Where did my comment go?.............. I put a lot of thought into it!

Brotherhood is just as good, if not a little bit better than AC2. 

Revelations is the series low-point, but its still pretty good. My main gripe with it was that it had next to no side missions. I mean, Brotherhood has a HUUUGE amount of side missions. Revelations had nearly none, and it made the game feel shorter as a result. But, the city of Constantinople alone is worth paying for Revelations, quite honestly.

 Now...... AC3. There are 2 ways to look at this. As an AC game is it the best in the series? Not in the slightest. It seemed to lose its roots. BUT! As a game in general? Superb. Great characters, outstanding gameplay, good length, loads of stuff to do, great soundtrack, top-notch voice acting, and it is CERTAINLY the most emotionally compelling AC game in the series................

 Look, as an AC game, it seemed to lose its connection to its origins........ it does not feel quite right when compared to the others. But, like I said, as a game in general, it is superb and I do very much recommend it (as long as you are able to get past its graphical hiccups)

I only have played first one. Mesa dont like it. I gave it in my review 4.5 score. I heard that next in the series are very good.

The second game was one of the best sequels in a franchise I've ever played.   Brotherhood makes some fine enhancements, but ultimately makes the game too easy.  Revelations was kind of a mess, and AC3 has far too many bugs and inconsistencies to even come close to the second.  Still, it's a good franchise, and I'm looking forward to IV.

i liked pretty much everything about the first game, but i'm all for more sidequests, i'd love to try the second one out :D