Release Date: 09/02/2016
Played On: PS4
Available On: PS4 / PSV / Win / XBO
Time Played: 17h 45m
Progress: Completed.
Developer: Climax Studios
Publisher: Ubisoft
If I had to nominate a big budget series that I always play and enjoy, despite its mainstream shortcomings, it would be Assassin's Creed. The main thing I love about the series is how much detail and effort is put into recreating the cities and time periods of each instalment. There's an epic quality that's only within reach of the big budgets and big development teams, which often makes up for the cookie-cutter gameplay and story.
Why then, would such a big series take a step back and release a trio of short platformers along with its usual big open world schedule. Even more puzzling is why some of the most interesting locations in the world were given the spin-off treatment, instead of a full sandbox release.
It's this train of thought that I think put a lot of people off the "Chronicles" trilogy, as they feel like games made for a different audience. Out of context these titles would be fine platformers in their own right, but there's no way to separate any Assassin's Creed game from any other, as they all exist in relation to their position on the timeline.
However, the main thing I keep thinking of is how Assassin's Creed is essentially the Call Of Duty of open world games. You could argue that Far Cry is up there as well, but there's no doubt that the series is a big deal to the people who buy the most games. It's as mainstream as they come and everyone who owns a console has probably bought an Assassin's Creed game at some point in their gaming life. I know some people who only ever buy the yearly FIFA release, and whatever Assassin's Creed is out at the time.
It's hard to overstate how pervasive this series has become in mainstream gaming, which is an important thing to remember. It makes it even more baffling to consider why such a big, bloated, "top 40" game series would produce three small side scrolling platformers. I don't think I'm generalising too much when I say that the kind of gamers who stick to the big mainstream releases, are probably not the ones who seek out odd little spin-offs.
In fact, it's this very notion that led to the Chronicles trilogy being largely ignored and derided for not being the Assassin's Creed games everyone wanted. I also suspect that this is due to China, India, and Russia being used as spin-off locations. All three of these are locations that would be perfect for a full entry in the series, but we know they'll never be more than the little platformers they are.
It seems to me that these games were doomed to be hated from the very beginning, as they represent so much disappointment. It's hard to play through each title in the trilogy without wishing all the good bits were part of a mainline Assassin's Creed game. Despite any of their individual merits, the entire series will always be lacking thanks to the context in which they exist.
Thus, in a way we have to think about the Chronicles trilogy by their own merits if we're ever going to give them a chance. Just remember that no matter how much I might have liked them, I completely understand why a lot of Assassin's Creed fans would have them stricken from the record.
Ultimately what you get from Chronicles, are three games in the Assassin's Creed universe. In each you play an assassin who is up against some bad guy and you're tasked with progressing through levels and sneaking about.
Mechanically speaking, all three games work the same way, with some different gadgets and weaponry to utilise along the way. For instance, the third game is set during the Russian revolution, so it's the only one to focus on a lot of guns and tanks. While the first game is set in China where you'll be throwing rocks at gongs to distract guards instead.
One of the coolest elements in the game is the use of a well thought out two-and-a-half-dimensions. Most of the action takes place across two dimensions where you'll be moving from left to right and back again to get things done. However, there are many occasions where you also get to move into the foreground and background to move through each level.
I've never been all that bothered by the 2.5D style, but it's really used well in the Chronicles trilogy, and it feels appropriate. Especially during the Russian missions, as a lot of the levels take place inside buildings where you'll be running up and down corridors in every dimension.
What's more, even the traditional two dimensional sections have a bit of 2.5D in them. It's kind of hard to explain without seeing it, but you can essentially access every side of the invisible cube you're standing in. You can climb up a wall on the background, or hang from the ceiling above, and you can jump through windows in the foreground.
All of this foreground and background business is actually used well, and I found myself quickly getting used to the language of the game and using it to my advantage. You might start running down a hall, then jump out a window in the foreground to hide from a patrolling enemy. Once he's gone you can shimmy over to another window, jump inside and quickly grapple to the ceiling before another patrol passes underneath. Really getting to know how the dimensions of each level work can often be the key to staying out of sight and nailing each level.
At the same time there are various hiding spots along the way, like gardens, alcoves, and building columns. Being able to read a scene and figure out a path through the hiding spots and level geometry is key to going unnoticed.
Although, thankfully these games don't insist on a stealthy approach all the time. Most of the levels can be approached in an aggressive manner and enemies attacked head on. The combat mechanics are very simplistic, but they do the job more often than not. Don't get caught in a fight with more than two or three bad guys though, as they will easily overwhelm you.
