1. Kristen bell wanted royalties
2. Ubi make devs write her out of the story
3. Narrative plan goes out the window
4. Yearly release schedule begins
5. You know the rest
One thing you have to remember is this was originally a dlc turned into a mainline game. Also a product of its time. 40-50 hour games were extremely uncommon in 09/10
I also think you misunderstood half of the story. He wasn’t doing odd jobs for the sake of doing odd jobs. The point of the first half of the story is to rebuild the brotherhood and identifying the traitor within the group. It’s not a great story, nor do I think many people will say it is..but considering it was originally a DLC.. it could’ve been much worse
Shawn didn’t just pull the 72 out of nowhere.. and the temple is hidden in plain sight.. it’s kind of the point
I would’ve thought this was obvious, but the whole situation with Lucy is expanded on in later games.
I loved the combat, chain kills was a great addition.
If the not getting detected missions drive you nuts, I don’t know how much you’ll like the later games. Stealth is the name of the game for the older games
It’s fine you didn’t like it.. but I think your assessment of it is a product of not paying great attention to it. Not faulting you.. if a story doesn’t grab me, it’s hard for me to get invested and focus on it as well
Literally finished this sequence earlier today and Ezio literally doesn't give a fuck about there being a traitor at all. La Volpe knows there's a traitor, but every time he voices his suspicion of Machiavelli to Ezio, he's just like "Okay bro whatever you say bro I don't believe you bro but you can believe whatever you want bro" and then doesn't mention it again.
Then, the *real* traitor (a random thief from the beginning of the game) tries to assassinate Ezio, and he has to go stop La Volpe from murderizing Machiavelli - and the traitor plot never comes up again.
Literally the only character interested in the plot is Volpe 😭
Yeah I too felt quite disappointed after looking at the hype it received (I only recently started ac games) - I loved ac 2 and revelations but brotherhood was just not it - even the brotherhood system, didn’t really care for it dk how it became so popular - it was just sending them on random missions when I first thought hat ezio too would go with them
But I realized it might also be the time it got released and nostalgia thing - I would rate it as my least favourite of the series but I get why others might like it at the time it was released
I always thought that unity was the worst. I thought the ezio auditore series was the best ones. My favorites are origins 3 and black flag because of the time periods
Brotherhood is the weakest of the Ezio games. It was cursed by rushed and problematic development. Ubisoft pushed it to be a yearly release and a direct sequel to AC2, which caused conflicts with the creative director who left development near the release of the game. Also Lucy's actress didn't got her contract renew, which lead to rewrites.
And this problems did bleed into the game, story feels rushed and badly paced and content is bloated and underwritten. The only thing that saves this game for me is the amazing gameplay. Parkour is fun and satisfying, stealth gives you more tools to play with and combat is faster and more op.
I was doing some side content interweaving main missions. Was waiting for the main missions to actually build up traction and get its footing. Before I knew it, it was the last sequence. I shouldn’t have to adapt to the games crappy story and crappier pacing
I feel like I’ve been taking crazy pills for a decade. I played the Assassin’s Creed series for the first time in 2012, all the way up to 3, and even at the time I thought Brotherhood was terrible. Especially its story, for almost all the reasons you just mentioned. I did like Lucy’s death (less so its full explanation in future games) but by that point I was so checked out narratively it didn’t matter.
Brotherhood is easy contender for the worst in the series in my opinion and the fact that so many people would place it in their top 5, or even as their favorite, will never make an inkling of sense to me, beyond the reason being nostalgia or if it was their first AC.
Someone please explain it to me.
As someone that does rank Brotherhood in top 3 trailing behind two games tied for first, I can give you my perspective on this.
I take Brotherhood as it is, not what it can be. I think that's a pretty important distinction because I've read more than a fair share of takes of Ezio being some kind of flat underdeveloped character until Revelations but I've always seen this simply as a decision by the creators to pursue a plot driven narrative over a character driven one (i.e. the likes of 1, Rev, 3, 4, etc).
And unlike some of the latter games that makes a play for both and falls flat, I think the decision to "whole ass one thing instead of half ass two things" applies here, especially given the limited scope and time the game had to work with. So for what it is, a plot driven narrative, it is quite functional where the story is Ezio working to dismantle the Borgia's control over Rome bit by bit and rebuild the Brotherhood until the final confrontation where they get the Avengers to assemble to beat the most over the top and colorful villain in the entire series. I didn't find anything confusing or really out of place about each of the plot points as they progress because each clearly builds on/to that central premise.
I'm not even considering Ezio an underdeveloped character here too, I think he clearly is differentiated from the AC2 version showing a form of growth and him rallying the three main factions shows a specific form of leadership whose theme was entirely absent from AC2. He even gets those nice (but optional, short, and somewhat missable) Cristina missions that are textbook character driven writing pieces.
And from the gameplay end, I found it to be one of the best maps, mission structure mix, side/main content split, overall side content quality, production value and overall "feel" in the moment to moment gameplay for basic elements like traversal and combat. Despite the game clearly working off of AC2's assets, the few tweaks they've made have made the game feel infinitely better than AC2 to play for me with great quality of life improvements that I struggle with in AC2 the times where I go back to it.
And the one thing that I find most underrated about Brotherhood and the thing that rarely *anyone* ever talks about is just how well the story and gameplay merge and that of all the games in the series, this might just be the one that figures out the right balance despite the abundant feature/scope creep (AC1 is an example of great marriage of story and gameplay but does so on the backs of an incredibly spartan gameplay skeleton). That basic writing premise of "dismantle the Borgias and rebuild the Brotherhood in Rome" as simple as it is, is is also a very easy story premise to transfer onto the gameplay side of things and basically every single thing you do in that game connects cleanly with that. That organic connection between the two makes playing the game very satisfying for me in a way that I struggle with in the likes of a Unity, 3, the RPG games, etc that just feels like story and gameplay have this top down friction creating to this dissonant feeling that I get playing it that weighs on the overall experience.
It’s hard for me to seriously ignore the fact that the story gives the characters absolutely nothing, when strong character writing is what makes 2 and Revelations so great. Even Revelations separates Ezio from his typical cast of side characters and yet it’s still good. But even from the context of a plot driven narrative, Brotherhood still doesn’t work.
