Assassin's Creed III Impressions (NO SPOILERS)
- Thread starter Yokillernick
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I liked Assassin's Creed III. I rather enjoyed going through the American Revolution and the major plot twist that occurs at the end of Haythem's segment of the game is something you'd never see coming and completely threw me off. Also on that note, I was not expecting to play Connor's father at the beginning of the game, which also threw me off but was great fun.
Also, the Native American names. The very first time I saw Ratonhnhaké:ton all I could think of was, "How the fuck would you pronounce that?!"
Also, the Native American names. The very first time I saw Ratonhnhaké:ton all I could think of was, "How the fuck would you pronounce that?!"
I was undecided about this game, but there is one feature that instantly catapulted it into my slot for Best Game of 2012. That feature is the ability to pet a dog.
Seriously, I lost about fifteen minutes when I first found out that was a thing you could do. And I don't regret a single second of it.
No, but I do think it's a pretty good game so far, if a bit short. After six hours of gametime, I'm already about halfway through Sequence 6.
Seriously, I lost about fifteen minutes when I first found out that was a thing you could do. And I don't regret a single second of it.
No, but I do think it's a pretty good game so far, if a bit short. After six hours of gametime, I'm already about halfway through Sequence 6.
I still think AC2 is the best so far, however, I'd put AC3 on a par with AC1 and Brotherhood in a three-way joint second place (well, that sentence flowed about as well as a cancerous bowel). The game still has plenty of time to impress me further though.
Biggest step forwards: The increase in scale when it comes to the frontier and the cities.
Biggest step backwards: Connor is not Ezio. I don't hate him, and there are certainly worse protagonists out there, but he's just not Ezio. Ezio was awesome.
Biggest step forwards: The increase in scale when it comes to the frontier and the cities.
Biggest step backwards: Connor is not Ezio. I don't hate him, and there are certainly worse protagonists out there, but he's just not Ezio. Ezio was awesome.
I think it's less to do with the character of Connor, and more to do with his VA to be honest. Getting an authentic Native American to do his voice is a nice touch, but Christ, the guy can't seem to emote at all, to the point where he make AC1 Altair sound like Lawrence fucking Olivier.Casual Shinji said:
It's weird you would say that because after finishing AC and starting AC 2 I was disappointed I got to play Ezio the tosser instead of Altair but I grew to get used to him.NinjaDeathSlap said:
Maybe I just like the 'lovable rogue' archetype, but even if I didn't at least he makes a nice change from most video game protagonists who can, at a pinch, manage two distinct emotions, angry or sad.Yokillernick said:
Yes, at the beginning of AC2 he's arrogant, but he gets away with it a) because he actually has the charisma to back it up, and b) because it makes sense with his character. There's also the fact that a huge part of the point to AC2's story is Ezio 'growing up', emotionally as well as physically, and learning to fight for something bigger than his own revenge. He becomes a responsible leader, and he manages to do it without losing all of that charm that endeared me to him in the first place (the part at the end of Revelations, in Altair's where he realises how little all of his life's work amounts to in the grand scheme of things, when he becomes aware just as the audience is, that he isn't even the main character in his own story, and accepts it, choosing to leave the apple behind and finally pass on the torch, was the only part of that game that I can't critisise. It was just masterfully done).
Connor isn't all bad, and in all fairness I think it's a good move that they made Connor his own person, rather than trying to just do Ezio again, but I hold Ezio up as one of the most fully-realised and likable characters of the current generation. Connor, for all his suffering, doesn't have a tenth of the depth Ezio has.
Well, it goes without saying it has a big impact on the game world. However, the whole point of the eternal conflict between Assassin's and Templar's is that it transcends the battle lines drawn on the surface of history. Connor isn't out to win the Revolution, he's wants to push the Templar's out of the new world, whatever side they choose to hide behind. So it's not really all that more significant to the central narrative than the Third Crusade was back in the first game.Kevin7557 said:
It may get more important later though, I'm not finished yet. Also, it the Animus database does provide lots of meaty background information on different events, and people during that time, which have made an interesting read for me.
