For me, the story, characters and setting were far less compelling than the previous games plus, this one unnecessarily took every opportunity to shoehorn Connor in to famous historical events:
He participated in the Boston Tea Party? I'm cool with that. But he was the one holding the reins for Revere's ride? And he was present for the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Seriously guys?
I could see him participating in the Boston Tea Party (though no one actually disguised as native Americans in the game...), but when Paul Revere's ride came about, I was fuming. There's no way you could historically explain that...
There's more to it than that. People will always, always have shit to sling when it comes to a popular/marketed new game to come out. It's called criticism. Sometimes it is good, sometimes not so good.
In Assassin's Creed 3's case, the latter, apparently.
There's more to it than that. People will always, always have shit to sling when it comes to a popular/marketed new game to come out. It's called criticism. Sometimes it is good, sometimes not so good.
In Assassin's Creed 3's case, the latter, apparently.
I've seen plenty of valid reasons for people not like it. They generally fall under 4 items:
1) Buggy Buggy Bugs
2) Game play is moving further and further away from "assassinations". More just a large bag of "side quests"
3) More story watching, less game-play.
4) The cliff hanger ending.
I mean, really. That's it. All valid reasons. The only invalid reason for not liking the ending would be trying to compare the ending of AC3 to ME3, but hey, people are like that.
like others have stated, its there shouldn't be any "assassin" in the title, aim less park our is not so fun when you cant be a stealthy killer instead of action hero with a weird wardrobe.
i cannot speak for others but i feel as if the series has definitely jumped the shark.
and as others have stated, colonial america didn't have the same stunning landmarks as europe. one of the fun things about AC2 was that you could recognize the cities and monuments you climbed around on. america has changed so much since colonial times that only the most hardcore history buff would be able to actually recognize anything.
the other thing is that colonial america is not as "vertical" as the european venues, i mean being a medieval spiderman was great fun in the previous games.
i really hope ubisoft continues the series and pulls the gameplay back to focus more on ninja-esque maneuvers and assassinations. i must admit the story never really appealed to me beyond the animus itself, so i probably wont get butt hurt if they do wiggling to justify a new game story-wise.
Just finished Revelations last night, and jeesus what just happened with that parachute and picking off enemies on horses like you're the batman. And after that, the whole next chapter consist of walking around, jump to cut scene, walking 5 meters, pushing a button, cut scene, loading screen, cut scene, walk around, cut scene and then loading screen.
Yeah the only redeeming part of all that was Ezio just sort of going "fuck this, I quit."
woodaba said:
It has a worse ending than ME3.
Let that sink in.
Also, the pacing is all over the map, the characters are dull and uninteresting, there's too much pointless busy work, there's hardly any assassinations, it's too easy, you spend too much time playing as Hatham, the list goes on.
"It's too easy" is kind of a weird argument to make against AC3. Five games in you should know that the game's much more concerned with making you look like a bad-ass than it is with being difficult. Plus the main character has been an unstoppable killing machine since AC2.
Goofguy said:
For me, the story, characters and setting were far less compelling than the previous games plus, this one unnecessarily took every opportunity to shoehorn Connor in to famous historical events:
He participated in the Boston Tea Party? I'm cool with that. But he was the one holding the reins for Revere's ride? And he was present for the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Seriously guys?
They have done that to the same extent in every AC game. Americans are just choosing to notice it now because it's their history the game is messing with.
They have done that to the same extent in every AC game. Americans are just choosing to notice it now because it's their history the game is messing with.
Also, the pacing is all over the map, the characters are dull and uninteresting, there's too much pointless busy work, there's hardly any assassinations, it's too easy, you spend too much time playing as Hatham, the list goes on.
"It's too easy" is kind of a weird argument to make against AC3. Five games in you should know that the game's much more concerned with making you look like a bad-ass than it is with being difficult. Plus the main character has been an unstoppable killing machine since AC2.
I'm still allowed to complain that they have not fixed it. Plus, I don't feel like a badass unless I overcome adversity. I just think everything else is made of paper.
OT: Now that I've played it quite a bit, please add "horrifically broken multiplayer" to the list of things wrong with this game. Don't get me wrong, the core gameplay is fun, but the UI is horrendous and the progression is broken beyond all belief.
(In Yahtzee's voice) "Yes you are!" Ha ha, I read that and I couldn't resist. I'm sorry.
I enjoyed the game myself. I liked the setting and the time period and, though I am aware that I am in the vast minority here, I liked Connor over they other two Assassins. He got a little whiny at times, but I could understand why. However, the game's story and focus started falling apart in the later chapters. I wanted to be part of the Revolutionary War. I wanted to fight in battles, go behind enemy lines to assassinate my target and stuff like that. Instead, I get to do that for one battle, and then the war happens around me, but I never felt like I was part of it. I know Connor didn't want to be part of it, but the trailers made it seem like he would be.
