So, just finished playing the first AC game (yeah...I know) and, have to say, I found it really repeatable and boring near the end. Climb - eavesdrop - informant - kill - visit bureau - report back - rinse - repeat.

That said during the cut scenes I really got into the storyline and the cliffhanger ending was good...but...

...are the other games in the series the same? I don't know if it's worth snagging the others if the gameplay is so cut and dry.

Not even close! In AC2 you chase down criminals in a Ferrari, and AC Brotherhood has air combat with F-16's & MiG's!!!

I think they made subtle, yet effective changes the whole way through the series. I would say, however, if you weren't overwhelmed with the first, I doubt you'll gain any love for the others.

Bullshit to this (IMO). The first was a boring gameplay experience. If it wasn't for the story, I wouldn't have bothered with the others. AC2, Brotherhood were both incremental steps in the right direction - and both much, much better games than the first. I just started AC:R and i'm loving it. The story is what drives it for me, the flow of combat and acrobatics is just the gravy on the pumpkin pie.

This is good to know; I bought the first two months ago and tried playing #1 a few weeks back; thought the game was not much fun at all. Have been wondering if I could just skip over the first one and pick up with #2 or if I'll be missing some great experience by not completing the first.

You could just skip the first, and watch videos of the ending on youtube, save the hassle.

After playing an hour or so of the first I couldn't take it anymore. With that said I played through and beat both II and Brotherhood. I'm getting ready to get started on Revelations.

I never bothered finishing the first one I was so bored by it, but I loved AC2 and Brotherhood.

I loved the first one a lot. The sequels definitely had the game play down a lot better but it doesn't beat the setting of the Crusades era.

AC2>>>>>>>>> AC1. By far. Two is an AMAZING game, whereas 1, while loved the story and graphics, was repetitive and slightly disappointing.

The first game was my favorite by far, and I found it more enjoyable than the later installments. Brotherhood was just tedious for the most part, and felt like a cash-in. I realize that all of this is a minority opinion.

I haven't played Revelations yet, but it's on the way thanks to the Amazon Lightning Deal.

I liked the first one just fine, but part 2 was a HUGE improvement.

I picked up AC II, Brotherhood, and Revelations through various sales over the past couple of days. After reading several posts about AC, I'm not even bothering with it. But am I missing any significant storyline by skipping the first one?

Ending of AC... for those who want to short circuit the tedium.

Yes, the foundation of the story for the entire series. There's a lot more info throughout the game than just what the ending provides, too.

true dat.

I actually enjoyed the first one the most, though I've only played Rev's for about 4 hours so far. The first may not be the 'best' game in the series, but for me it had the biggest 'wow' factor. It's easy to judge the first one against the others now that they have been released, but at the time, AC was groundbreaking. This kind of talk would be like telling someone that never played Halo or Gears it would be a waste of their time to play the first because the new one's have improved so much. I'd trade every second of Halo 2-Reach to have back the fun of Halo:CE with my buddies. It was new, original, and unbelievable fun. Is it the best in the series? Hell no, but the fun factor was A#1!

^I judged the first AC after I finished playing it in 2007, not based against the series NOW, but for what it was at the time. Which was a well researched, beautifully rendered, and an extremely engaging story, wrapped around a pretty repetitive (and often VERY frustrating) game. Kind of reminds me of LA Noire, now that I think about it. I still enjoyed Assassin's Creed a lot, but AC2 blows it completely out of the water. It's not even close.

So to speak...

What Hokey said. Except for the LA Noire part.

I've only played the first two so far, but I agree that the second was much better.

If you want to skip the first, go ahead. They don't even use the same character (well, ancestral character) anyway. I thought the voice acting for Altair in the first game wasn't very good, and I wonder if that's why he was dropped. I know they wanted to change the time period, but they keep making games about Ezio. So it seems like they've decided he's the main character now and to hell with Altair.

I've played all 4 games so far and I loved them all, Revelations is going to take me ^%$^^$%% forever as I am going to train all the assassians and do all the other added sub-quests.

I didn't think the first one was all that great but still enjoyed it. Then I played 2 and thought it was much better. Then Brotherhood came out and I was totally hooked. One of my favorite games ever. I'm now many hours in to Revelations and only about 30 percent through the game. I've been running around doing other things I like it so much. It's definitely one of those series that has gotten better with each release IMO.

For anyone who buys the PS3 version of AC: Revelations you get AC 1 included free.

Shit, really? Mind is on its way from Amazon, so I guess I guess I'll play it after all.

Or you could just watch the opening of the second game which summarizes the scant few important details from the first game. The first can be skipped entirely without feeling remotrely lost when you dive into AC2.