Over the weekend I finished playing through Assassin’s Creed, and I felt compelled to say a little something about it here.  The game was very polarizing to reviewers when it came out last year—most either really liked it or really hated it.  Those who hated it said it was incredibly repetitive.  Gabe said on Penny Arcade that if you were playing it like you were trying to complete it as fast as possible (like a reviewer on a deadline), you would hate it.  All that said, I really liked the game.  It took me over two months to complete it, but that is because I didn’t play it continuously.

Two things I want to discuss.  First, I’m surprised the game wasn’t more controversial.  It is set in Crusades-era middle east, and one of the subtasks is to assassinate various Templars who are stationed around the game world.  Which is to say (if you want to exaggerate and misrepresent), you must kill the Christians to gain experience.  Add to that the fact that many of the assassination targets are Muslims (who aren’t known for being open-minded to such things), and it seems like something that would have gotten more attention from the Jack Thompsons of the world.  I guess Ubisoft was afraid of that too, because there is a disclaimer everytime the game is started, saying something to the effect of “this game was developed by a diverse group representing different religious faiths.”  But I guess either it worked or people just didn’t notice the game, because I never heard of any controversy.

Point the second:  the ending to the game was dumb.  Spoiler etiquette prevents me from discussing it, but it was bad.  In fact, to call it an ending would be to imply that there was some type of conclusion.  It would be more accurately called “the thing that happened before the credits abruptly started playing.”  I think they want me to be intrigued and eagerly anticipate a sequel.  I’d like to play a sequel, but not because of the way the game ended stopped.