Assassins Greed

Assassins Creed. The historical accuracy made this game a very successful game to come out. The scenery and characters really complimented the whole feel of the first Assassins Creed. Yet, along the way, with AC2, Brotherhood and Revelations, Ubisoft lost their way, and developed repetitive, mundane games which only led to further disappointment. But, the question is, why?


Buildings
The first Assassins Creed took free roaming of a city to a whole new level. The ability to climb most window ledges made the game much more entertaining. But, there's only so much of that you can do. They continued to have the same linear building climbing through the next 3 games. And to make it worse, they allowed Ezio to jump higher to clear bigger gaps, so it would take the fun out of it, and they never adapted the system and in the end you held one button and he just kept climbing. Ubisoft made the games to become more building based, and most quests lingered around climbing a building and in the end, it became more laborious to climb an entire building because it took time, and it was repetitive. Not only that, sometimes Ezio would fail to grab hold of anything, and it came to point that buildings became the most dangerous enemy on the game.

Brotherhood and Revelations
The idea to create your own Brotherhood was a good idea. It appealed to me that you could send your Assassins anywhere you wanted and have them follow you, but, it wasn't all it promised. 
Not only was the storyline so confusing by the end of AC2 but all Brotherhood did was add more storyline twists and ignore the ending of the AC2. This led to the majority not becoming hooked on the storyline and try and focus on free roam, which wasn't exactly the creative spark Ubisoft always promises. Brotherhood allowed you to send Assassins miles around the World to do missions, and kill guards in your area you told them too. But, in the end, that took away everything you had to do. All that Ubisoft was allowing you to do was climb more buildings. And I hated it. So, I didn't use my Assassins as they were taking my kills, which inevitably made the games 'appeal factor' disappear.
Revelations became more of a failure for me, again with the storyline twists and the building climbing. I should of expected this by now. But, there was only one reason I bought this game, and that was because it had Altair in. And it told the storyline of what happened to Altair after AC. And what happened to Altair was the question on mine, and most people's mind. Ezio, to me, became my bitch to explore the World of Altair. Which is all I ever wanted Ubisoft to explain.

Side missions and Collection tasks
I don't think I wasted any more time on AC then what was necessary, which meant ignoring all side quests. They were pointless. There were no motives to do them, they gave you nothing, and they hardly made little sense, as an Assassin fighting the Templar's, he doesn't have time to run and help an old lady across the street for 5 gold. The collection tasks were also a huge waste of time. Not only did collecting the feathers for your dead brother become slightly disturbing, but then there were more feathers, and Ezio seemed to think that giving feathers to his delinquent mum, who's silent and insane because of the deaths of her husband and brother, was a good idea. I thought that to be disturbing and rather cruel of Ezio. "Here you go mum, remember my brother used to collect these? HERE'S 100 MORE"

Overall? Ubisoft would've bought out 4 Assassin Creed games by October, in the duration of 3 years, which doesn't only show you the lack of effort they invested but, they were also ignoring possible new systems they could of implemented, and only changed the storyline, which made me feel Ubisoft went from caring about AC to making it into a big money maker. Assassins Greed therefore, became a game so laborious to play. It didn't hook you like the first Assassins Creed.

The storyline and building climbing became so linear that stairs on AC would have been more appealing because you were climbing something new. 

Fus-Ro-Dah that Bethesda.

Skyrim. One of the biggest game's to come out. People were hoping for "Oblivion V" since they played the incredible Elder Scrolls IV. But for me, Skyrim was a huge waste of my invested time, and let me explain why with comparisons from other, more successful Bethesda RPG's.

1) Gameplay
The storyline was good. Nothing more. It wasn't amazing, or fantastic, it was just good. The problem I had with the storyline of Skyrim was the way Bethesda encouraged fast travel. How? Anyone reading this now has fast travelled the majority of Skyrim. Why? Because even though it had spectacular scenery, it just lay dormant to the fact that the storyline threw you between 3 cities repeatedly. And in the end, you just can't be bothered to travel from Whiterun to Solitude constantly. I spent half the game with cities not found, such as Falkreath, because I could not be bothered to go to the opposite corner of the map for no reason. Skyrim gave no motive. And it led to the game being slightly linear.

2) Character Development
In Oblivion, I was a big cat. The lizard was just too green, but humans are boring. So I chose Mr Khajiit. The benefits to the big cat, was that they were quick, agile, and stealthy. That is exactly how I like my game characters. Stealth is a huge turn on for me, hence why I love Metal Gear Solid so much, and sneaking on Oblivion. But, I could of easily worn heavy armour, a huge broadsword, and become a loud, rampaging cat. Which was the beauty of Oblivion. Every character was so individual, and tailored to ones individual likes. Spot the difference yet? Skyrim is everything but. Character development becomes so linear, that jumping constantly in the scenery merely left my cat fatigued, rather than a sudden ability to jump higher. The star gazing progress tree leaves you with one thing to upgrade, but you have to have increased that perk in the first place? I chose one handed. I became indestructible. Especially with me not choosing mana and stamina as it, again, gave no reason for me to do that. And in the end, I didn't sneak and just spammed my attack button. Character development from Oblivion to Skyrim became poor and I felt distant from my cat. And everybody knows, no one wants to feel distant from a cat, let alone your RPG Character.

3) Gold
Selling and Buying. The way forward in any RPG. Moving away from Oblivion and onto Fallout 3. The system in Fallout was that merchants had a set limit of gold, selling made the merchant lose gold, and buying gave him gold. Fallout had nothing you really wanted to sell, which is why this system worked, not only did it succeed in adding realism into the apocalyptic world, but the only thing you bought was ammo, and you didn't sell too much, as there was nothing really out there to sell, apart from a few rusty nails. This balanced out the merchants gold. Bethesda tried to bring this system across, and it failed. Miserably. Chests, Bandits, Guards.All of them had armour, weapons, and things to sell. Skyrim, unlike Fallout, is a game where gold is very key. To buying your own house, to weapons, and scrolls, you needed gold. And in the end, you just only took the gold, as anything was inevitably deemed pointless as you would've had to drop it or sell it at a smaller price. 

4) Arrow to the knee
Skyrim has started off the worst possible sentence to travel the Internet since "Halo is such a cool guy..."

These 4 reasons alone leaves Skyrim feeling like an empty canvas. The scenery is there, but there is nothing really encouraging you to seek out the vast, immersing landscape.

Oh, one more thing, they didn't have this guy. Big mistake Bethesda.

Fus-Ro-Dah that Bethesda.