Assassin's Creed Revelations makes all the wrong choices

Title Assassin's Creed Revelations makes all the wrong choices
Author Tom Chick
Posted in Game reviews
When December 19, 2011

If you've ever wanted to hear Desmond talk about himself at length, this is the game for you..

Read the full article

That's kind of funny, I would definitely rate Revelations as my greatest disappointment this year (if I were prone to making lists) but I can't bring myself to hate it. It still does a lot of what I really like in an assassination simulator. But I agree, this definitely felt like Ubisoft was doing a sequel for its own sake, a money grab. And that's a serious bummer.

Is there anything in Revelations that would lead you to recommend it over Brotherhood, for instance? I honestly can't think of anything. There were some optional features that felt relatively harmless (grenades, Desmond's Tron missions, ziplines), but the only thing it really has going for it is the new city. And when it comes down to a sense of place, I think Rome and even Venice from AC2 were far better realized. I guess I liked that guards would occasionally fight each other, and I don't think there's anything like that in the previous games. But otherwise, I'd rather just play Brotherhood some more.

I don't hate it, I just hate Desmond Miles. Revelations was a very disappointing game, especially all the additions they made which didn't really add to the game at all. Bombs, hookblade, Desmond missions, den defenses.

No, I absolutely would not recommend Revelations over Brotherhood, in fact I consider Brotherhood to be the high point of the series so far. I really liked the addition of the assassin pokemons, as you describe them, that's just a ton of fun. But Revelations kept that stuff, so I can't complain too much about it, I just didn't like much of its new additions like the desmond FPS sections (or at least FP-something sections) or the guild defense sections. I guess my final verdict is, I wish I had waited until it was $20.

Is that Shadowcat as your picture there?

There isn't anything that would cause me to recommend Revelations over Brotherhood. The story didn't really advance at all either. This game really is only for the AC diehards that just love dispatching five guards in five seconds. And which is the only reason why I didn't outright hate it, because that aspect of the game is just so much fun.

No, Shadowcat is a black cat. That's just some cute dude with a funny look on his catface from a LOLcat picture.

Ugh. I wanted this game to be good, since I traveled to Istanbul last month and want to clamber around a 16th Century version. Given that, is Revelations worth playing if I skipped Brotherhood?

Honestly, it comes down to the plot. I liked Revelations because of what it does to AC's plot, and the way it finally sets stuff up for AC3. And I do think that AC's plot is one of its strong points: it's good in the only way videogame plots can be good: by being full of intricate nonsense. Desmond kind of sucks, but they've been trying hard to make him suck less, especially since it's clear that AC3 will feature Desmond even more heavily.

I think I found more to actually like in the game than you did, Tom, but I can't say I disagree with anything you wrote. It's definitely a step down from Brotherhood.

2 out of 10 is far too harsh. Scores that low should be reserved for titles that are broken or basically unplayable. This title still has beautiful graphics, fluid controls, and all of the goodies that made the previous games so enjoyable. It seems like you are simply bashing the game because it was neither revolutionary nor appropriately evolutionary. The same justice could be handed out to Call of Duty or Dynasty Warriors.

i've never played any of the games, but i love the last sentence. damn, thats NASTAY!

but seriously... byzantine Madden-ization. idk, that's great.

I always thought scores that low should be reserved for games that bad.

Hmm, I'd say just get Brotherhood. As a package, I feel it hangs together much better. The way they do Rome makes it a much more interesting place to play an AC game. And if you're fresh from the real world counterpart, I think you're going to be disappointed in Constantinople/Istabul/Byzantium.

I too can't stand Desmond. And when I say that, every AC fanboy hard-on wants my throat. What is there to like about the guy? He has not development character wise and when they try to throw in something interesting it just seems forced. Like Ubisoft desperately wants us to love this guy.
Just stick to his hard core ancestors for ACIII and or it'll end up being another disappointment.

The ancester part of the series is awsome. Desmond may be a bad charater but hes only 10- 30 minutes of each game so relax.

This wat a great way to end ezio and altair . The story was praised by other reviewers. But i loved Brotherhood more. I say 8/10 for this game

Eh, i hate desmond im a fan of AC. But not a harcore i really HATE acr. But AC3 is incredible.

Playing this now, to fill the last gap in my AC experiences. I like it. I feel later entries must have dumbed or smartened the moveset down to something I could handle, because playing this I’m like a monkey with a deckchair, but still. There’s been limited Desmonding so far, which presumably helps. It looks great, even in 2016, which still surprises me. 60 fps and ultrawide really helps show off these beautiful cities.

I just read that review for the first time. (That link still works in 2016! Yay!). Wow, that’s harsh Tom. And the score at the end is 2/10! That feels harsher than giving 1 star out of 5.