I'm going to try to avoid being a hypocrite by comparing this sequel to its predecessor and praising it for all its improvements on what is already a good game, but needless to say, I enjoyed Assassin's Creed II far more than Modern Warfare 2.

Obviously, Assassin's Creed II is the sequel to Ubisoft's 2007 historical stealth action game, starring the newly introduced and quickly adopted protagonist, Altaïr. While Ubisoft has already solidified its position in stealth action with Splinter Cell, the historical action game is a market still ripe for the picking in an ocean full of sci-fi first person shooters. In the series's story, bartender Desmond Miles is abducted by a scientist who wants information hidden within Desmond's genetic memory dating back to his assassin ancestors. The scientists are actually Templars who want to rule the world and the only ones who can stop them are assassins. The game really has little to do with Desmond and he only serves to dig dialogue out of the pretty young assistant. Everything is about the events during the Third Crusade, both fictional and non-fictional.

In Assassin's Creed II, Altaïr has been replaced by Ezio, a 15th century Florentine playboy and additional ancestor of Desmond's. That's the thing: he's not an assassin. His father is, but that's news to Ezio when he must avenge his father's murder. A rich playboy dons an armed costume to avenge his father's murder by killing everyone involved. Keep this in mind. Anyway, Ezio meets up with all sorts of people and does them "favors" by eliminating people that are causing trouble. Ezio gets rich and eventually feels good about himself. Desmond makes a more profound appearance in this game, utilizing the skills of both ancestors for what are really just trivial exercises. I’m glad that the game is finally about “the real world” as opposed to just about the events, but making Desmond take breaks from the Animus or else his brain will explode is a terrible way of segwaying into the real world.

The dialogue is pretty rich and creative, utilizing actual Italian (and Latin where it would be appropriate) without subtitles, but assuming that the audience will pick up on the context. Giving the assassin a mother and sister provides some downright hilarious situations, such as his mother recommending he find more outlets than just vaginas. No joke, that’s actually in there. Also, escaping Florence to the safety of his uncle’s villa opens the door for the introduction, “Hey, it’s a me, Mario!” Also no joke. It’s not extremely good or bad, but certainly noticeable how much work the writers put into making the dialogue and banter fit comfortably into the experience.

What sets this game apart from its predecessor is the new use of currency. No longer just a thief, the assassin must pay for his weapons and enhancements with money he receives for his "jobs" (or money stolen from civilians). [Side note, Altaïr and other original assassins were paid in hashish, hence "hashshashin".] Money is collected and then used to purchase medicine/poison, ammunition and even armor. Instead of just earning more HP, it must be purchased by means of stronger armor. Makes sense and money is not hard to come by. In fact, the home village (equivalent of Masyaf in the first game) is a recovering villa in dire need of city planning. For reasons beyond comprehension, Ezio is allowed to control the re-development of the town. Upgrading locations costs money, but increases the city's value and income, which is added to the chest every 20 minutes. It's not common to see this absent occupation (somewhat seen in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas), where you get paid just for maintaining something, but the ends justify the means when there's so much to be purchased in each location.

Aside from just goods, money can buy anonymity. The blending mechanic is now more intricate and is most easily accomplished by hiring thieves, mercs or courtesans to distract any guards that find you suspicious. Taking a play from Hitman: Blood Money, the player's notoriety becomes a cause for concern. "Socially unacceptable" acts increase notoriety, which can be decreased by tearing down bounty posters, bribing heralds or just killing city officials. Fair enough, but when you're rolling in the ducats, paying off the heat is just the most effective.

Of course, the most important mechanic is combat. Combat hasn't been improved that much, as timing is still in integral part of the process. However, enemies now have HP that can be decreased through successful combat. That seems useful until you realize that well positioned strikes on unprepared opponents can lead to fatal blows, regardless of their health or armor. Simply put, Ubisoft added superfluous detail to what is really just well executed swordplay. It doesn’t even matter what weapon you use, so don’t bother buying new ones or picking up dropped ones. It’s a neat feature to pick up your enemies’ swords, but it’s just another trick stolen from Eidos games.

The assassin arsenal has been greatly improved from the original game, from enhancing existing mechanics to creating all new methods. The signature wrist blade has been made available to both hands, allowing dual simultaneous assassinations. You can even equip poison darts for a time-delayed, less conspicuous slaying. There are even acrobatic attacks now, from a pounce onto victims and pulling from a balcony. The methods are by no means creative, but adding more elaborate ways of killing people adds more risk of being caught.

The more aware players shouldn't even really have to rely on combat, as the game is called Assassin's Creed II, not Fencer's Creed II. Killing people and not getting caught is the whole point. The best feature for this is allowing silent executions from within hay bales. You get to snag people as they pass you and hide them in the bale. Finally, a place to put your victims! A new kind of guard, the Seeker, goes around poking at hay bales looking for... someone, but the ensuing combat of being caught is no harder than the rest of it. In fact, a lot of the combat is pretty neutered. While the major assassinations of the first game were followed by pretty stressful attempts at breaking line of sight and hiding, they're now typically followed by a deus ex machina (sometimes literally, given the Animus), meaning no more worries after killing a public figure in front of their guards. The segment just ends and the memory skips to something else.

All that said, Ubisoft is missing out on a major game franchise. Even though a title was released just a few months ago, Ubisoft's experience with Splinter Cell and Assassin's Creed make it the developer/publisher for Batman games. Don't get me wrong, I clearly liked Eidos's Arkham Asylum, but Eidos put its fingerprint of Tomb Raider and Soul Reaver in the mechanics of the game, when it should have focused more on stealth takeouts and utilization of the environment. Ubisoft should get the contract for making new Batman games, but I feel that they would decline the franchise when they have enough on their plate.

Assassin's Creed II has taken the historical re-enactment and added a conspiracy theory mystery to it. It's no longer just re-living the events, it's unraveling a secret. Ubisoft does very well at taking a genre just as prevalent as first person shooters and adding functionality and content that make it unique and compelling. The protagonist is much livelier than his predecessor and the historical setting allows for a much more vibrant and elaborate environment. The game series will always be about scaling walls and stabbing people, so adding Desmond and the whole conspiracy may not even be necessary. Rumors are pointing at a third game taking place during World War II and even using a woman. That’s all well and good, but I think there’s enough market to just make untapped historical period pieces. Hell, it doesn’t even need to be about assassins, I just like history. This game is definitely a keeper, with plenty of replay value.