Over the last week or so, hot on the heels of its predecessor, I’ve been catching up on the Assassin’s Creed franchise by playing (the imaginatively titled) Assassin’s Creed II, and I came out of it considerably more impressed than I thought I’d be. I bring a certain degree of skepticism to games - besides the odd product like Bioshock or Portal 2, games aren’t really trying to aspire to the same level of narrative depth as books or films are, and while they have an obvious advantage to distract people (read: gameplay), if you’re a story-minded person like me then you come out feeling a little hollow even after games that excel in every other area. Arkham City is a really good example of this sort of feeling - graphically, it’s beautiful, and the gameplay’s just as slick as Arkham Asylum, but the story is bunk despite the massive revelations at the end.
By the end of Assassin’s Creed II, I didn’t have that hollow feeling. Here’s a game that’s operating on three separate levels, and rather than taking the easy route and going for the apocalyptic sci-fi bent, it focuses itself on what might be considered humdrum in comparison - Renaissance Italy, viewed through the eyes of a charming roguish assassin called Ezio. Because you’re actually playing a dude called Desmond reliving Ezio’s memories through a 3D projection device called the Animus, the game’s open to feeding the SF silliness in where it’s relevant, and it doesn’t feel forced - in fact, the synchronicity ends up feeling natural.
And there’s a lot to learn - this is a game that rewards inquisitive people - there are subplots you don’t reveal unless you pay attention to your surroundings, and one part of the game becomes torturous if you haven’t kept environment exploration in mind throughout your play time. There’s plenty to read - though enough to keep up with - and while it’s occasionally sluggish, that might just be because I approach this stuff with completionism in mind - I tend to throw myself into sidequests as much as possible before advancing the main plot.
Really, though, it’s the last third where the game comes into its own. The first game was criticised for reusing environments that essentially amounted to the same city with different colour schemes (and accents); in Assassin’s Creed II, spend enough time wandering around and you start feeling familiar with the city. The largest portion of the game takes place in Venice, and it’s a stunning recreation, right down to the minute details. Once the game’s over, you re-enter the Animus and have the option to finish collecting the various gizmos lying around each city; I’ve spent some time just wandering around, it’s that pretty.
Really, though, it’s the storyline I’m impressed by. I tend to forget characters in games, because they usually lack definition - a combination of the cheekily-penned biographies (read in the voice of Danny Wallace, which is more than a little uncanny) and the cinematic exposition avoids this, and when all the threads pull together at the end it’s remarkably satisfying. They’re different, but not caricatures; defined, but not awkwardly shoehorned.
This is a game that’s mostly taken up by running around and killing people. It’s an action game. That it’s the first game since Bioshock to impress me with its narrative is a fantastic achievement, and one that a lot of other games could do with learning from. It’s not perfect - there’s a slow-moving second act where I gather a lot of people lose interest - but persevere, and it’s incredibly rewarding. I think I’ve found another thing to cherish - and another reason to have faith in the future of games.