When Ubisoft debuted their alternative take on the Assassin's Creed world with Assassin's Creed Chronicles: China back in 2015, announcing that it was the first of a three-part trilogy, there was hope in our hearts. Hope that starting from the promising base that the first title provided, the development team would listen to criticisms put forward by gamers and improve upon the formula. Then, we hoped, they'd do it again for the third game, creating a trifecta of games that crescendoed in quality until we reached gaming nirvana.
What's actually happened, is that the best game was released first (review), followed by the slightly less fun Assassin's Creed Chronicles: India (review), and then Assassin's Creed Chronicles: Russia, which seems to be hellbent on throwing the concept of "fun" out of the nearest window. Though it would probably get caught doing it and have to start again from the last checkpoint.
Without beating around the bush, this Russian sojourn's main problem is the sheer number of shackles that are placed on the way that you approach each level. One of the more beautiful parts of the first game was that you could take your time and try to find a solution that worked for you. You might have to rethink your initial idea if something unexpected happened, but you'd still have the tools and skills available to improvise and try to pick up that elusive "Shadow Gold" rating, which is awarded for getting through a section undetected. In Russia, that is pretty much never how things go down. The game frequently ensures that you only have one way of obtaining that top rating and in far too many cases, only have one real solution outside of the perfect run anyway. Of course, this problem is only exacerbated by the sheer number of times that the game will adjudge you to have failed entirely, forcing you back to the last checkpoint. A lot of levels have detection restrictions on them – especially later on in the game – which means the whole scoring system goes out of the window. We fail to see the point in having Silver and Bronze ratings available for only being detected once or twice, when the game fails you if someone so much as happens to catch a glimpse of you out of the corner of their eye.
The insta-fails don't stop with detections, either. A number of the more high-action levels – well, all of them, in fact – feature penalties for not knowing exactly what to do in a game that very rarely tells you exactly what it wants you to do. Stood atop a tram, you may have to duck under a bridge, then another, then grab a ladder on the next bridge, run across, and leap back over the other edge so you land back on the tram roof. The ladder is red - an indicator that you have to climb it - but you'll fail if you so much as take an extra step for the jump, don't run toward the front of the tram before you get to the ladder, watch as the game engine decides that the character needs to refuse to respond to your input, causing you to take an extra split second to let go of that ladder in time, or…well…any other thing that the game thinks constitutes a lack of skill.
The simple fact is that in more than one spot, you can attempt something and fail, then do the exact same thing and succeed. The final level – where you're on the run from a tank – feels more like a round of Trials Fusion than anything else. You run, try to climb a ladder, and die. You restart, try to climb the ladder, and die. You restart again, jump just half a step earlier so that you're a little further up the ladder, and succeed. It's a constant exercise in trial and error that removes all semblance of high action from proceedings. A section where you need to run across three platforms and leap to grab an overhang whilst being shot at, saw us fail and restart at least three dozen times. The only way to do it correctly is to run over the first platform, jump the second, then jump the third, even though running across all three gets you to the same point at very much the same time. For reference, the target time for that particular level is six and a half minutes. It took us an hour and a half, simply because even if you do manage to read the game's mind and get things exactly right, it might just decide that a collapsing platform is going to give way a second earlier than it has in every other attempt so far and kill you off that way.
But it isn't all bad. Far from it. The base game is the same as it was the last two times around, with a couple of nice pieces of new invention. The electric winch that Nikolai carries allows you to use it to pull handles and send electrical charges through it. So, you can electrify a pool of water and kill off enemies, or take out the lights and shorten your opposition's vision cones, for example. You only actually need to use the electrical water trick once during a full run through the game, so there's a missed trick. Telephones also come into play, allowing you to stand in a room and distract an opponent in a different room by making their phone ring so that they go to answer it. These are really nice options that would allow for diverse approaches to completing levels, was it not for the aforementioned restrictions and some of the layouts requiring that you absolutely have to do things in a specific order.
Nikolai can't use "Helix" abilities seen in the earlier titles, such as blend, blade, and dash. However, for a decent portion of the game, you'll play as Anastasia. Without giving away too much of the story, you end up switching between the two characters at specific points, with Anastasia being the more agile of the two. She can use all of the Helix skills, but doesn't have any other tools or utilities, barring the basic rope dart. This means that you have to think slightly differently about the way in which you get past the multitude of guards. It would be an intriguing proposition that harked back to China, but once again, the limitations of the level design found here generally stop that from being the case.
Everything else is as it always was. The Challenge Rooms feature from India make a return and the new rooms are a welcome might tougher than their counterparts from last time around. New Game Plus and New Game Plus Hard modes are also in place, which allow for you to run back through the game using any abilities that you've picked up. It's most unlikely that you'll want to head in for a second go round though, unless you absolutely must get all of the achievements.
Conclusion
Assassin's Creed Chronicles features a generally solid game engine, nice storyline, and is for all intents and purposes a decent proposition. However, it's constantly prevented from shining by some dire level design and so many instant deaths that if you counted them, would probably see you reaching triple digits by the time you complete the game for the first time. There's some enjoyment to be had here, but it's frequently punctuated by massive bouts of frustration. If you want to try the series, you should grab China, since it remains the best of the three.
Comments 12
This series needs to take a few years off and reboot. Ubisoft has milked this cow long enough.
