Debuting in late 2009, Ubisoft's Assassin's Creed II sets lofty goals, striving to be the paragon for what every sequel should emulate. That mantra should be keeping what is good about the prior game(s), while overhauling and improving the more lackluster parts. I am happy to say that ACII is mostly a success in that department.In ACII, we move the setting to Renaissance Italy, and continue the story within a story from the perspective of Ezio Auditore, and are much improved in that department. Not only with the plot, but in delivery as well. ACI was guilty of hosting deluges of dialogue that made me zone out multiple times; we have a bit more effort here. The cutscenes and spoken lines are nicely broken up into smaller pieces with bits of humor and even some emotion added. The plot's still a little convoluted, and the designer's decision to end the game with little resolution after introducing aliens is somewhat reprehensible, but overall, I found myself greatly enjoying the story. The inclusion of famous historical characters like Leonardo da Vinci only increased my interest.
What's most overhauled after story in ACII is the progression element of the game. Where the first Creed was repetitive and boring, going from assassination to assassination without the slightest derivation in formula, our sequel here keeps some mystique to its formula as the game unfolds. I was pleasantly surprised multiple times while playing ACII; I never expected to use Da Vinci's flying machine or battle on a horse-driven carriage, brief as those scenes were.
Along the line of progression, ACII also includes a money system for improving yourself. Spending money to build your town and equip yourself is addictive, though somewhat superfluous. By mid-game I had so much money that any sort of thriftiness was unneeded. The fun diversions of pickpocketing and looting corpses swiftly became pointless and consequentially avoided. The same fate befell most of the optional side quests. However, I did greatly enjoy the Prince of Persia derived tombs littered throughout the game.
Combat was good in the original, though somewhat easily exploited. That doesn't change much in ACII, though there are a ton of new options in combat, including disarms and poisons. My sneaking suspicion is that many of these additions are superfluous except to give the animators more excuses for creating gruesome fatalities (Not that I mind). Combat in ACII may be a tad deeper, but it's still easy, especially with almost unlimited health from medicine. The combat rarely gets boring though, and that's a credit to the design.
The best feature of ACI was definitely the living, breathing simulacrums of ancient cities in the Holy Land. While Creed the Latter has more beautiful cityscapes to explore, it falls short in execution. Far too much time is spent in Venice, while Forli and Rome have maybe twenty minutes of action each. It really feels like these two areas got passed over in an effort to get the game out on time. Venice takes up half the game, and we never get a break of it (Those damn canals!). Too much time is spent in the same city without a break in this game. ACI's presentation was far more enjoyable, with being able to break up the time spent in each city very evenly.
I played through ACII on Xbox, avoiding the shackling and controversial DRM on PC, which forces an internet connection to play. I wouldn't recommend the PC version on that virtue alone. Of course, this will be hypocrisy at its finest when Starcraft II releases, for I've been playing the beta with quite a fervor. Blizzard will pose the same restrictions, along with no LAN, and a $60 price tag. But, one can make an exception for Blizzard, right?
