LovingSteam said:
AC1 was universally hailed as a disappointment while AC2 has been praised as one of the best of this gen.
There are still people that love AC1 though. Opinions!
There isn't any substance to their recent games. If you look at Far Cry 2, Prince of Persia, Splinter Cell Conviction, they certainly have the art team to make great games, but the gameplay ideas behind them are shallow one trick ponies. There's little to no risk/reward to a lot of their games this gen in an attempt to appeal to a casual audience.
What they don't understand is that risk/reward can and should still exist, (games like Nintendo's first party Mario games are the obvious example) and it doesn't equal a dumbing down of controls, interactivity and penalties for bad play. That you can still make games that are hard to master but easy to approach. And that you don't have to recycle one or two shallow interactions with the game, put some shiny paint on it and call it a day.
On top of that, it's my opinion a lot of their games have been done a lot better by other devs. I think Arkham Asylum is much more entertaining and responsive than PoP or AC, and GRAW isn't even an improvement on the original GR, let alone the other big name military shooters.
They've undone the past 4 years a bit with Assassin's Creed 2, and I'm not discounting it, but Splinter Cell Conviction and Forgotten Sands makes it seem like they haven't learned their lesson.
I miss Sands of Time era Ubisoft. I even enjoy Heroes of Might and Magic 5, despite it's very big flaws, but there isn't anything in their current lineup that is doing it for me.