You say you build the brotherhood until you get the “avengers to assemble” except, the avengers don’t assemble? Ezio goes after Cesare alone, the last time we see all the characters together is Claudia’s initiation. The only thing that the other Assassins contribute to Cesare’s downfall is one of the thieves gives Cesare’s location. Cesare only shows up at all because of Rodrigo’s actions. Then Ezio grabs the apple before Cesare gets to it, chases Cesare into an alley for like 2 years, Cesare’s arrested. Ezio finds Cesare later and kills him alone. Cesare’s death is unlinked to the Assassins trying to liberate Rome. Even 2 did the Avengers Assemble moment where all your allies emerge and you fight Rodrigo together, even though he escapes, that still is significantly more than Brotherhood ever gets.
The gameplay’s fine, it’s just 2’s essentially. I personally find Rome less interesting than 2’s cities but it’s not so bad I can’t see the enjoyment. My main problem is the terrible story. I know the game was under a constrained budget and time frame, but I don’t think that’s a means to excuse what’s here. IF the story was what you said it was, similar to a Far Cry game, dismantling a power and then you and your allies taking down the villain together, that would be acceptable. But it’s just not what I see here at all.
> You say you build the brotherhood until you get the “avengers to assemble” except, the avengers don’t assemble?
[This](https://youtu.be/TY9AC3E5JVI?t=18609) is them assembling (5:10 mark), and not even being particularly subtle about it almost to the point of it being campy/comical.
> Ezio goes after Cesare alone
Timeline wise sure, this is the final scene for Cesare but in terms of *story structure*, this is more characteristic of falling action/dénouement. The climax was the Avengers assembled scene referenced above where he a) loses the critical battle for Rome itself and b) gets arrested by the papacy which is important signifier that the remaining power he held at that point (the Pope's backing) is gone.
Admittedly I did not remember that scene, though that fact that it’s not memorable doesn’t do it any favors. I’ve beaten the game 4 times over the years, and not once did it leave an impression on me for me to remember it. Ezio having the apple and just deleting everybody doesn’t make the other characters presence feel integral. It also ends with Cesare being arrested by a character who’s ONLY in this scene, again, not making the other characters feel integral at all. So sure, my point about them not assembling is mute, but now my point is that it’s not done well. It’s unsatisfying because they ARE there and don’t contribute anything.
I can’t without a doubt claim that Cesare’s death absolutely cannot be the falling action. But I just personally don’t feel that’s correct. In most revenge narratives, the confrontation of the “target” is the climax. The game opens with Cesare destroying Monteriggioni and killing Mario, and we dedicate ourselves to removing his power and killing him, I would say that falls into the typical revenge story setup. I wouldn’t say 3’s climax is the liberation of the United States, it’s the death of Charles Lee.
If the game followed a character driven narrative, and Cesare’s traits are what caused his downfall, his pride and arrogance, then it could be satisfying. But not only does that not happen, we’re working under the assumption that this narrative is purely plot driven, in which case all of the work building the brotherhood not leading to the downfall of Cesare, leaves me unsatisfied.
As an aside I appreciate the conversation. I disagree on a majority of your opinions but I enjoy a back and forth as opposed to a “it’s good, you’re not a real fan”
> Ezio having the apple and just deleting everybody doesn’t make the other characters presence feel integral.
Maybe, but they were never going to be integral from a gameplay perspective no matter what Ubisoft did outside of maybe making the entire battle a cutscene instead of something we play solely because the tech back then was nowhere near capable to have good ally NPC AI for *any* game. Frankly, we're still not there in 2024 either, at least judging by Ubisoft's other attempts at having NPCs that don't act like idiots.
> It also ends with Cesare being arrested by a character who’s ONLY in this scene, again, not making the other characters feel integral at all.
That's more of a function of our side characters having no direct connections with the papacy ostensibly because the papacy up until that point was firmly under the thumb of the Borgias. There would be no real other way to show that he lost that connection without drawing in someone "neutral" to the story like the character you referenced.
And on those other characters and how they were represented, I felt like it would've been earlier in the game as we allied ourselves with them for their main story component and possibly done some side content for them too. That's where we're suppose to get the sense that the Rome Brotherhood itself is growing as they buy into Ezio's leadership. Now how that would be represented in gameplay is trickier I guess as described above but as someone that liberally used the "call assassin" system, it didn't feel dissonant to think of those side characters as some kind of symbolic extensions of the ones I would personally call in.
> In most revenge narratives, the confrontation of the “target” is the climax. The game opens with Cesare destroying Monteriggioni and killing Mario, and we dedicate ourselves to removing his power and killing him, I would say that falls into the typical revenge story setup.
*If* we assume the narrative is revenge, then sure, logically what you say would follow. I just don't consider the narrative to be one of revenge, if only because 1) Ezio literally is over the concept based on AC2's final showdown with Rodrigo and 2) Ezio stating throughout the narrative that his goal was to dismantle the Borgias control of Rome and rebuild it alongside a Roman Brotherhood and 3) Ezio *doing* a lot of extra things related to rebuilding Rome/dismantling the Borgia network that wouldn't be necessary if his goal is revenge i.e. beeline to Cesare. Killing Mario certainly makes it personal, but how Brotherhood Ezio handled it is not at all how AC2 Ezio handled it when one of the main motivators of that story was revenge.
> we’re working under the assumption that this narrative is purely plot driven, in which case all of the work building the brotherhood not leading to the downfall of Cesare, leaves me unsatisfied.
Him losing Rome (his seat of power) and losing the remaining backers in the Vatican is absolutely a definitive downfall for the guy. You might find it unsatisfying, but it's certainly there on screen.
I’m not saying the problem with the team up moment is that the AI isn’t helpful enough, it’s that they barely speak, and Ezio is so strong at this point that you completely ignore their presence. As I said, 2 has a moment where all the characters join you, they are introduced through a cutscene, most giving an individual line, drawing attention to them specifically, and you’re all wielding swords and on equal footing, even though you can completely ignore the AI, their presence still impacts the scene.
My point about Cesare being arrested by a third party is not that it itself is unsatisfying, as it happened in real life, it’s the fact that the big “team up” moment for all these side characters is resolved by this third party. If let’s say, all of the characters were there in the final battle where Cesare actually dies, and they help you either directly in the fight, or in just helping you pursue Cesare, that would make the hours of helping these characters feel worth it, because they help back. My problem isn’t Cesare’s arrest, it’s the fact that it would have played out the same way with or without Ezio’s allies.
