Assassin's Creed III

[SethMode]

It kind of is one. Even by AC standards of somewhat slow burn starts, this one is on another level. You will still be getting introduced to things even towards the end of the first part. The fortunate thing (or unfortunate depending on how you look at it) is that most of the side systems you will never need. I never sold a thing and finished the game no problem. There is certainly a lot there TO get, from weapons and different suits, but you'll never really notice any kind of difference in game (unlike in previous ones where new weapons often felt much better in combat than previous ones). But yeah, it kind of is a tutorial, it's just, you don't really have to pay attention to a lot of the stuff.

It's a weird game in a lot of ways. I find that some important things it fires off at you really quickly, and easy to miss, and then finding it again is a pain in the ass because you have to dig through the Animus. Meanwhile, shit like trading and building stuff at the Homestead which you'll never need it goes over in much greater detail.

Bringing it back around, the slow start is rough this time, and I agree with Leaf, they could have cut a TON of it out and the twist still would have been effective. The sad part is there is a lot towards the middle/end that feels incomplete (or just nonexistant -- for this being the American Revolution, there are a TON of important historical figures that either have 1 throw away line, or aren't there at all -- even George Washington really isn't in it much, particularly after Ubisoft claimed that you two were going to practically be buddies).

I was just talking about this game with my buddy who is about halfway through, so it's been on my mind again. It's a weird year for series conclusions.

[leaffan]

Anyone else turn the sound off during the hide and seek and hunting parts because they couldn't deal with the retarded music

[j.hen]

Might trade it in for new Hitman.

[tokyostomp]

i had mixed feeling about this game. love the assassins creed series. i hated that the first half was hand holding affair. also you dont play as the main advertised assassin conner until chapter 6 or 7. his voice actor is absolute shit. gameplay/fighting is good but i hated the new terrain and how vast the territories are. it reminded of of a lot of flaws with the original game.

[Guest]

i had mixed feeling about this game. love the assassins creed series. i hated that the first half was hand holding affair. also you dont play as the main advertised assassin conner until chapter 6 or 7. his voice actor is absolute shit. gameplay/fighting is good but i hated the new terrain and how vast the territories are. it reminded of of a lot of flaws with the original game.

It was not that bad, the first is in it's own category.

I agree about the voice-acting, but they also tried too hard to make it seem like the voice was Native American. The dialogue seemed pushed.

I liked playing the first three chapters as Haytham. Great plot twist, and you had to tell that story for later in the game. But the next three chapters were not paced very well at all.

The frontier was too big for what really went on in the territory. I had no issue with either Boston or New York.

Really hit or miss. I enjoyed it, but thought the ending was bad. Not Mass Effect 3 bad, but it didn't leave me satisfied.

[SethMode]

It was not that bad, the first is in it's own category.

I agree about the voice-acting, but they also tried too hard to make it seem like the voice was Native American. The dialogue seemed pushed.

I liked playing the first three chapters as Haytham. Great plot twist, and you had to tell that story for later in the game. But the next three chapters were not paced very well at all.

The frontier was too big for what really went on in the territory. I had no issue with either Boston or New York.

Really hit or miss. I enjoyed it, but thought the ending was bad. Not Mass Effect 3 bad, but it didn't leave me satisfied.

I'd say, in thinking it over, I'd go AC2=ACB>ACR>AC3>AC1. While it was hit or miss like you said, and I did enjoy it, it really seemed to slip up in a lot of ways that I felt like Ubisoft had fixed prior to the game. Even Revelations, which was a narrative let down, I still feel played a lot better in a lot of ways than 3.

I would personally say if we're talking conclusions to trilogies, I dislike this one way more than ME3's, because while ME3's actual ending was a bit out of left field, the game itself was in a lot of ways an amazing conclusion to your decisions in previous games. AC3 does some interesting stuff, and finally lets us play as Desmond for a time, but all of it falls pretty flat for me.

And yeah, the voice acting is pretty bad almost across the board this time, oddly. I'm curious: did you (Thomas) feel that there were some narrative opportunities missed in Connor's story? So much seems so rigidly glossed over. It certainly at times did not feel like a game that had been in the works since AC2 (I think that's what the the statement was -- may have been Brotherhood).

Random: let it be said that the first one is endearing itself to me more in some ways. It is still horribly repetitive, but I think passes need to be given at times when you're talking about a game that really was something new (AC1) and a game like AC3 that was banking on improving a GOTY candidate in AC2. AC1 is the worst in the series mechanically, but in a lot of ways I think AC3 is the worst in the series for what it fails to live up to/improve.

[tokyostomp]

i have yet to finish the game as i sold my 360 version soon after buying it. i did recently purchase it for ps3 though. i'm just waiting for it to arrive in the mail

i still have the collectible coin from bestbuy.

[Guest]

I'd say, in thinking it over, I'd go AC2=ACB>ACR>AC3>AC1. While it was hit or miss like you said, and I did enjoy it, it really seemed to slip up in a lot of ways that I felt like Ubisoft had fixed prior to the game. Even Revelations, which was a narrative let down, I still feel played a lot better in a lot of ways than 3.

I would personally say if we're talking conclusions to trilogies, I dislike this one way more than ME3's, because while ME3's actual ending was a bit out of left field, the game itself was in a lot of ways an amazing conclusion to your decisions in previous games. AC3 does some interesting stuff, and finally lets us play as Desmond for a time, but all of it falls pretty flat for me.