You know, it occurred to me after that plot twist, as well as when seeing how much of a twat Desmond's Dad (the current leader of the Assassin's) is, that, were it not for the whole 'Solar Flare Out To Destroy The World' business taking precedence, I'd actually be inclined to take the side of the Templar's in this conflict. I mean, it's not like the Assassin's can claim the moral high-ground when it comes to murdering people, and in the games universe, the Templar's are responsible for all of mankind's greatest technological advances. Yes, they may regulate the discoveries they provide, in order to maintain their control on people, but a part of me likes that. People have the capacity to be incredibly stupid, so the idea of an invisible hand, formed by the world's best and brightest, subtly guiding everyone along a path that is safe and stable, appeals to me.Cardbird said:
Playing as Haytham; seeing him show kindness, ambition, and charity, made me think that perhaps this conflict that in the past has been portrayed as black and white as Star Wars, is perhaps just going to turn out to be a matter of perspective. Just because Robert de Sable and the Borgia's were terrible people, doesn't mean that every Templar has to be, and Al Mualim is proof that not every Assassin is incorruptible.
I still haven't finished the section with Kenway, but so far it's brilliant. The combat and such seem much better than Revelations and I find the dialogue has also improved. Though that may simply be because everyone has British accents. That tends to make everything better. -.-;
Also there isn't any gratuitous Italian anymore. That was annoying.
Also there isn't any gratuitous Italian anymore. That was annoying.
I agree, I would also probably side with the Templars.NinjaDeathSlap said:
My thoughts:
1. Arsenal: I like AC3's the most. I'm the type of gamer who likes mastering a small arsenal of weapons. Revelations went wayyy over the top with all the crap Ezio carried. The weapons Connor carries are precisely the ones I like playing with most.
2. Guards: Yup, I'm going to join the broken record here, it's kind of ridiculous. They have been the most frustrating part of the game for me. It's cool to see squads/sections of Redcoats walking around but it's pretty lame when you have to fight 50 of them just to get 5 seconds of anonymity to FINALLY enter the print shop.
3. Naval battles: Friggin awesome. Now that I have done several naval missions, I am thoroughly convinced that the game I would love to see the most now would be a new Sid Meier's Pirates game with AC3's naval mechanics.
4. Connor: I like that Connor is a jacked powerhouse when it comes to freerunning and combat but his lack of personality is kind of disappointing. Yeah, he had a rough childhood and is under a lot of pressure but there is almost nothing human about him. He has such a one track mind for revenge, he almost seems robotic in his commitment to said vengeance.
1. Arsenal: I like AC3's the most. I'm the type of gamer who likes mastering a small arsenal of weapons. Revelations went wayyy over the top with all the crap Ezio carried. The weapons Connor carries are precisely the ones I like playing with most.
2. Guards: Yup, I'm going to join the broken record here, it's kind of ridiculous. They have been the most frustrating part of the game for me. It's cool to see squads/sections of Redcoats walking around but it's pretty lame when you have to fight 50 of them just to get 5 seconds of anonymity to FINALLY enter the print shop.
3. Naval battles: Friggin awesome. Now that I have done several naval missions, I am thoroughly convinced that the game I would love to see the most now would be a new Sid Meier's Pirates game with AC3's naval mechanics.
4. Connor: I like that Connor is a jacked powerhouse when it comes to freerunning and combat but his lack of personality is kind of disappointing. Yeah, he had a rough childhood and is under a lot of pressure but there is almost nothing human about him. He has such a one track mind for revenge, he almost seems robotic in his commitment to said vengeance.
I want to list a few criticisms I have from my first play through of the single player, but I will lead off by saying that overall I enjoy the game immensely.
That being said there are a few thing that annoy the living hell out of me and I feel compelled to list them if only to justify myself.
1. Switching weapons is a pain
I'm playing on a 360 (more for the reason that I started playing the original AC on 360 and I don't like switching platforms within a series than anything else) and I'm finding trying to switch between weapons or tools incredibly aggravating. First of all there is a slight delay, which really can break the flow if you are trying to get something out in combat. It further breaks flow by instead of opening a Dishonored or AC2 style wheel that doesn't blot out everything, opening an entire menu. On occasion this was such a jarring transition that I forgot what I was trying to equip. On a console there are few "quick keys" so having this switching mechanic be functional is important, and it just isn't. This often discouraged me from using some of the more interesting situational tools and weapons because I didn't want to waste one of my 4 quick slots on them, and opening the switching menu was so annoying and immersion breaking. I don't know why they decided to "fix" something that wasn't broken.