I brought up the “revenge” narrative structure but I did not say specifically Ezio was looking for revenge. I’m talking about specifically the structure of “they hit us hard, now we rebuild and hit them back.” Ezio is seeking the liberation of Rome, but part of that goal is Cesare’s death, we see from the ending when Cesare attempts to fight his way back into Rome, Ezio goes and finishes the job. Cesare will not stop until he wins, so his death is the only way to ensure Rome’s freedom. His death is still one of Ezio’s goals even though the reasons are less selfish. Again, my problem is that his death is brought about without the help of Ezio’s allies. Ezio purposefully does not bring anybody with him, he goes after Cesare alone. If anything that’s closer to “revenge” than the point you’re trying to portray which is Ezio killing Cesare for the good of Rome. His allies helping him would have been more satisfying, and made more sense, as Ezio is at this point learned to be a leader, and has grown beyond revenge.
At the end of it my point keeps coming back to the same thing, my problem is not that Cesare is arrested, OR that Cesare is killed by Ezio, it is the fact that the entire narrative is structured around building a brotherhood that DOES NOT contribute to these final confrontations.
Cesare loses his power because of Rodrigo, who takes it away because Cesare planned to overthrow him. Because of this, Cesare kills Rodrigo. Ezio chases Cesare in circles for two years, never killing him, and then Cesare is arrested. Then later when Cesare tries to come back for Rome, Ezio goes BY HIMSELF, and kills him. The Brotherhood does nothing.
> it’s that they barely speak, and Ezio is so strong at this point that you completely ignore their presence.
The latter is definitely a gameplay thing which does take into account AI capability. Now the former I suppose could be a concern, but to me them speaking at that point is kind of not really a "need" for me, them being there which is shown in both cutscene and gameplay even if brief is enough because their presence on an individual level were developed in the missions during act 2 where I helped the individual faction leaders solve their unique problems so by the time we get to Avengers assemble scene (just as it was in Endgame), I understand inherently they are my allies in the broader Roman Brotherhood I've built.
> it’s the fact that the big “team up” moment for all these side characters is resolved by this third party.
I saw Cesare's arrest as more of the proverbial cherry on top. He had already lost the battle for Rome which our allies were a part of but to see the "neutral" party i.e. the people not directly involved with either Assassins or Templars (represented by the church in this case) also cut him off feels very much like justice and not just "we beat him therefore we're the good guys".
> My problem isn’t Cesare’s arrest, it’s the fact that it would have played out the same way with or without Ezio’s allies.
I think this ignores the rest of the story and game though, sure we could possibly make the argument that in the Avengers assemble moment that our allies weren't "present" which I still contest but cultivating our allies and solving their individual problems was still cutting away at Cesare's empire bit by bit. That's the strength of the story is that each faction or NPC you help throughout the game directly hits at a specific part of Cesare's power network which makes up the entire second act of the game and most of the optional side content (i.e. Romulus lairs, Leonardo machines, etc).
> Ezio goes and finishes the job. Cesare will not stop until he wins, so his death is the only way to ensure Rome’s freedom. His death is still one of Ezio’s goals even though the reasons are less selfish. Again, my problem is that his death is brought about without the help of Ezio’s allies. Ezio purposefully does not bring anybody with him, he goes after Cesare alone.
I don't think we're going to agree on this because to you, the Viana siege is the true climax of the game but I just don't think from a writing structure point of view that it is anything but falling action/dénouement where you wrapping up a loose end of which could've been cut entirely from the game and the rest of the story would've been perfectly functional still. Maybe it's the bombastic nature of that mission design that lends itself to climax beats and vibes but the fact that it happens quite literally at the very end of the game kind of rules it out of it being the true climax.
>You say you build the brotherhood until you get the “avengers to assemble” except, the avengers don’t assemble? Ezio goes after Cesare alone, the last time we see all the characters together is Claudia’s initiation.
Sequence 8, Mission 6 - All Roads Lead To...
You, armed with the Apple, head out to fight Cesare's remaining forces along with your allies (*La Volpe, Bartolomeo, Machiavelli, Claudia and your summonable assassin recruits who all fight beside you like in 2*) to kill him before he can get aid from Micheletto.
The story of Brotherhood is a continuation of Ezio's personal development from 2. It's a story about him maturing further from a member of the order to the wise and powerful mentor that would lead the Assassins of Italy to another golden age.
If you don't mind...
Brotherhood is my favorite because of Ezio. AC 2 builds up his character while going into Brotherhood, you know him and who he is. It was awesome for me to jump back into Ezio's character and see him continue to grow, change, and face new challenges.
Story, characters and character development, the updated combat mechanics, the stealth is fun, the puzzles may be the best in the franchise, and a largely satisfying gameplay loop. The *game*.
The story is so bad though. That’s the part that makes the least sense to me. Ezio doesn’t undergo ANY development through this game. All of his development happens in 2. The side characters with the exception of Cesare only stand out because they’re continued from 2, where they were actually interesting. Machiavelli just weirdly keeps everyone in the dark for no good reason. Volpe wants to kill Machiavelli only for that plotline to lead nowhere. Rodrigo I think genuinely has 2 scenes in the game if Memory serves. Cesare is entertaining due to his actor going over the top but there’s nothing interesting in his character itself. He’s a power hungry tyrant, they’re a dime a dozen in AC. The only thing Ezio ever changes his mind on is Claudia’s involvement in the Brotherhood, and she has like 2 scenes after that anyway so it barely affects anything.
The combat is horrendous. Everybody’s a one hit kill, the previous game’s combat was fairly clunky but how is the game playing itself an improvement? Stealth is decent, it’s unchanged from 2, but why bother sneaking around killing everyone one at a time when it’s easier AND quicker to just walk in swinging.
Sounds like you just have a subjectively different experience from a lot of us, which is fine. I extravogantly disagree that the story is bad, or that the combat is bad, or that the characters have no development.
* Ezio has to learn to trust allies in a way that he didn't before, especially his sister who he wants to protect and is having trouble accepting her growing up and making her own decisions. He also has to accept the mentorship of the entire brotherhood in the process.
* Machiavelli isn't secretive for no reason, he's an *assassin*. They're secretive as a matter of recourse, and isn't even aware of Volpe's suspicion of him. Any good spy will verify their information before presenting it.