And the story went south a ways too. Started coming undone around the beginning of chapter 8. It just seemed to lose its focus. And the final story 'oops' for me was the last two targets you killed as Connor, chapters 11's and 12's bosses. Those two should have been reversed. I'm sorry, but that final scene at the table would have carried so much more impact if chapter 11's boss had been there and not chapter 12's.
Spoiler. Do not read if you haven't reached Desmond's third level yet or beat Assassin's Creed II:
Finally, this is something that's always bothered me about the Assassin's Creed games. Desmond says, on his way to rescue his father, that it's never easy to take a life. Then he goes into a building and murders dozens of guards who are just doing their jobs like it's not big deal. This is minutes after he gave his little speech of 'Killing is hard and I don't like it'. What crap. And to top it all off, he pulls out the Apple and just walks out of the building while the guards cower in fear. So if he's so against killing, why didn't he just do that on the way in? Ezio does this too. He slaughters all those soldiers to finally get to the one man who deserves, without a doubt, to die, and he goes, "No, I'm done killing." Apparently it's okay to kill the poor guy who's just trying to earn a living and do his job, but if you're an important person, assassins don't like killing you.
A little OT, but i've completed every AC except Revelations (I was poor when it was released). I was thinking of picking it up on the cheap and finishing it before I get AC3, but there has been some pretty scathing comments about Revelations in this thread alone. Question is, am I alright story-wise skipping Revelations and going straight to AC3?
He would not of said "The British are coming" because most of the colonists at that time still thought of themselves as British. He would of said "The enemy is upon us."
For me, the story, characters and setting were far less compelling than the previous games plus, this one unnecessarily took every opportunity to shoehorn Connor in to famous historical events:
He participated in the Boston Tea Party? I'm cool with that. But he was the one holding the reins for Revere's ride? And he was present for the signing of the Declaration of Independence? Seriously guys?
I could see him participating in the Boston Tea Party (though no one actually disguised as native Americans in the game...), but when Paul Revere's ride came about, I was fuming. There's no way you could historically explain that...
It basically relegated Revere down to the most annoying of back seat drivers (riders?). "You're going the wrong way, Connor!" "Turn left here, Connor!" "Yes, this is the right way to go!"
Personally, I would rather have seen Connor contribute to that event in a more indirect way. It could have had him taking out British spies who were trying to prevent Revere from warning the militia.
I was going for "as slapdash and as unsatisfying as..." but.. hell, I can go with that!!
Also:
[sub]Availiable from www.splitreason.com, along with many other Escapist-themed goodness!![/sub]
Murmillos said:
Sexy Devil said:
They have done that to the same extent in every AC game. Americans are just choosing to notice it now because it's their history the game is messing with.
Caterina"chop off your heads, piss down your necks and shove your faces in my fica!"Sforza. There's a lady who really didn't need the brotherhood's help in real life.
I ask you to name at the very least three on the British side characters who are not portrayed as total monsters. I'm from Australia and even I felt the way they portrayed the british soldiers and leaders as downright insulting.
I don't hate it but I think it is HIGHLY over-rated. Some of the things I have a problem with are:
- Connor is as uninteresting as a wooden plank, painted white on a white background.
- A lot of the weapons are really disposable. The rope dart is virtually useless due to the fact the guards are rarely hanging around trees at any given time.
- The "much hyped" freedom of movement seems really random. I can't believe how many times I inadvertantly jumped to my death trying to climb a "climbable" tree.
That said the ship sailing missions are highly enjoyable and the animal hunting is not bad.
Well I don't know about others but I hate it so much because it had so much potential. Every now and then you get moments of awesomeness and some aspects of it are great, such as the new combat style and some story elements. But then you also get stuck with a bipolar Connor, very few assassinations, dragged out missions and I don't know about anyone else but I barely did any climbing around on buildings. It's just painfully obvious what they put their time into and what they didn't. I love I, II and Brotherhood and one day I might even play Revelations again, but this game has just killed the series for me. I thought it would be a make or break game and looks like it was a break.
They have done that to the same extent in every AC game. Americans are just choosing to notice it now because it's their history the game is messing with.
Is personal friends with Leonardo da Vinci (And also solves a bunch of puzzles for him, making him look rather stupid).
Is involved with all of the Borgia intrigue.
Is a personal friend and accomplice of Machiavelli.
Is involved in the Medici/Pazzi conflict.
Ezio basically is the Renaissance. He is involved with most of the political intrigue of the period, and is personal friends with most of the most famous and influential figures of the time, and ends up solving most of their problems for them.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
