Assassin's Creed 3

[Artful.]

I am enjoying the game. I love the naval battles and they are probably my favourite new feature. I dislike the new button scheme though. I spent an hour adjusting to using B to counter.

[TOMAHAWKS]

This game was a rip-off. Assassin's Creed games use to be fun as hell. Now Ubisoft has just thrown the series in the trash. I played for a total of more than 68 HOURS to get that damn Completionist achievement just because I hated seeing that I failed the mission. And the multiplayer eats sh*t. I'm done with this game. I hate 100% synch anyway, I'm going to return this sh*t.

[buzbegone]

I love how one person posts a scathing review, then the next couple of posters follow like sheep.

[El Dildo]

 

I love how one person posts a scathing review, then the next couple of posters follow like sheep.

why; because people aren't allowed to agree with each other?

 

look AC3 is by far the weakest game of the entire series.

anyone who has played all of them can attest to that. it doesn't necessarily mean that it's a bad game in and of itself. but it has serious issues that only more obvious when you compare it to the previous games.

[TOMAHAWKS]

I love how one person posts a scathing review, then the next couple of posters follow like sheep.

The f*ck are you blabbering about?

[Ash_735]

I have to agree, a few weeks have passed now and my opinion of AC3 hasn't really changed much, I'm just not enjoying it as much as the previous AC games, it does a brilliant job of making Revelations look amazing, and I liked that game anyway! But compared to AC3, it's just awesome.

 

I agree it's the control changes (or Animus Update as they now call it), playing four games before it that use a similar control style and then just swapping things around in AC3 was a dick move, add on top of that the issue with the AI, it's now more difficult, I'm not one to moan about difficulty, but now it's like the guards are psychic AND retarded, it's unpredictable.

[Mak]

I still don't think AC has been ruined, I agree with the fact that stealth sucks but there are good improvements on other departments the free running is great and allot better, the little addition of Connor just vaulting over a fence may be small but are nice improvements, now that I have played the game a bit the controls aren't all that much changed.

 

On the subject of 100% Synchronization, I don't have a problem with that, Remember guys we are reliving memories, and the game is trying to remind you how not Ubisoft played the game but how Connor lived his life and the basic principle

behind this feature is supposedly that the more closer you play the missions i.e the way Connor lived them, the more easier it is for the Animus to Synchronize that memory with the next.

 

I actually haven't still finished the game, I hadn't played AC II so went and got it and finished it yesterday, anyways what I think is the new Engine may have had something to do, I mean the game looks better and the basic mechanics are better, stealth is just what is lacking, combat is good as well. What I think is AC III is kinda like the first game, If Ubisoft takes the same step as to listening to the players and I'm sure they will do a great sequel, just like what they did with AC II took all the criticism the first received and made an amazing sequel.

[Apex.]

All I want is an updated crafting menu, that sh*t's horrible. Also I'd like Assassins to actually get the outfit once they're level 11. I feel like this game sort of moved away from the whole Assassin thing really, obviously It's the main point of the game, but it just didn't feel like you were trying to start up the Colonial Assassins. Plus did anyone feel like Connor didn't really care that it was Washington that burnt down his village? But other than that I really enjoyed this game and I personally thought it was the best AC yet.

 

Regarding the whole 100% sync thing, I sorta like it, because its like you're living out the full memory. Even though it did feel sh*t when you just completed a mission and get them f*cking red x's.

 

EDIT: Also, f*ck the viewpoints thing, I have so many patches of my maps undiscovered, so it means I have run around discovering pieces of the map. AC4, moar viewpoints please.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Apex.

[Sgt. Foley]

Holy sh*t I need to get this game.

 

I just rented the first AC Just to try it. I love it <3

 

must...buy...now...

[El Dildo]

Holy sh*t I need to get this game.

 

I just rented the first AC Just to try it. I love it <3

AC3 is almost nothing like the first AC.

 

aside from free-running, AC3 has virtually nothing in common with AC1.

[Ferocious Banger]

Just entered the Frontier; how many more hours left for me?

[MWC]

any date for king washington yet ?

[BullworthAcademy]

Assassin's Creed Anthology came out last month.