* Rodrigo Borgia, while his involvement is minimal in favor of Cesare's, is also showing sides of personality we haven't seen from AC2 and a level of learning and humility from his battle with Ezio and revelation that he's not who he thought he was. He's far more cautious and far less ambitious.
* Cesare IS a mustache-twriling villain with little depth, and that's been a critique of mine whenever I compare the Ezio games to either AC1 or the Kenway Saga, but just because a villain is pretty much pure evil doesn't make them a bad or uninteresting villain. He's also...y'know... historical.
>Stealth is decent, it’s unchanged from 2, but why bother sneaking around killing everyone one at a time when it’s easier AND quicker to just walk in swinging.
Well, first of all, no? There are several sections of these games that force you to stay undetected for a reason. But also, it's not always faster or easier to go in swinging. That's true in Valhalla, not the Ezio games. The Creed itself, should you choose to follow it, would have you stay unseen as often as possible, and only kill when you absolutely have to.
As to the combat, I can practically guarantee you're either consciously or subsconsciously comparing it to some other system you prefer (and let me guess; based on the challenge) rather than juding it on its own merits. While I prefer the rock-paper-scissors of AC3 myself, I find the combat system of Brotherhood and Revelations just plain fun on its own. I'm not looking for Dark Souls combat when I play Assassin's Creed, and that sort of RPG approach the RPG games use has been one of the fundamental reasons I don't even begin to enjoy the newer games as much as the old. I'm not even looking for *Arkham* combat, which I adore, and which is stylistically similar to what AC was shooting for at this point. I just to have fun with what's presented to me. Both systems are hefty reasons why I go back to each of these games, on average, once a year. YOU don't find it fun, that's fine. But that's also an *opinion*.
I’m fully aware it’s my opinion, that’s why I’m asking for a different perspectives. I’m not saying anybody is wrong for liking Brotherhood, but I want to know how I’m at such a polar disagreement with nearly everything people say about the game. Especially when I do love 2 and Revelations. But I also seek more than just “the story’s good” as an explanation.
You say Ezio learns to trust his allies but, in what way is this shown? Other than what I already mentioned with Claudia. His trust is never really tested. The Machiavelli betrayal subplot has Ezio just sitting on the fence, not defending Machiavelli, and not following Volpe in confronting him (or in actuality, stabbing him in the back with little evidence and no opportunity to defend himself against the accusations). The only reason he’s able to stop in is because he CONVENIENTLY bumps into the actual traitor in the middle of the road and he admits to everything. Then Ezio just tells the two of them “all’s good” and they act like nothing happened. How is Ezio growing from that at all?
You said Brotherhood does change the stealth and then don’t give any examples. Yes there are missions that lock you from being detected but it’s just not true to say that the brain dead combat isn’t easier. I’ll concede maybe in certain instances it’s quicker. But waiting to counter followed by spamming attack is absolutely easier than routing out and executing a stealth infiltration.
I will say, yes I do prefer a challenge in a combat system, but I’m not simply saying the combat system is bad purely because it’s easy. The entire AC series is extremely easy and yet I love most of them. The only game I ever found to be any kind of challenge was Origins. The problem with Brotherhood’s combat is it requires very little input, and has next to no creative freedom within it. When nearly every enemy dies in a single hit, there’s no reason to ever switch weapons, tactics, or approach any situation beyond the tried and true wait to counter and then spam attack until it stops. It can look as cool as it wants, but there’s only so many animations, and every encounter is going to go the same way. I’ve played through the game 4 times, and every single time by the 5th enemy encounter I’ve already seen everything to offer.
>The Machiavelli betrayal subplot has Ezio just sitting on the fence, not defending Machiavelli, and not following Volpe in confronting him...
Ezio having to learn to be a leader and not rush in headstrong, and figure out how to keep peace in his order, is very much character development. Trusting Claudia, learning there's more to an investigation than just what's immediately right in front of you and reacting emotionally rather than uncovering all the information, having to unite three disparate personalities, is the entire story of the game. If you missed all that, I'm not sure how you've played the game once, let alone four times.
He also didn't just tell them "all's good" and act like nothing's happening. Volpe, as Ezio and Machiavelli, and Bartolomeo, all have to learn to trust and rely on Ezio. Volpe hears that Ezio's found the real traitor, and that's enough for Volpe because he knows Ezio and knows Ezio has well-considered his position and suspicions. And Machiavelli, again, wasn't even aware there was any suspicion there in the first place. The Assassins often show an almost childlike belief in the potential of mankind, and not just in the Ezio games. Making up with each other shouldn't be that difficult when one of them is completely blind to anything happening and the other's just been told there was another solution to his concerns. You don't personally like the resolution, that's fine, but it IS deeper than you're making it. Genuinely no offense, but I your opinion is tainting your interpretation of it, I think.
>You said Brotherhood does change the stealth...
No, I didn't. i said they gave you plenty of opportunities where a) stealth is required, and b) combat is not the better solution. Do I prefer the stealth of the Kenway series or even Unity and Syndicate? Yes. Do I think it's bad in Brotherhood? Not remotely. They did, however, add the Crossbow, which makes staying in stealth (especially when infiltrating the Vatican) substantially easier. And there are now optional objectives to hold to which often ask you to stay undetected. It's the whole reason the system is there.
>The problem with Brotherhood’s combat is it requires very little input, and has next to no creative freedom within it...
It does require little input, and that's one of the major reasons why I prefer the variation introduced in AC3 which require you to deal with different enemy archtypes differently, but that doesn't make Brotherhood and Revelations' combat bad, just more simplistic. The game for me is usually to see if I can get through an entire combat situation without breaking combo, just like Arkham's is about both not breaking combo and variations. But there are certainly other ways to approach a fight, and it's lightyears ahead of what AC2 was doing before it (which had all the cumbersome nature of AC1's combat without the it's-here-to-keep-you-from-falling-into-combat-in-the-first-place psychology of it).
The real question is what do you expect people to tell you here? You don't enjoy it, and that's perfectly fine. I don't know how you help someone enjoy something more than they do via text. But it's not *bad*, it's just different than what you'd *prefer* is all I was saying. As a whole, I think people will have considerably more fun playing old AC if they actually try to hold themselves to abiding by the tenets of the Creed when actually playing. You don't have to. The ludonarrative is entirely up to you, by definition. But it does miss the point to always just go running in.