The loop ends up being a combination between stealth and combat, unless you're going for a pure stealth run or something like that. Your performance in each level gets scored at the end based on how many times you were seen, how many times you passed unnoticed, and how many enemies you killed along the way.
I wasn't trying to go for any particular outcome, so ended up trying to sneak through most levels, but taking out any enemy that got in the way. There were only a few occasions where I tried to run around fighting everyone like a madman, but those moments were few and far between. Suffice to say., you'll probably have a better time and progress faster if you wait patiently for the right combination of stealth and silently taking out enemies.
Thankfully though, if you're seen by guards it's not the end of the world (unless you want a pure stealth run). Some of the most important tools available to you are the gadgets you pick up to help you progress in different ways.
At times there are too many enemies gathered in one location, so a quick smoke bomb will let you run by before they notice. Perhaps that guard is standing somewhere you don't want him to be, so whistle from a hiding spot to attract his attention and force him to move.
Each game has its own collection of gadgets that suit the time and location. China has darts you can throw, India has Chakras that work in the same way, and Russia has a grappling hook. While each game has themed its tools and gadgets well, they each amount to a very similar loadout, but the differences are appreciated either way.
In fact, playing the trilogy back to back is perhaps the worst way to experience each game. When I think of the trilogy as a group, I like all three and am happy to have played them, but individually it's obvious which was made first.
This is why I find it hard to mention much about each individual game, as they are clear iterations on each other. India is more complex than China, with varying gameplay and more detailed environments. Then Russia is an advanced India, with even more environmental complexity and gadget variety. Playing all three in sequence feels good, as they continue to progress and get more interesting.
I'd actually say that this is the only way these games should be played, as they don't really stand strong on their own. As a trio played back to back, there is enough variety and progression to keep things interesting, but I'm not sure they'd hold up alone.
I have to take a moment to applaud the excellent presentation of all three games. The stories are told through stylised cut scenes featuring abstract animations of the action. Each evokes its setting beautifully, as China leans on its ink and watercolour, while India has bold colourful patterns, leaving Russia stark and punctuated by propaganda style typography.
The only thing I could fault in the presentation was the voice acting, which is performed well enough, but severely lacking in accents. Despite the finely crafted environments that really feel like the place they represent, it's hard to not get taken out of the scene when everyone speaks with an English accent. There are a few Russian and Chinese accents here and there, but I don't remember any Indian voices in India, which is pretty dumb in my opinion.
As an aside, I'm super happy that one of my favourite things about Assassin's Creed games has been retained in the Chronicles trilogy: the art. I mean, it never ceases to amaze me how much detail and craftsmanship goes into the big open worlds of the series. I absolutely love exploring new cities and seeing everything that's been carefully designed and placed in just the right spot. While the Chronicles games are obviously lower detail, they still have the same polish and attention given to small details here and there that really bring the world into place. It's my favourite thing about the main series, and it's my favourite thing about these spin-offs.
It's hard to come to a conclusion on the Chronicles trilogy as there is so much context and reference to consider. In some ways these games are a risky departure from the norm, which a lot of the mainstream crowd aren't interested in. On the other hand, they're still too big budget and mainstream to attract a truly niche audience.
Ultimately though, I have to admit that I enjoyed playing through the trilogy, and most of the time I avoid platformers like the plague. I don't mind that the story's a bit predictable and does little to expand the Assassin's Creed universe, as the gameplay loop remains fun and continually progresses.
Of course I would have preferred that each setting was featured in a main series game, but let's pretend that this is the only way we would ever get to China, India, and Russia in an Assassin's Creed. I guess I'd rather have something instead of nothing, but imagine exploring Indian palaces, or assassinating the bourgeoisie during the Russian revolution. They practically write themselves at that point, and they interest me a whole lot more than having multiple games set in North America.
It can't be denied that there are a lot of down sides to the Chronicles trilogy, that may or may not be a part of the actual games. However, no matter which way you cut it, I enjoyed the trilogy of assassin platformers for what they are. If you're a fan of the Assassin's Creed universe and manage to pick them up in a sale, you could do a lot worse than these three little spin-off games.
Although, take my opinion on Assassin's Creed with a grain of salt, as I've loved the series ever since the first game was bundled in with my first Playstation 3. I've now almost played every game in the series, and enjoyed everything I've played. If that makes me wrong, I don't want to be right.