If it weren't for the repetitiveness of AC1 and the shortness of the campaign in Revelation(plus the worst multiplayer of the series IMO), AC3 would actually be the worse AssCreed game for me. It is by no means a bad game but it just disappoints in a few major areas.
The good: improved graphics and animations, naval battles, combat is a bit more fun(though still way too easy), multiplayer is still pretty fun, Haytham + Achilles.
The bad:
-Glitches - I didn't have too many bugs but from what I hear, especially on console versions, this game is quite buggy. Inexcusable for a year that has supposedly been in production since 2009.
-American setting doesn't work - Ubisoft have once again recreated the city(and country) atmosphere of those times with high fidelity but the setting is very underwhelming when compared the medieval European/Middle Eastern cities of past titles, especially for those that like architecture porn. Which brings me to my next point:
-Verticality doesn't play a large factor - Because of the historical constraints, Ubisoft had to make Boston and NY with one story housings with the odd church here and there to liven up the skyline but overall, rooftop highways are not as prevalent in this AC game. Which is a shame, because in my view, AC is about 2 things: murder from up high, in an urban area. In this game you are indirectly encouraged to stay on the ground and the only parkour there is jumping fences and such. Almost every guard can spot you(and shoot you) on most rooftops(since you aren't that high above the ground in most areas) and since Connor is just as badass as Ezio(or evenmore) you are encouraged to stay on the ground and fight. One sort of aerial highway still exists, but it's in the freaking frontier and you use it to attack redcoats groups or bunnies. Maybe it's just me but air assassinating beavers in the countryside doesn't scream Assassins Creed to me.
-main character - Connor is about as charming as a brick and has exactly 2 states: when he is silent and follows like an obedient puppy or when he goes all emo and starts raging on everybody, including his mentor Achilles. Now I get that he is in between worlds because of the conflict in his homeland but his main trait throughout the game seems to be that he is confused, who is his friend, who he trust, etc. Even after he murders the villain and buries his mentor, he still seems unsure about what the future will bring and how well this will bode for his tribe. I really tried up to warm up to him throughout the game but the automatic comparison with Haytham(not to mention Ezio) doesn't really bode well for him. Seriously, I felt like his main trait was CONFUSION. Not to mention that the writers basically shoehorned him into, Forrest Gump style, into almost every major event of the American Revolution and it felt like he was a cameo more than a living,breathing person
-secondary characters - I won't list all the favourites I remember from the Ezio trilogy but at I can name at least 10 minor characters from Ezio's saga off the top of my head(last played an Ezio game in January 2012). I can barely remember people from Connor's game and I finished it not 3 weeks ago. Connor himself gets little chance to shine as a character because the supporting cast are very weak themselves. I liked the French guy from the Homestead and your second in command on naval missions and obviously, Haytham + Achilles.
-the Homestead/crafting system: Look, the crafting system is absolutely awful, especially on the PC version. The interface for it plain sucks. To make matters worse, if I want upgrades(for my gun,pouch etc.) I have to "level up" my artistans through tedious missions and I still find it funny that most of them(bit characters really) have more personality than the guy I am controlling.
Assassins Creed really needs to get rid of the clutter, the micromanagement BS and give more and detailed ASSASSINATIONS. The micromanagement stuff was pretty meh in the Ezio games but here it is even more of a chore. You don't actually need to do it though(not like you need the upgrades to kick ass) but I felt like time put in it(to design and program it) is a big waste and doesn't really add much to the Assassins Creed games.
-OST and sound - The OST doesn't live up to the AC2 quality though it does have some nice tracks and I felt that the game was way too silent at times(the ambience), especially when roaming through the frontier.
-The ending - AC series has a long tradition of bad endings but this has got to be the worse of the lot.
I played many hours in AC3, 100% sync'ed it and made it to level 50 in the multiplayer so I can say that it is a good game, but it simply doesn't improve on AC2 in many ways, in fact it is worse than AC2 in most ways that I can think of and for a game with a nearly 3 year production time, that's not exactly a compliment.
I think what "killed" my hype for AC3 was that, when I was playing it, I had some fun but I didn't feel the same sense of wonder that I did when playing AC2 and when I finished it, I felt like I just did some stuff for some guys unlike AC2 where I felt the whole thing was a terrific journey where everything, from the atmosphere, to the cities, to the main character and supporting cast, amazing OST just gelled together to make a fantastic gaming experience.
Conclusion: A good game, just not as good as AC2 and Brohood.
I've read in a few places that there isn't much difference between the console versions but someone on this thread did mention their PS3 version having a few glitches.