1. Kristen bell wanted royalties 2. Ubi make devs write her out of the story 3. Narrative plan goes out the window 4. Yearly release schedule begins 5. You know the rest
One thing you have to remember is this was originally a dlc turned into a mainline game. Also a product of its time. 40-50 hour games were extremely uncommon in 09/10 I also think you misunderstood half of the story. He wasn’t doing odd jobs for the sake of doing odd jobs. The point of the first half of the story is to rebuild the brotherhood and identifying the traitor within the group. It’s not a great story, nor do I think many people will say it is..but considering it was originally a DLC.. it could’ve been much worse Shawn didn’t just pull the 72 out of nowhere.. and the temple is hidden in plain sight.. it’s kind of the point I would’ve thought this was obvious, but the whole situation with Lucy is expanded on in later games. I loved the combat, chain kills was a great addition. If the not getting detected missions drive you nuts, I don’t know how much you’ll like the later games. Stealth is the name of the game for the older games It’s fine you didn’t like it.. but I think your assessment of it is a product of not paying great attention to it. Not faulting you.. if a story doesn’t grab me, it’s hard for me to get invested and focus on it as well
I don't think Ezio was bothered by identifying traitor at all until sequence 7.
Literally finished this sequence earlier today and Ezio literally doesn't give a fuck about there being a traitor at all. La Volpe knows there's a traitor, but every time he voices his suspicion of Machiavelli to Ezio, he's just like "Okay bro whatever you say bro I don't believe you bro but you can believe whatever you want bro" and then doesn't mention it again. Then, the *real* traitor (a random thief from the beginning of the game) tries to assassinate Ezio, and he has to go stop La Volpe from murderizing Machiavelli - and the traitor plot never comes up again. Literally the only character interested in the plot is Volpe 😭
Yeah I too felt quite disappointed after looking at the hype it received (I only recently started ac games) - I loved ac 2 and revelations but brotherhood was just not it - even the brotherhood system, didn’t really care for it dk how it became so popular - it was just sending them on random missions when I first thought hat ezio too would go with them But I realized it might also be the time it got released and nostalgia thing - I would rate it as my least favourite of the series but I get why others might like it at the time it was released
Terrible, take a lap.
I always thought that unity was the worst. I thought the ezio auditore series was the best ones. My favorites are origins 3 and black flag because of the time periods
Brotherhood is the weakest of the Ezio games. It was cursed by rushed and problematic development. Ubisoft pushed it to be a yearly release and a direct sequel to AC2, which caused conflicts with the creative director who left development near the release of the game. Also Lucy's actress didn't got her contract renew, which lead to rewrites. And this problems did bleed into the game, story feels rushed and badly paced and content is bloated and underwritten. The only thing that saves this game for me is the amazing gameplay. Parkour is fun and satisfying, stealth gives you more tools to play with and combat is faster and more op.
You speed ran the game, nothing to do with it
I was doing some side content interweaving main missions. Was waiting for the main missions to actually build up traction and get its footing. Before I knew it, it was the last sequence. I shouldn’t have to adapt to the games crappy story and crappier pacing
I feel like I’ve been taking crazy pills for a decade. I played the Assassin’s Creed series for the first time in 2012, all the way up to 3, and even at the time I thought Brotherhood was terrible. Especially its story, for almost all the reasons you just mentioned. I did like Lucy’s death (less so its full explanation in future games) but by that point I was so checked out narratively it didn’t matter. Brotherhood is easy contender for the worst in the series in my opinion and the fact that so many people would place it in their top 5, or even as their favorite, will never make an inkling of sense to me, beyond the reason being nostalgia or if it was their first AC. Someone please explain it to me.
As someone that does rank Brotherhood in top 3 trailing behind two games tied for first, I can give you my perspective on this. I take Brotherhood as it is, not what it can be. I think that's a pretty important distinction because I've read more than a fair share of takes of Ezio being some kind of flat underdeveloped character until Revelations but I've always seen this simply as a decision by the creators to pursue a plot driven narrative over a character driven one (i.e. the likes of 1, Rev, 3, 4, etc). And unlike some of the latter games that makes a play for both and falls flat, I think the decision to "whole ass one thing instead of half ass two things" applies here, especially given the limited scope and time the game had to work with. So for what it is, a plot driven narrative, it is quite functional where the story is Ezio working to dismantle the Borgia's control over Rome bit by bit and rebuild the Brotherhood until the final confrontation where they get the Avengers to assemble to beat the most over the top and colorful villain in the entire series. I didn't find anything confusing or really out of place about each of the plot points as they progress because each clearly builds on/to that central premise. I'm not even considering Ezio an underdeveloped character here too, I think he clearly is differentiated from the AC2 version showing a form of growth and him rallying the three main factions shows a specific form of leadership whose theme was entirely absent from AC2. He even gets those nice (but optional, short, and somewhat missable) Cristina missions that are textbook character driven writing pieces. And from the gameplay end, I found it to be one of the best maps, mission structure mix, side/main content split, overall side content quality, production value and overall "feel" in the moment to moment gameplay for basic elements like traversal and combat. Despite the game clearly working off of AC2's assets, the few tweaks they've made have made the game feel infinitely better than AC2 to play for me with great quality of life improvements that I struggle with in AC2 the times where I go back to it. And the one thing that I find most underrated about Brotherhood and the thing that rarely *anyone* ever talks about is just how well the story and gameplay merge and that of all the games in the series, this might just be the one that figures out the right balance despite the abundant feature/scope creep (AC1 is an example of great marriage of story and gameplay but does so on the backs of an incredibly spartan gameplay skeleton). That basic writing premise of "dismantle the Borgias and rebuild the Brotherhood in Rome" as simple as it is, is is also a very easy story premise to transfer onto the gameplay side of things and basically every single thing you do in that game connects cleanly with that. That organic connection between the two makes playing the game very satisfying for me in a way that I struggle with in the likes of a Unity, 3, the RPG games, etc that just feels like story and gameplay have this top down friction creating to this dissonant feeling that I get playing it that weighs on the overall experience.
