Honestly, I can only vaguely remember Assassin's Creed storyline. The entire game was simply running through the same routine for each mission: leave the base, talk to the local assassin HQ, find some info, kill the target. Rinse, repeat, rinse, repeat. The only progression in the "plot" was when Altaïr talked with his targets upon their death. However, I felt the dialogue was attempting to be deep but came off as pretentious. Even more aggravating is Philip Shahbaz, Altaïr's voice actor, does a horrible job. I think a speech synthesizer would've had more emotion than this fucker.
In all aspects, Ezio should be superior. I actually can say the game has a plot, Ezio doesn't die if he falls in the water, and he has more emotion than a stone. However, I find myself liking Altaïr better. I can't really explain myself because I'm not entirely certain either. >I think it's because Ezio's personality is so flat. He's a player who's out for revenge. That's it. He's literally the same as he was in the first half hour in the game. Altaïr falls from grace, and you can see him grow and mature as he begins to think for himself, even to see beyond what he was taught.
Of course, there's just this feeling it's because I'm a medievalist, and I just prefer the first game because it takes place in that period as opposed to the Renaissance.
Tags: video games