It has all Assassin's Creed games with all DLC.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/UBI-Soft-Assassins...y/dp/B00A2RVJ9W

[Secura]

Assassin's Creed Anthology came out last month.

It has all Assassin's Creed games with all DLC.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/UBI-Soft-Assassins...y/dp/B00A2RVJ9W

There was a thread made specifically for this, so why on earth are you talking about it here ?.

[Chewie]

After 5 games, the ending was awful. I was so hyped to see what was going to happen but after it was over, I was so disappointed.

 

I really enjoyed the game though. This one is my favorite. I loved Connor and everything he could do. I loved the new features. The frontier, tree climbing, the rope dart, naval ships, the combat system, the big ass battles, meat shields, and hunting.

 

I don't know why people are saying they hated this game. The combat was so much harder than all of the other games and it was fun.

Edited January 2, 2013 by kamuran

[El Dildo]

I don't know why people are saying they hated this game.

maybe I should clarify myself.

 

I don't hate AC3.

I just think it has some serious issues in places where older games actually got it right. AC3 created issues where no issues were before.

 

I like Connor and I like the story.

it's certain aspects of the gameplay that really upset me (like stealth/cover, notoriety, and the full-synch system). and they wouldn't even be so bad on their own, but when compared to previous AC games they're just terrible. they took certain parts of the game which were already working just fine and somehow made them worse.

 

AC3 is a great game in many respects.

but AC3 is the weakest game of the AC series.

[TOMAHAWKS]

I don't know why people are saying they hated this game. The combat was so much harder than all of the other games and it was fun.

Whoa whoa whoa, slow the f*ck down there, partner. That's probably what I hated most about AC3... They made the controls so easy to master and the fighting so much more simplistic than any other Assassin's Creed game. Everything was easier. They even slow down time when you're about to counter an enemy's attack. From jumping and climbing to free-running, everything was made too easy.

[Creed Bratton]

At least they removed health potions. Since AC2 you could just drink a potion in the middle of the battle.

[Chukkles]

I don't know why people are saying they hated this game.

maybe I should clarify myself.

 

I don't hate AC3.

I just think it has some serious issues in places where older games actually got it right. AC3 created issues where no issues were before.

 

I like Connor and I like the story.

it's certain aspects of the gameplay that really upset me (like stealth/cover, notoriety, and the full-synch system). and they wouldn't even be so bad on their own, but when compared to previous AC games they're just terrible. they took certain parts of the game which were already working just fine and somehow made them worse.

 

AC3 is a great game in many respects.

but AC3 is the weakest game of the AC series.

Yeah, I agree, i'm loving the game but there's things they got right in previous games that are quite broken here.

 

But, I barley remember AC2 and I believe a different team made Brotherhood and Revelations (correct me if i'm wrong) which were so much smoother gameplay wise.

 

I don't think Connor really compares to Altiar or especially Ezio.

 

Still i'm liking the game regardless and it seems to have more length than Revelations which is a plus.

[Secura]

 

After 5 games, the ending was awful. I was so hyped to see what was going to happen but after it was over, I was so disappointed.

 

I agree the ending to the game was lackluster and very unsatisfying, here's hoping that they can turn that around with the next Assassin's Creed.

 

 

I really enjoyed the game though. This one is my favorite. I loved Connor and everything he could do..

 

Now I don't have an issue with people liking what new abilities Connor's got (tree climbing, naval warfare et cetera) but I do have an issue with people liking him as a character as he doesn't really develop and pretty much stays the same throughout the entire game.

 

 

I loved the new features. The frontier, tree climbing, the rope dart, naval ships, the combat system, the big ass battles, meat shields, and hunting.

 

1: The Frontier got boring fast, it's just a bunch of scripted tree free running* sequences and QTE's when wild animals try to hunt you so for that reason I really didn't enjoy the Frontier all too much.

 

2: Naval combat was the games stand out feature and after the tutorial it becomes nothing more then a series of awesome side missions, this feature didn't get the attention that it deserved and they spent far too much time showing off other not so good features like the combat system.

 

Simply put the combat's over simplified and still as boring as any previous Assassin's Creed game, however they've not yet grasped the idea that stealth's a massive part about being an Assassin and you really get no choice about how you'd like to approach a mission.