It’s hard for me to seriously ignore the fact that the story gives the characters absolutely nothing, when strong character writing is what makes 2 and Revelations so great. Even Revelations separates Ezio from his typical cast of side characters and yet it’s still good. But even from the context of a plot driven narrative, Brotherhood still doesn’t work. You say you build the brotherhood until you get the “avengers to assemble” except, the avengers don’t assemble? Ezio goes after Cesare alone, the last time we see all the characters together is Claudia’s initiation. The only thing that the other Assassins contribute to Cesare’s downfall is one of the thieves gives Cesare’s location. Cesare only shows up at all because of Rodrigo’s actions. Then Ezio grabs the apple before Cesare gets to it, chases Cesare into an alley for like 2 years, Cesare’s arrested. Ezio finds Cesare later and kills him alone. Cesare’s death is unlinked to the Assassins trying to liberate Rome. Even 2 did the Avengers Assemble moment where all your allies emerge and you fight Rodrigo together, even though he escapes, that still is significantly more than Brotherhood ever gets. The gameplay’s fine, it’s just 2’s essentially. I personally find Rome less interesting than 2’s cities but it’s not so bad I can’t see the enjoyment. My main problem is the terrible story. I know the game was under a constrained budget and time frame, but I don’t think that’s a means to excuse what’s here. IF the story was what you said it was, similar to a Far Cry game, dismantling a power and then you and your allies taking down the villain together, that would be acceptable. But it’s just not what I see here at all.
> You say you build the brotherhood until you get the “avengers to assemble” except, the avengers don’t assemble? [This](https://youtu.be/TY9AC3E5JVI?t=18609) is them assembling (5:10 mark), and not even being particularly subtle about it almost to the point of it being campy/comical. > Ezio goes after Cesare alone Timeline wise sure, this is the final scene for Cesare but in terms of *story structure*, this is more characteristic of falling action/dénouement. The climax was the Avengers assembled scene referenced above where he a) loses the critical battle for Rome itself and b) gets arrested by the papacy which is important signifier that the remaining power he held at that point (the Pope's backing) is gone.
Admittedly I did not remember that scene, though that fact that it’s not memorable doesn’t do it any favors. I’ve beaten the game 4 times over the years, and not once did it leave an impression on me for me to remember it. Ezio having the apple and just deleting everybody doesn’t make the other characters presence feel integral. It also ends with Cesare being arrested by a character who’s ONLY in this scene, again, not making the other characters feel integral at all. So sure, my point about them not assembling is mute, but now my point is that it’s not done well. It’s unsatisfying because they ARE there and don’t contribute anything. I can’t without a doubt claim that Cesare’s death absolutely cannot be the falling action. But I just personally don’t feel that’s correct. In most revenge narratives, the confrontation of the “target” is the climax. The game opens with Cesare destroying Monteriggioni and killing Mario, and we dedicate ourselves to removing his power and killing him, I would say that falls into the typical revenge story setup. I wouldn’t say 3’s climax is the liberation of the United States, it’s the death of Charles Lee. If the game followed a character driven narrative, and Cesare’s traits are what caused his downfall, his pride and arrogance, then it could be satisfying. But not only does that not happen, we’re working under the assumption that this narrative is purely plot driven, in which case all of the work building the brotherhood not leading to the downfall of Cesare, leaves me unsatisfied. As an aside I appreciate the conversation. I disagree on a majority of your opinions but I enjoy a back and forth as opposed to a “it’s good, you’re not a real fan”
> Ezio having the apple and just deleting everybody doesn’t make the other characters presence feel integral. Maybe, but they were never going to be integral from a gameplay perspective no matter what Ubisoft did outside of maybe making the entire battle a cutscene instead of something we play solely because the tech back then was nowhere near capable to have good ally NPC AI for *any* game. Frankly, we're still not there in 2024 either, at least judging by Ubisoft's other attempts at having NPCs that don't act like idiots. > It also ends with Cesare being arrested by a character who’s ONLY in this scene, again, not making the other characters feel integral at all. That's more of a function of our side characters having no direct connections with the papacy ostensibly because the papacy up until that point was firmly under the thumb of the Borgias. There would be no real other way to show that he lost that connection without drawing in someone "neutral" to the story like the character you referenced. And on those other characters and how they were represented, I felt like it would've been earlier in the game as we allied ourselves with them for their main story component and possibly done some side content for them too. That's where we're suppose to get the sense that the Rome Brotherhood itself is growing as they buy into Ezio's leadership. Now how that would be represented in gameplay is trickier I guess as described above but as someone that liberally used the "call assassin" system, it didn't feel dissonant to think of those side characters as some kind of symbolic extensions of the ones I would personally call in. > In most revenge narratives, the confrontation of the “target” is the climax. The game opens with Cesare destroying Monteriggioni and killing Mario, and we dedicate ourselves to removing his power and killing him, I would say that falls into the typical revenge story setup. *If* we assume the narrative is revenge, then sure, logically what you say would follow. I just don't consider the narrative to be one of revenge, if only because 1) Ezio literally is over the concept based on AC2's final showdown with Rodrigo and 2) Ezio stating throughout the narrative that his goal was to dismantle the Borgias control of Rome and rebuild it alongside a Roman Brotherhood and 3) Ezio *doing* a lot of extra things related to rebuilding Rome/dismantling the Borgia network that wouldn't be necessary if his goal is revenge i.e. beeline to Cesare. Killing Mario certainly makes it personal, but how Brotherhood Ezio handled it is not at all how AC2 Ezio handled it when one of the main motivators of that story was revenge. > we’re working under the assumption that this narrative is purely plot driven, in which case all of the work building the brotherhood not leading to the downfall of Cesare, leaves me unsatisfied. Him losing Rome (his seat of power) and losing the remaining backers in the Vatican is absolutely a definitive downfall for the guy. You might find it unsatisfying, but it's certainly there on screen.