2. Notoriety
This wasn't a good idea in AC2 and time has not sweetened it. Notoriety after a big assassination that you have to perform tasks to alleviate? Fine. Punishing the player for having fun in the world and having to stop every few minutes to make the game playable again? Not fine. Notoriety serves no purpose in the game other than to discourage players from experimenting or having fun. I fucking hate it.
3. The Trading System
Why is this even in the game? I don't want to micromanage economics in a game about free running and assassinations! It doesn't gel well with any other aspects of the game, and I haven't talked to anyone who has said they ever use it more than absolutely necessary. It might fit better in a game like XCOM, where the core experience is closer to the one in this... "minigame" (for lack of a better definition), but in a game like AC3 it feels incredibly out of place, and becomes more a chore that you do in order to get to the other parts of the game. Time put into implementing a system that as far as I'm aware no one asked for would have been put to better use fixing issues in their core game (and I don't think anyone would claim that AC3, or indeed any game, has nothing that could be fixed or improved).
That being said there are a few thing that annoy the living hell out of me and I feel compelled to list them if only to justify myself.
1. Switching weapons is a pain
I'm playing on a 360 (more for the reason that I started playing the original AC on 360 and I don't like switching platforms within a series than anything else) and I'm finding trying to switch between weapons or tools incredibly aggravating. First of all there is a slight delay, which really can break the flow if you are trying to get something out in combat. It further breaks flow by instead of opening a Dishonored or AC2 style wheel that doesn't blot out everything, opening an entire menu. On occasion this was such a jarring transition that I forgot what I was trying to equip. On a console there are few "quick keys" so having this switching mechanic be functional is important, and it just isn't. This often discouraged me from using some of the more interesting situational tools and weapons because I didn't want to waste one of my 4 quick slots on them, and opening the switching menu was so annoying and immersion breaking. I don't know why they decided to "fix" something that wasn't broken.
2. Notoriety
This wasn't a good idea in AC2 and time has not sweetened it. Notoriety after a big assassination that you have to perform tasks to alleviate? Fine. Punishing the player for having fun in the world and having to stop every few minutes to make the game playable again? Not fine. Notoriety serves no purpose in the game other than to discourage players from experimenting or having fun. I fucking hate it.
3. The Trading System
Why is this even in the game? I don't want to micromanage economics in a game about free running and assassinations! It doesn't gel well with any other aspects of the game, and I haven't talked to anyone who has said they ever use it more than absolutely necessary. It might fit better in a game like XCOM, where the core experience is closer to the one in this... "minigame" (for lack of a better definition), but in a game like AC3 it feels incredibly out of place, and becomes more a chore that you do in order to get to the other parts of the game. Time put into implementing a system that as far as I'm aware no one asked for would have been put to better use fixing issues in their core game (and I don't think anyone would claim that AC3, or indeed any game, has nothing that could be fixed or improved).
I explained my gripes in another thread, but I'll just point out the biggest problem I had that really hurt the game in my opinion.
The assassinations are super linear, leaving you pretty much no interpretation to approach the targets yourself. And not once did you actually have to worry about what happens after you kill your target, because it immediately takes you to a cutscene to where you're safe. It honestly surprised me how far it's strayed from the original Assassin's Creed... openness(?). I mean seriously, that's really the meat and bones of why the series is as popular as it is today, and they've pretty much taken out what makes the game.
The assassinations are super linear, leaving you pretty much no interpretation to approach the targets yourself. And not once did you actually have to worry about what happens after you kill your target, because it immediately takes you to a cutscene to where you're safe. It honestly surprised me how far it's strayed from the original Assassin's Creed... openness(?). I mean seriously, that's really the meat and bones of why the series is as popular as it is today, and they've pretty much taken out what makes the game.