Assassin's Creed: which ones actually connect
Assassin's Creed is two series wearing the same name. The first runs from 2007 to about 2012 and is a serialised story with a continuous modern-day frame. The second, starting with Origins in 2017, is a set of large open-world role-playing games that are essentially standalone.
Knowing where the split falls is most of what you need. It is the difference between a run that requires order and a run where you can pick whichever historical setting appeals and start there.
The first arc genuinely is serialised
Assassin's Creed, II, Brotherhood, Revelations and III form one story with a single modern-day protagonist and a plot that continues directly between entries. Brotherhood and Revelations in particular are direct continuations of II with the same lead — they were not conceived as a trilogy but they function as one.
Play these in release order or not at all. Starting at Brotherhood means starting mid-sentence, and the modern-day framing that ties them together is the part that makes the least sense out of sequence.
The first game is the weakest and the most repetitive, and it is also the one that sets up everything. If you are going to play the arc, play it; if the repetition is going to stop you, start at II and accept some early confusion. II is where the series actually became good.
- Assassin's Creed (2007) — sets up the frame, mechanically thin
- Assassin's Creed II — the one where it works
- Brotherhood and Revelations — direct continuations of II
- Assassin's Creed III — closes the modern-day arc
Black Flag is the exception everyone recommends
Black Flag is nominally the fourth in that line and is in practice a pirate game with an Assassin's Creed frame bolted on. It is the entry most often recommended to people who have never played any of them, and it works cold — the naval sailing that everyone remembers has nothing to do with the ongoing plot.
It is a good starting point precisely because it does not commit you to anything. Rogue, Unity and Syndicate follow in the same broad era of the series and are all optional; Unity in particular is worth knowing had a famously rough launch and is much better now than its reputation.
The modern trilogy is standalone
Origins, Odyssey and Valhalla are large open-world role-playing games sharing a systems framework rather than a plot. Origins is set in Ptolemaic Egypt, Odyssey in Peloponnesian War Greece, Valhalla in ninth-century England. Any of them is a valid first Assassin's Creed.
There is a loose chronological relationship — Odyssey is set earliest despite being released second — and a thin thread of connective lore, but none of it constrains order. Pick the setting you find most interesting and start there.
The one thing to know before starting any of them is scale. These are 40 to 60 hour games on a main-story run and well past 100 if you engage with the map, and they are structurally similar enough that playing them back to back is the fastest way to burn out on the series entirely. Space them.
- Origins — Egypt, the tightest of the three
- Odyssey — Greece, the largest and most role-playing-forward
- Valhalla — England, the longest by some distance
- Play one, then play something else before the next
A workable route
For most people the honest recommendation is not to play all of them. Twelve mainline games across eighteen years, several of which are near-identical in structure, is a recipe for resenting a series you started out enjoying.
Play the II–Brotherhood–Revelations run for the serialised story at its best. Play Black Flag because it is the best individual game with the name on it. Play whichever of the modern trilogy has the setting you like most. That is five games, it covers everything the series is actually good at, and it leaves you the option of more rather than the obligation.