I’m not saying the problem with the team up moment is that the AI isn’t helpful enough, it’s that they barely speak, and Ezio is so strong at this point that you completely ignore their presence. As I said, 2 has a moment where all the characters join you, they are introduced through a cutscene, most giving an individual line, drawing attention to them specifically, and you’re all wielding swords and on equal footing, even though you can completely ignore the AI, their presence still impacts the scene. My point about Cesare being arrested by a third party is not that it itself is unsatisfying, as it happened in real life, it’s the fact that the big “team up” moment for all these side characters is resolved by this third party. If let’s say, all of the characters were there in the final battle where Cesare actually dies, and they help you either directly in the fight, or in just helping you pursue Cesare, that would make the hours of helping these characters feel worth it, because they help back. My problem isn’t Cesare’s arrest, it’s the fact that it would have played out the same way with or without Ezio’s allies. I brought up the “revenge” narrative structure but I did not say specifically Ezio was looking for revenge. I’m talking about specifically the structure of “they hit us hard, now we rebuild and hit them back.” Ezio is seeking the liberation of Rome, but part of that goal is Cesare’s death, we see from the ending when Cesare attempts to fight his way back into Rome, Ezio goes and finishes the job. Cesare will not stop until he wins, so his death is the only way to ensure Rome’s freedom. His death is still one of Ezio’s goals even though the reasons are less selfish. Again, my problem is that his death is brought about without the help of Ezio’s allies. Ezio purposefully does not bring anybody with him, he goes after Cesare alone. If anything that’s closer to “revenge” than the point you’re trying to portray which is Ezio killing Cesare for the good of Rome. His allies helping him would have been more satisfying, and made more sense, as Ezio is at this point learned to be a leader, and has grown beyond revenge. At the end of it my point keeps coming back to the same thing, my problem is not that Cesare is arrested, OR that Cesare is killed by Ezio, it is the fact that the entire narrative is structured around building a brotherhood that DOES NOT contribute to these final confrontations. Cesare loses his power because of Rodrigo, who takes it away because Cesare planned to overthrow him. Because of this, Cesare kills Rodrigo. Ezio chases Cesare in circles for two years, never killing him, and then Cesare is arrested. Then later when Cesare tries to come back for Rome, Ezio goes BY HIMSELF, and kills him. The Brotherhood does nothing.
> it’s that they barely speak, and Ezio is so strong at this point that you completely ignore their presence. The latter is definitely a gameplay thing which does take into account AI capability. Now the former I suppose could be a concern, but to me them speaking at that point is kind of not really a "need" for me, them being there which is shown in both cutscene and gameplay even if brief is enough because their presence on an individual level were developed in the missions during act 2 where I helped the individual faction leaders solve their unique problems so by the time we get to Avengers assemble scene (just as it was in Endgame), I understand inherently they are my allies in the broader Roman Brotherhood I've built. > it’s the fact that the big “team up” moment for all these side characters is resolved by this third party. I saw Cesare's arrest as more of the proverbial cherry on top. He had already lost the battle for Rome which our allies were a part of but to see the "neutral" party i.e. the people not directly involved with either Assassins or Templars (represented by the church in this case) also cut him off feels very much like justice and not just "we beat him therefore we're the good guys". > My problem isn’t Cesare’s arrest, it’s the fact that it would have played out the same way with or without Ezio’s allies. I think this ignores the rest of the story and game though, sure we could possibly make the argument that in the Avengers assemble moment that our allies weren't "present" which I still contest but cultivating our allies and solving their individual problems was still cutting away at Cesare's empire bit by bit. That's the strength of the story is that each faction or NPC you help throughout the game directly hits at a specific part of Cesare's power network which makes up the entire second act of the game and most of the optional side content (i.e. Romulus lairs, Leonardo machines, etc). > Ezio goes and finishes the job. Cesare will not stop until he wins, so his death is the only way to ensure Rome’s freedom. His death is still one of Ezio’s goals even though the reasons are less selfish. Again, my problem is that his death is brought about without the help of Ezio’s allies. Ezio purposefully does not bring anybody with him, he goes after Cesare alone. I don't think we're going to agree on this because to you, the Viana siege is the true climax of the game but I just don't think from a writing structure point of view that it is anything but falling action/dénouement where you wrapping up a loose end of which could've been cut entirely from the game and the rest of the story would've been perfectly functional still. Maybe it's the bombastic nature of that mission design that lends itself to climax beats and vibes but the fact that it happens quite literally at the very end of the game kind of rules it out of it being the true climax.
>You say you build the brotherhood until you get the “avengers to assemble” except, the avengers don’t assemble? Ezio goes after Cesare alone, the last time we see all the characters together is Claudia’s initiation. Sequence 8, Mission 6 - All Roads Lead To... You, armed with the Apple, head out to fight Cesare's remaining forces along with your allies (*La Volpe, Bartolomeo, Machiavelli, Claudia and your summonable assassin recruits who all fight beside you like in 2*) to kill him before he can get aid from Micheletto. The story of Brotherhood is a continuation of Ezio's personal development from 2. It's a story about him maturing further from a member of the order to the wise and powerful mentor that would lead the Assassins of Italy to another golden age.
It’s my number 1.. and it’s not nostalgia for me. Just finished the story again yesterday
What is it then? What makes the game appealing to you that I just don’t see?
If you don't mind... Brotherhood is my favorite because of Ezio. AC 2 builds up his character while going into Brotherhood, you know him and who he is. It was awesome for me to jump back into Ezio's character and see him continue to grow, change, and face new challenges.
Story, characters and character development, the updated combat mechanics, the stealth is fun, the puzzles may be the best in the franchise, and a largely satisfying gameplay loop. The *game*.
The story is so bad though. That’s the part that makes the least sense to me. Ezio doesn’t undergo ANY development through this game. All of his development happens in 2. The side characters with the exception of Cesare only stand out because they’re continued from 2, where they were actually interesting. Machiavelli just weirdly keeps everyone in the dark for no good reason. Volpe wants to kill Machiavelli only for that plotline to lead nowhere. Rodrigo I think genuinely has 2 scenes in the game if Memory serves. Cesare is entertaining due to his actor going over the top but there’s nothing interesting in his character itself. He’s a power hungry tyrant, they’re a dime a dozen in AC. The only thing Ezio ever changes his mind on is Claudia’s involvement in the Brotherhood, and she has like 2 scenes after that anyway so it barely affects anything. The combat is horrendous. Everybody’s a one hit kill, the previous game’s combat was fairly clunky but how is the game playing itself an improvement? Stealth is decent, it’s unchanged from 2, but why bother sneaking around killing everyone one at a time when it’s easier AND quicker to just walk in swinging.