You guys just reviewed India not even a month ago, and this is already out?? Sigh..
@A_BabyRed_Yoshi
Yea that says all you should need to know about these games.
Avoid like the plague. Lol.
@KelticDevil There is nothing wrong with the 'franchise' in general. These games would be 'poor' if they didn't have the AC name but the fact they do is likely to generate a few more sales.
The franchise itself isn't the issue and the fact it gets a regular release isn't that much of an issue either. Its not as if each game is exactly the same, set in the same era etc etc. I do think though that the developers need to put a bit more thought into their games. For me the last great one was AC2. AC4 wasn't exacty an AC game - more a pirate game that had the AC name - I think it would have been better to make it a new Pirate IP. The last 2 haven't appealed - mainly because the first was too buggy and I didn't like the co-op feature and the last doesn't appeal - even though its set in London but its too modern for me. The vocal work lets them down as well.
Compared to a lot of annual releases, Assassins Creed though does try and do something different, new settings etc - some work, some don't. A lot of people enjoyed 4 and Unity.
Trying to force AC into a concept/setting though is where I think they go wrong. I do think that the last few games, could have been new IP's with a little tweak here and there to make them less AC like - like removing the high dive into hay. Maybe the issue is trying to shoehorn in these to make them AC games is the big issue.
@BAMozzy
You say the franchise & the annual releases aren't the problem, but you list off tons of problems that have come from making this a franchise that has annual releases. Um......lol.
@KelticDevil No, I stated the issues with Assassins Creed games of late and Ubisoft's mistake. Its not the 'franchise' but the way Ubisoft force AC into a game because it seems they have no confidence in them as new IP's. That doesn't mean that the Franchise in general couldn't be an annual release or one that's released every couple of years or so.
The problem, it seems, is that Ubisoft haven't got the courage or faith to release some of these games as a new IP. AC4 (for example) could have been a new Pirate based IP and given Ubisoft a new franchise. I don't think it works as an AC game. The next game (Unity) is an AC game but was buggy and I don't agree with the co-op part. It could still be an AC game though. Syndicate, I think could have been better without the AC name to it as well and with a few tweaks, could have been yet another new IP - similar to Dishonoured??
Its the fact that Ubisoft, shoehorn AC elements into these games that brings the overall experience down. Its as if they can't release a game that has some of the AC movement (i.e scaling buildings) without it getting an AC name and having other aspects pushed in regardless.
I don't think it would be an issue if Assassin Creed games were 'consistent' and good without bugs. As its just a 'story', its unlikely to last a year and as long as they have a story to tell that fits into the 'Assassins Creed' then I see no issue.
What I do object to though is forcing games that could easily be separate from the AC franchise into it because it seems Ubisoft have no confidence in the games as new IP's.
Because of this though its also limiting their options. If AC4 (for example) was a new IP, they could have made a sequel Pirate game but now almost can't because shoehorning AC elements into it. Syndicate, If they hadn't tied AC into it, could have given them another franchise option.
If Ubisoft had more conviction in these as new IP's, AC wouldn't have been an annual release anyway. In some ways, by putting AC on the box, it's like an ,Albatross' round the games 'neck'. They get judged by other AC games and the expectation too. I doubt people would mind if some elements from AC are in a 'new' IP - after all we know that some of AC elements are straight out of Prince of Persia so not 'unique'. Removing some AC things - like the high dive into hay, Synchronisation etc could have given Ubisoft a new IP and removed some of the expectation by AC fans. Its not like they need to change the 'story' or setting that much.
@BAMozzy
Well, they already did remove some things from AC and call it a new IP - Far Cry.
It'd be cool if they just started from the ground up on a new IP instead of heavily borrowing from what games they've already made
@A_BabyRed_Yoshi
But Ubisoft made Watch Dogs, which is a new IP that is completely diff......oh wait.
Nevermind. It's Assassin's Creed with a cell phone. Lol.
Ubisoft, almost literally, makes the same game with almost every AAA game they make. Don't get me wrong, I like the Far Cry series & I do like some of the AC games. But, like you said, Ubi needs to do a completely new & original IP/game-type.
@KelticDevil my wife never buys me many games but for our anniversary she brought me the whole collection of these 3 games on disc lol. I did fancy playing the first one china but if I had to choose a game to have it wouldn't be these lol. I'm not even tempted to take the wrapper off ha ha
@jasper81
Yea, if the wife gets them for ya.....you almost have to play them. That or you'll be sleeping in the garage for the next 6 mos. Lol.
An ex of mine did that once. When we first met, I made a comment during a commercial about how the 2nd Brothers In Arms game for original Xbox looked cool. Not too long later, she bought me the game for my b-day. The problem was I hadn't played the first game yet. So I had to buy that first, then I played the one she got me & didn't even like it. Then I traded it into Gamestop & she was like wtf. She never bought me another game. Lol.
@KelticDevil lol she did ask me when am I going to play it. She dident pay to much for it thank god £22.00 so not to bad I might load it up later but I'm getting stuck in with plants v zombies at the mo and the 2nd one out soon. I liked the band of brothers games alot especially the highway to hell one think it was called that on xbox 360
@jasper81
I loved the first BiA for the original Xbox & Hell's Highway on 360. The second one on OG Xbox (the one my ex got me), I didn't like. It came less than a year later than the first, felt more like an expansion pack, & they charged $50-60 for it.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...