So a while back, I wanted to play Conkere bad furday. After doing some math I worked out that it was cheaper to get an Xbox One and Rare Replay, than the original game.
But now that I have Conkers, and a new box. I thought to myself. Hey isn’t this backwards compatible with 360. Which it was. But this lead me to another thought. Why deal with Ubisoft BS on PCs and their Client. Where older games force you to sign in to play them. When I could just have them on one box.
Which eventually lead me to acquiring this small collection. Total price is $155.88 CAD (before tax) and I know I overpaid for some of the later games. But it’s all on one system with no Uplay BS in my face.
Ac1 - $3
AC2 - $4
ACB - $8
ACRe - $8
AC3 - $12
ACB - $7
ACRo - $15
ACU - $10 ($7 more than i think should costs)
ACS - $13
ACC - $18 (shocked with this one)
ACOr - $20 (could’ve got it for $10 but got it on impulse)
ACOd - $20
ACV - $30 (again $10 over used)
15 now. There's also... the one that was really boring. It was in like 900. In a Middle Eastern desert. I think. I couldn't finish it lol. There's also Shadows, which I haven't played. People called it racist or something. The last few haven't required any semblance of stealth, they're kinda just open world rpgs. Odyssey was the best one from what I hear.
I really enjoyed Origins and Odyssey. Neither should’ve been called AC games though. I think if they rebranded them under a new series, and removed the micro transactions, they would be seen as really good modern lite-RPGs. Especially Odyssey. They weren’t bloated like Valhalla, and I think had some really interesting elements. I haven’t played them in a few years but have fond memories. Maybe I should replay them to see if they’re actually good or there’s just a bit of nostalgia or rose tinted glasses or whatever.
I haven't played Valhalla. But it's REALLY hard to fuck up vikings. It's pretty pathetic if they managed to. I played most of the Assassin's Creed games last year. I enjoyed AC3 on much more than the first few (despite preferring Ezio to Connor by a little). Black Flag was excellent imo. Unity had potential, the microtransactions being required to get full completion pissed me off. I never finished it. Syndicate was much better, but it still had at least 1 purchase of the fictional currency required to have all the collectibles visible on the map. I missed exactly 1 fragment because of that. Never got it, and I tried. I liked the rpgs a decent amount at the time, but my standards were (and are) rather low. I'll probably buy Shadows when it goes on a 75% off sale.
For me I’d probably say 1-3 were all really good. I’d probably agree that 3 was the best of those, but Ezio > Connor for sure. 4 was absolutely excellent, probably my favourite AC game. I enjoyed Unity, though I played it after the bugs got fixed and I never cared much about getting 100% so the micro transactions didn’t bother me too much. Same goes for Syndicate, I quite enjoyed that one too. I already mentioned my opinions on Origins and Odyssey, but yeah, both awesome games, just not great AC games. I wish it was a different franchise. Valhalla was way too bloated in my opinion, and was the first AC game I didn’t complete. I haven’t played anything after except for a couple minutes of Mirage, maybe at a friend’s house or a demo or something since I never bought it. I thought it was pretty fun, I might have to try it if I can find it for cheap sometime.
The only spinoff I’ve played is Chronicles: India I think, which I thought was pretty fun but I never finished it.
I haven’t tried any other AC games, so if I’m missing any it’s because I didn’t play it.
I think the issue was black dude in feudal Japan or something and not historically accurate?
Bot sure though.
Apparently he was probably real. Just very poorly recorded, because, y'know, 16th century. I don't really think it's racist. Just something that would be difficult for them to do properly. I haven't played, so idk if they did or not, but I hear that his character was boring.