The first one was fundamentally flawed. It was the same thing over and over again. It was too repetitive (also the ending was of a low quality). I guess there is a lack of freedom now, however, it is a better experience.
The COD formula got stale over several iterations of the game whereas the original Assassin's Creed was flawed as iamsuperman put it. It was very bare bones behind all the splendor on screen. It did obviously lay down the foundation for a much more fully fledged sequel. I still prefer Altair and the Middle Eastern setting though.
it was good in term of assassination better than any AC out there but it got boring after 10 hour. the only thing yo do is assassin someone over and over again.
The first one is the best and is definitely the purest. Yes, the combat was repetitive (if you wanted it to be) but in terms of story and characters, the first AC is by leaps and bounds the absolute best in the series. Altair is a far better Assassin than Ezio in terms of personality. The Crusades is an excellent setting. And the betrayal aspect is perfect.
so what does 'purest' mean? I only hear people talking about problems in the game, but what does that have anything to do with the game being less 'purest.'
Basically the game was more open ended, people are arguing (as is Dusty Wright, the writer of this opinion), that it can't be pure due to all the bugs and problems it had.
No hate but i really hated the repetition and one of the few games i never finished because i was so bored with it. Mind you ive beat demon souls and dark souls more than two times each so it had nothing to do with difficulty.
Like others have said, I thought it was VERY repetitive. The story and characters may have been deeper but in terms of gameplay, it was very shallow. The combat was limited, the missions were the very similar, and you had to keep doing them over and over to advance the story.
I think the vast majority of people feel this way and most of the reviews did as well. It's all a matter of taste though so if you liked it, then good. If you didn't like it, it still set up the next games in the series where the devs learned from their "mistakes" and made a game that more people enjoyed.
I think people were missing the point of the quote. This isn't about the "repetitiveness" of game. We all know it was designed there to extend the playtime. What he really meant is that compared to other sequels, there wasn't a micro-mission scenario before you start the kill. In the original game, you had to PLAN out your kills, it was the way you approach things before you get to the kill.
In the later sequels, you had to fulfill a bunch of missions before they even let you kill, and even then they require a "specific" kill to get the 100% synch.
Personally, they should've enhanced the original formula to make assassinations feel more authentic. This is the one thing the hitman series always gets right.
AC1 was more strategix during your assassinations made feel more believable like you actually accomplish somethimg but the rest seem so fixed how you will your target but theres always something the original does right where the later entries miss.
After the story was truly revealed in AC2 I sold both AC1 and AC2 on Amazon.com. As soon it was stated that there was a another ("higher") race before Adam and Eve (Those Who Came Before). The story became absurd and yet offensive from then on.
120°
40°
70°
60°
Ad 
50°
0°
10°
10°
10°
20°
The COD formula got stale over several iterations of the game whereas the original Assassin's Creed was flawed as iamsuperman put it. It was very bare bones behind all the splendor on screen. It did obviously lay down the foundation for a much more fully fledged sequel. I still prefer Altair and the Middle Eastern setting though.
unless you were serious :O
purest version or not .... its the worst to date
I think the vast majority of people feel this way and most of the reviews did as well. It's all a matter of taste though so if you liked it, then good. If you didn't like it, it still set up the next games in the series where the devs learned from their "mistakes" and made a game that more people enjoyed.
This isn't about the "repetitiveness" of game. We all know it was designed there to extend the playtime. What he really meant is that compared to other sequels, there wasn't a micro-mission scenario before you start the kill. In the original game, you had to PLAN out your kills, it was the way you approach things before you get to the kill.
In the later sequels, you had to fulfill a bunch of missions before they even let you kill, and even then they require a "specific" kill to get the 100% synch.
Personally, they should've enhanced the original formula to make assassinations feel more authentic. This is the one thing the hitman series always gets right.
Title fixed