 

3: By big battles I assume you mean battle, I mean there was only one and you could barely doing anything in it. As I've stated before it was a big linear set piece and that's not what I want to see in my Assassin's Creed, I want freedom not the oppression (quite humorous and ironic. considering the setting of the game).

 

The other features were okay but weren't focused on enough to make me either care or use them, I don't think I ever once bothered with any of the homestead crap and focused on just finishing the storyline and that's about it. Though Assassin's Creed III did do one thing very, very well...

 

It made me like Desmond a lot more and it's a shame we didn't see more of him because I was really starting to enjoy doing missions in the modern day world, it felt nice to see that after five games Desmond had actually made a significant improvement but well, the game threw that down the toilet as well didn't it.

 

Anyway, yeah there's plenty of reasons why it's by far the worst game in the series and I can only hope that Ubisoft takes the player bases response and takes their sweet time with the next game, I don't want to see it become an Assassin's Creed 3.5, I want a proper sequel and that takes some time and space between game releases.

 

* I use this word in the loosest way possible.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Lightning Strike

[Adler]

 

After 5 games, the ending was awful. I was so hyped to see what was going to happen but after it was over, I was so disappointed.

It's better if you see it as not an ending at all (for Desmond, that is). I like to think of it as a prelude to hopefully a more interesting plot for the modern-day Assassins.

 

 

it's certain aspects of the gameplay that really upset me (like stealth/cover, notoriety, and the full-synch system). and they wouldn't even be so bad on their own, but when compared to previous AC games they're just terrible. they took certain parts of the game which were already working just fine and somehow made them worse.

Wait, what's wrong with the full-synch system? There are now checkpoints so you no longer have to replay the whole mission again to get full synch if you failed a requirement through it.

[Blackadder.]

The full sync system is annoying because it restricts the way you play the mission even more than has been done so by the standard mission constraints. General 'Don't lose more than 50% health' ones aren't too bad, as if you're a good player you don't have to go out of your way, but ones such as 'Complete objective in X time' or 'Air assassinate a grenadier' can be frustrating because they interfere with the experience you're having and can make you have to deviate from your playstyle. Yes they're optional but that doesn't change the fact that if you want a decent score you have to do everything their way, not your way.

 

An yeah stealth in this series is pretty embarrassing considering its the same company that brought us Splinter Cell. The mechanics in AC3 were slightly improved for it (corner cover) but it doesn't change the fact that the missions insisted on combat far more times than it didn't.

 

 

[Carbine23]

I thought Creed 3 was an amazing game and i had a lot of fun playing it. But it's nothing compared to AC2 and is nothing revolutionary. I'm pretty sure they said the jump from AC2 series to AC3 was bigger than AC1 to AC2. Not true at all. I'll list some of my pros and cons about the game (i'll be more detailed about the cons)

 

Pros:

 

- Well the game had some awesome sequences.

- animations and movement were definitely updated

- the facial animations were amazing in the cutscenes

- naval battles are very fun

- They definitely fixed the use of the pistol in this game, it's a lot better than the other creeds

- obviously graphics are better

- tree climbing is cool and it does help in the cities when jumping between buildings

- overall had a good experience playing even with its problems

- Desmond missions were actually awesome, and there's one in the game that i thought was really fun to play

 

Cons:

 

- Connor is simply nothing compared to altair or ezio. Altair was a mysterious badass, Ezio was a womanizer and had a driving force, and i can't help but feel that connor doesn't have that interesting of a quality. I know he's native american but he could've been more interesting and had a better voice. Also maybe a better driving force for the decisions he chooses. Also the fact that he knew who his father was, and his father knew him really pissed me off. If they didn't know each other the game could've been more interesting.

- game is clunky and buggy at times

- combat system is nowhere near as good as the other games. The animations and finishers are still badass but overall i liked the Creed 2 series system better. Also i'm pretty sure you didn't necessarily have to achieve a finishing move to kill someone. I feel like some of the guys in creed 3 won't die unless you pull off a finisher. Plus those jagers/hessians piss me off there's only 1 or 2 ways to kill them. At least in AC2 you can use your hidden blade to kill the big guys at times in the middle of combat.