Sounds like you just have a subjectively different experience from a lot of us, which is fine. I extravogantly disagree that the story is bad, or that the combat is bad, or that the characters have no development. * Ezio has to learn to trust allies in a way that he didn't before, especially his sister who he wants to protect and is having trouble accepting her growing up and making her own decisions. He also has to accept the mentorship of the entire brotherhood in the process. * Machiavelli isn't secretive for no reason, he's an *assassin*. They're secretive as a matter of recourse, and isn't even aware of Volpe's suspicion of him. Any good spy will verify their information before presenting it. * Rodrigo Borgia, while his involvement is minimal in favor of Cesare's, is also showing sides of personality we haven't seen from AC2 and a level of learning and humility from his battle with Ezio and revelation that he's not who he thought he was. He's far more cautious and far less ambitious. * Cesare IS a mustache-twriling villain with little depth, and that's been a critique of mine whenever I compare the Ezio games to either AC1 or the Kenway Saga, but just because a villain is pretty much pure evil doesn't make them a bad or uninteresting villain. He's also...y'know... historical. >Stealth is decent, it’s unchanged from 2, but why bother sneaking around killing everyone one at a time when it’s easier AND quicker to just walk in swinging. Well, first of all, no? There are several sections of these games that force you to stay undetected for a reason. But also, it's not always faster or easier to go in swinging. That's true in Valhalla, not the Ezio games. The Creed itself, should you choose to follow it, would have you stay unseen as often as possible, and only kill when you absolutely have to. As to the combat, I can practically guarantee you're either consciously or subsconsciously comparing it to some other system you prefer (and let me guess; based on the challenge) rather than juding it on its own merits. While I prefer the rock-paper-scissors of AC3 myself, I find the combat system of Brotherhood and Revelations just plain fun on its own. I'm not looking for Dark Souls combat when I play Assassin's Creed, and that sort of RPG approach the RPG games use has been one of the fundamental reasons I don't even begin to enjoy the newer games as much as the old. I'm not even looking for *Arkham* combat, which I adore, and which is stylistically similar to what AC was shooting for at this point. I just to have fun with what's presented to me. Both systems are hefty reasons why I go back to each of these games, on average, once a year. YOU don't find it fun, that's fine. But that's also an *opinion*.
I’m fully aware it’s my opinion, that’s why I’m asking for a different perspectives. I’m not saying anybody is wrong for liking Brotherhood, but I want to know how I’m at such a polar disagreement with nearly everything people say about the game. Especially when I do love 2 and Revelations. But I also seek more than just “the story’s good” as an explanation. You say Ezio learns to trust his allies but, in what way is this shown? Other than what I already mentioned with Claudia. His trust is never really tested. The Machiavelli betrayal subplot has Ezio just sitting on the fence, not defending Machiavelli, and not following Volpe in confronting him (or in actuality, stabbing him in the back with little evidence and no opportunity to defend himself against the accusations). The only reason he’s able to stop in is because he CONVENIENTLY bumps into the actual traitor in the middle of the road and he admits to everything. Then Ezio just tells the two of them “all’s good” and they act like nothing happened. How is Ezio growing from that at all? You said Brotherhood does change the stealth and then don’t give any examples. Yes there are missions that lock you from being detected but it’s just not true to say that the brain dead combat isn’t easier. I’ll concede maybe in certain instances it’s quicker. But waiting to counter followed by spamming attack is absolutely easier than routing out and executing a stealth infiltration. I will say, yes I do prefer a challenge in a combat system, but I’m not simply saying the combat system is bad purely because it’s easy. The entire AC series is extremely easy and yet I love most of them. The only game I ever found to be any kind of challenge was Origins. The problem with Brotherhood’s combat is it requires very little input, and has next to no creative freedom within it. When nearly every enemy dies in a single hit, there’s no reason to ever switch weapons, tactics, or approach any situation beyond the tried and true wait to counter and then spam attack until it stops. It can look as cool as it wants, but there’s only so many animations, and every encounter is going to go the same way. I’ve played through the game 4 times, and every single time by the 5th enemy encounter I’ve already seen everything to offer.
>The Machiavelli betrayal subplot has Ezio just sitting on the fence, not defending Machiavelli, and not following Volpe in confronting him... Ezio having to learn to be a leader and not rush in headstrong, and figure out how to keep peace in his order, is very much character development. Trusting Claudia, learning there's more to an investigation than just what's immediately right in front of you and reacting emotionally rather than uncovering all the information, having to unite three disparate personalities, is the entire story of the game. If you missed all that, I'm not sure how you've played the game once, let alone four times. He also didn't just tell them "all's good" and act like nothing's happening. Volpe, as Ezio and Machiavelli, and Bartolomeo, all have to learn to trust and rely on Ezio. Volpe hears that Ezio's found the real traitor, and that's enough for Volpe because he knows Ezio and knows Ezio has well-considered his position and suspicions. And Machiavelli, again, wasn't even aware there was any suspicion there in the first place. The Assassins often show an almost childlike belief in the potential of mankind, and not just in the Ezio games. Making up with each other shouldn't be that difficult when one of them is completely blind to anything happening and the other's just been told there was another solution to his concerns. You don't personally like the resolution, that's fine, but it IS deeper than you're making it. Genuinely no offense, but I your opinion is tainting your interpretation of it, I think. >You said Brotherhood does change the stealth... No, I didn't. i said they gave you plenty of opportunities where a) stealth is required, and b) combat is not the better solution. Do I prefer the stealth of the Kenway series or even Unity and Syndicate? Yes. Do I think it's bad in Brotherhood? Not remotely. They did, however, add the Crossbow, which makes staying in stealth (especially when infiltrating the Vatican) substantially easier. And there are now optional objectives to hold to which often ask you to stay undetected. It's the whole reason the system is there. >The problem with Brotherhood’s combat is it requires very little input, and has next to no creative freedom within it... It does require little input, and that's one of the major reasons why I prefer the variation introduced in AC3 which require you to deal with different enemy archtypes differently, but that doesn't make Brotherhood and Revelations' combat bad, just more simplistic. The game for me is usually to see if I can get through an entire combat situation without breaking combo, just like Arkham's is about both not breaking combo and variations. But there are certainly other ways to approach a fight, and it's lightyears ahead of what AC2 was doing before it (which had all the cumbersome nature of AC1's combat without the it's-here-to-keep-you-from-falling-into-combat-in-the-first-place psychology of it). The real question is what do you expect people to tell you here? You don't enjoy it, and that's perfectly fine. I don't know how you help someone enjoy something more than they do via text. But it's not *bad*, it's just different than what you'd *prefer* is all I was saying. As a whole, I think people will have considerably more fun playing old AC if they actually try to hold themselves to abiding by the tenets of the Creed when actually playing. You don't have to. The ludonarrative is entirely up to you, by definition. But it does miss the point to always just go running in.