sounds like something an "uneducated drool-bag" would say. It's not ME3 awful, I think I've made my stance on that debacle very clear. But I refuse to believe that there aren't others fed-up with this shit when people to this day bitch about the ending to Halo 2 (same thing). I mean for fuck's sake, at the end of Brotherhood a major character dies and it isn't dealt with at all in Revelations. How do you get away with that?
No the story is terrible and people aren't compelled to buy the games because of it. I'm fine with calling it bad and talking about it, but don't try to demean the player base by saying that they're being driven to buy it to complete the story. In the age of Wikipedia plot summaries, I can read how the plot ends without playing through insufferable games. Unfortunately I can't play games I find to be entertaining without sometimes sitting through insufferable plot.
Also, Ubisoft Montreal did work on both games, even on the creative level, they just had about 6 other studios worldwide to help fuck it up. Now great, they have fully dedicated themselves to making Red Dead Redemption 2. The article I linked is fucking pathetic, with all 3 lame excuses for steering their franchise in the direction of another popular game. "Well, we had the idea first" "Well, great minds think alike" "Well, we were inspired by them". Just the height of hype right there.
I'll take Biased Opinions for 200, Alex.
First I could point out how the fact that they had numerous studios working on it dilutes the influence of a single contributor. Imagine if you had to take the game your making, and make it with 6 other teams. Good luck to you, sir.
I could also skew the same article in the opposite by pointing out every time they quote the team as saying they're taking a similar or same idea in different/new directions which directly flies in the face of you're version that says "We're making Red Dead Redemption the Remix".
Again don't make hurried judgments or develop biases. If you walk into a game expecting something, you'll go out of your way to find it. If you expect a game to be entirely bad, you're going to only find the bad elements, and won't be able to actually look at it objectively.
EDIT:
Also what are you talking about, I played AC1 a few months ago and this is just flat out not true.
Good statement, glad you pointed specific examples out and adequately described how your experience refuted mine. I played the game a few months ago as well, so unfortunately your appeal to authority is kind of falling flat here, unless your Memory dick is indeed better than mine. As far as I recall, Headstrong Arrogance and spamming the X button (or whatever) gets you killed more often than not, whereas Patience (and good timing with the counter-attack and dodge move) means you will literally never even get hit. Ever.