And yeah, the voice acting is pretty bad almost across the board this time, oddly. I'm curious: did you (Thomas) feel that there were some narrative opportunities missed in Connor's story? So much seems so rigidly glossed over. It certainly at times did not feel like a game that had been in the works since AC2 (I think that's what the the statement was -- may have been Brotherhood).

Random: let it be said that the first one is endearing itself to me more in some ways. It is still horribly repetitive, but I think passes need to be given at times when you're talking about a game that really was something new (AC1) and a game like AC3 that was banking on improving a GOTY candidate in AC2. AC1 is the worst in the series mechanically, but in a lot of ways I think AC3 is the worst in the series for what it fails to live up to/improve.

Your ranking is essentially what I would have it, though I also see the Random point that you threw out there.

The problem is that the game got too ambitious. AC2 was one of the best single player experiences in any game, so what do they do to follow that up? Add multiplayer, and create yearly installments. They essentially tripled the area that we were used to in Brotherhood and Revelations. Too many mini-games, and the focus taken out of building your cash pile and buying everything up as side missions.

 

There are many missed things with Connor. His relationship with George Washington for one, and the second between him, his father and Charles Lee. You would have thought that, when Connor told his father what happened, you could have put Haytham more on his son's side and have him turn on the Templars, or at least help him get revenge on Lee. It was not an exploited angle. Also, they put too much time into the things you will never do instead of doing more with his Indian heritage.

The fact that the first DLC is going to be like the Force Unleashed and create a "what if" scenario means that they didn't flesh out the character enough to give them things to work with. A missed opportunity.

[Swarley]

I'd say, in thinking it over, I'd go AC2=ACB>ACR>AC3>AC1.

That's about what my ranking would be. Although I would probably put AC3 equal with Revelations. Maybe. AC2 and ACB are so far out in front of the rest though.

[Guest]

That's about what my ranking would be. Although I would probably put AC3 equal with Revelations. Maybe. AC2 and ACB are so far out in front of the rest though.

But notice the trend.......as they've focused on multiplayer, we are ranking the games lower. And the ratings in the press support that conclusion as well.

[SethMode]

Your ranking is essentially what I would have it, though I also see the Random point that you threw out there.

The problem is that the game got too ambitious. AC2 was one of the best single player experiences in any game, so what do they do to follow that up? Add multiplayer, and create yearly installments. They essentially tripled the area that we were used to in Brotherhood and Revelations. Too many mini-games, and the focus taken out of building your cash pile and buying everything up as side missions.

 

There are many missed things with Connor. His relationship with George Washington for one, and the second between him, his father and Charles Lee. You would have thought that, when Connor told his father what happened, you could have put Haytham more on his son's side and have him turn on the Templars, or at least help him get revenge on Lee. It was not an exploited angle. Also, they put too much time into the things you will never do instead of doing more with his Indian heritage.

The fact that the first DLC is going to be like the Force Unleashed and create a "what if" scenario means that they didn't flesh out the character enough to give them things to work with. A missed opportunity.

Great post Thomas. Pretty much agree across the board. I was beginning to think that I was the only one that felt that the story really struck out in more ways than just the weird and stupid ending.

And to Swarley, while I agree overall, my point is more that AC3 shouldn't be "Well, it might be on par with the 3rd rendition of AC2". You know what I mean? It does a lot of ambitious stuff that is better than ACR, but at the end of the day, the fact that it fails to elevate anything is a downer, technical limitations or otherwise (personally, while I have issues with the game technically, the story shit hurts it the most for me).

Basically, AC3 could only do as good as, at best, the worst AC2 sequel. Sad way of putting it.

[Swarley]

I think what stung me the most about AC3 was what they left out that made the Ezio Trilogy so great. First and foremost, the amazing platforming quests that you had. Like the Assassin's tombs in AC2...that shit was fucking outstanding. Then the whole money thing. It was fun to go around buying places here and upgrading places there to bring in revenue so you could upgrade all of your shit. I never once felt outmatched and thought that I needed to upgrade my weapons. The side stuff in AC3 just isn't near as good as it is in the Ezio Trilogy. I wont even really touch on the story itself and the outcome, but the Assassin order just wasn't present enough. I thought they did a great job with the Templars, but one of the amazing things about previous games was the importance and history of the Creed. They didn't touch on Achilles' Assassin story, and they never mention Altaïr and only mention Ezio once. With that said, of course there were some great things about the game, like the combat.

I'm interested to see what time period they use for the next AC game, whether it be AC4 or a non-numbered entry (either way, I highly doubt Connor comes back). And I hope that they bring some of this stuff back that made some of these games so incredible.

[tokyostomp]

lol the best buy preorder was some bulshit naval mission which you could totally pass over if you weren't going for 100% completion. there was no indication that you were even doing the mission. after everything i just want a modern day assassins creed starring douche desmond. make it in modern day new york or whatever and give some bullshit reason for firearms not working

[Swarley]

i just want a modern day assassins creed starring douche desmond

Well that's definitely not happening. Desmond's story is finished.

[Guest]

Well that's definitely not happening. Desmond's story is finished.

I doubt it. As much as they say it is, that's a terrible way to end it.