- game jumps a bit in time and i feel like sometimes when things are going okay you're pounded with cutscenes and dialogue and sometimes the cutscenes do the awesome parts for you. Sometimes i felt like the only gameplay i was actually doing was running from point to point and then something cool happens in a cutscene. The time skipping a long too fast makes it feel as if the stories being rushed. Now time skipped in the other games as well but i don't know it just felt a lot smoother in the other creeds

- The cities are cool and made very well, but the colonial buildings aren't that good for the creed game. It was easier jumping across the tight, clustered buildings of italy but in this game it's more spaced out and annoying. Also a bit boring in architecture.

- Overall feels like they skipped over or ruined some of the things that were fixed or okay from the other AC games.

- Hidden blades are weak in this game and they should've added actual duel wielding, not hidden blade + weapon.

 

Can't say its my favorite creed or even my 2nd, but i did have a good time playing it. As for the ending, i don't think Desmond is dead. . Look, i remember assassins creed 1 being a very interesting game but lacking from the repetitive mission structure. Then Ubisoft fixed it and created an amazing experience with assassins creed 2. So i feel the jump from 2 to 3 was a big miss in terms of what they should've/were trying to do

Edited January 3, 2013 by Carbine23

[Chukkles]

Bears do not like smoke bombs.

 

I have completely strayed from the main story at sequence 9 now, I have been able to spent hours just searching and doing homestead missions and many other pick-up's.

I haven't played a game that's kept me so occupied off story in single player in a long time.

 

GTA V if only.

[G The Generous]

I am speechless...

 

[.2D]

Meh, guess it's just me that's able to spend a couple of hours at a time just roaming the Frontier, admiring the scenery and hunting Foxes? :<

[Adler]

 

Meh, guess it's just me that's able to spend a couple of hours at a time just roaming the Frontier, admiring the scenery and hunting Foxes? :<

I do the Frontiersmen sidequests just so I can take in the scenery and explore the landscape.

 

Just when I thought I was done with the game, I came back to the Frontier and it turns out I barely knew a square inch of that place. It's mostly untamed forests with towns and forts dotted into it. To me it's more enjoyable than New York or Boston. The only things you can hunt there are soldiers!

 

@Lightning Strike: About the Homestead missions, I see them as half of the story you're missing out on by not playing them. While Connor's not out being an Assassin, he built up a prosperous community of people that were ousted from their homes or of those that sought a new life. The Homestead missions tell what's happening on Connor's homefront while the war occurs in the big cities. It's a nice change of pace from constantly hunting down Templars.

[Secura]

Meh, guess it's just me that's able to spend a couple of hours at a time just roaming the Frontier, admiring the scenery and hunting Foxes? :<

I do the Frontiersmen sidequests just so I can take in the scenery and explore the landscape.

 

Just when I thought I was done with the game, I came back to the Frontier and it turns out I barely knew a square inch of that place. It's mostly untamed forests with towns and forts dotted into it. To me it's more enjoyable than New York or Boston. The only things you can hunt there are soldiers!

 

@Lightning Strike: About the Homestead missions, I see them as half of the story you're missing out on by not playing them. While Connor's not out being an Assassin, he built up a prosperous community of people that were ousted from their homes or of those that sought a new life. The Homestead missions tell what's happening on Connor's homefront while the war occurs in the big cities. It's a nice change of pace from constantly hunting down Templars.

Oh no, you've got me all wrong. I did do some of the Homestead's missions. Not any of those terrible Encyclopedia of the common man things or Peg Leg's trinkets missions though, they're pathetic, useless and completely and utterly boring.

 

Now Assassin's Creed III I'm going to go and play your older brother, to remind myself how city building's meant to be done in an Assassin's Creed game.

[Dragonjack]

I didn't want to make a thread about this. But I would like to share this in here. I found this in Gameinformer and I find it pretty interesting if Ubisoft makes a Assassin Creed game to be set in China.

 

"DeviantArt user ChaoyuanXu has posted an impressive collection of Assassin's Creed art pieces that imagine the series taking place in China.

 

They have actually been online for about a month, so by Internet standards they are actually a bit old, but they are definitely worth sharing if you haven't seen them already. Head to ChaoyuanXu's page to check them out"

 

 

[darthYENIK]

I think feudal China is a great choice. But I'd also enjoy a prequel to ACIII involving Haytham and/or his father in London.