PDA

View Full Version : AC3 vs ACU



dimbismp
07-15-2015, 08:25 PM
The two most controversial AC games of all time clash with each other.Both games were hyped to great levels and both of them left the majority of the fans disappointed.

I don't feel like overanalyzing,so i'll keep this short.Personally,both games are just fine,but definitely not near as "epic" as advertised.I prefer ACU though,because it took the right direction and returned to the series' roots,despite the not so great execution.The story was really mediocre though,my least favorite so far.
On the other hand,AC3 perfected the parkour and combat(especially the animations) but the stealth was non-existent.The story was OK,but i was expecting something "bigger".

Xstantin
07-15-2015, 08:32 PM
Unity was better. Both did not live up to their hype

SixKeys
07-15-2015, 08:33 PM
Unity was better and lived up to its hype more, no question.

GunnerGalactico
07-15-2015, 09:12 PM
I'll give this one to Unity. Both did not live up to their hype IMO.

VestigialLlama4
07-15-2015, 09:19 PM
Objectively speaking, UNITY was the weaker game and failed to live up to its hype.

Why do I say objectively, the developers themselves explain this for Syndicate livestream launch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty_5I5DiI0U

"With AC3, we said we could go anywhere do anything, the Frontier, the weather. We had a full seasonal weather - summer-winter-spring-fall..."

So they are proud of the game while they outright apologized for UNITY (the first game they did so far), one of them saying it was the first game where it was on a lower end. It wasn't just the glitches, they quoted the bad reviews which called the game an beautiful bore and "not so revolutionary".

Xstantin
07-15-2015, 09:34 PM
Objectively speaking, UNITY was the weaker game and failed to live up to its hype.



It's an apology video, of course they gonna say Unity was bad, blah blah.
It's obvious you strongly dislike Unity but in no way ACIII beats it when it comes to gameplay. Even if it has flaws like cover system it just plays way better than ACIII.

VestigialLlama4
07-15-2015, 09:36 PM
The two most controversial AC games of all time clash with each other.Both games were hyped to great levels and both of them left the majority of the fans disappointed.

You need to be careful by bandying the word "disappointed". Its a huge, huge stretch to say the "majority of fans were disappointed with AC3" while that is true to UNITY.

AC3 had a terrific launch and amazing DLC. UNITY got Ubisoft's stock dropping a few points and they had to give their DLC for free (and lucky for them otherwise they would incur hatred for the worst DLC of the entire franchise). AC3 was seen as a noble, tragic failure by its critics whereas UNITY made Ubisoft the laughing stock of the gaming world. Please don't pretend that its the same thing.

The fact is regardless of how people felt about Connor, there were parts about AC3 that were loved unconditionally. Everyone loved Achilles, they loved the Naval Gameplay, they loved tree-running, they loved Haytham and everyone said that the Templars were the best yet. Almost no discussion online has yielded considerable affection for aspects of UNITY. Everyone likes Elise but people are disappointed by how badly she gets treated, everyone liked Bellec but same here. The game has the worst Templars in the entire franchise with Germain making Rodrigo Borgia look like Michael Corleone. And I can't think of anyone saying one mission that was genuinely great, not one iconic moment or dialogue that was shared or exchanged, its something people have to talk themselves into liking rather than the immediate praise AC3 got for comparable elements.

With regards to Connor, Connor was loved and still remains loved by fans, he won character awards at VGA (not a good measure but he did win it), whereas Arno has inspired nothing like the loyalty he has.

VestigialLlama4
07-15-2015, 09:44 PM
It's an apology video, of course they gonna say Unity was bad, blah blah.

The point, and I should think this was obvious, they did no such video for AC3. I mean yeah, internally they did do the petty thing where later writers made jokes about Connor and the like, but nobody apologized for it at all.


It's obvious you strongly dislike Unity but in no way ACIII beats it when it comes to gameplay. Even if it has flaws like cover system it just plays way better than ACIII.

UNITY, the game that did away with whistling and leaning on corners has the weaker cover system. It was far more intuitive in AC3 (and Black Flag got praise for it even if they lifted it from there).

None of UNITY's stealth levels compares to the quality of the little stealth that is there in AC3, the Johnson Mission and the Bunker Hill mission are far better than UNITY's missions, better in story and more various in options and level designs whereas UNITY's stealth is five ways past a door.

And in any case, measuring a game for stealth does not make it a good AC game. This was, as developer Patrice Desilets called it, an action adventure game with stealth elements. Never a pure stealth game.

Xstantin
07-15-2015, 09:51 PM
I'd take "five ways past a door" over running in a straight line from A to B to watch a cutscene tbh.

Namikaze_17
07-15-2015, 09:55 PM
Why are we having this thread again? How about something different like ACB vs AC4? AC1 vs ACR?

No, it just HAS to be the most "controversial" titles in the series.

dimbismp
07-15-2015, 10:06 PM
You need to be careful by bandying the word "disappointed". Its a huge, huge stretch to say the "majority of fans were disappointed with AC3" while that is true to UNITY.

AC3 had a terrific launch and amazing DLC. UNITY got Ubisoft's stock dropping a few points and they had to give their DLC for free (and lucky for them otherwise they would incur hatred for the worst DLC of the entire franchise). AC3 was seen as a noble, tragic failure by its critics whereas UNITY made Ubisoft the laughing stock of the gaming world. Please don't pretend that its the same thing.

The fact is regardless of how people felt about Connor, there were parts about AC3 that were loved unconditionally. Everyone loved Achilles, they loved the Naval Gameplay, they loved tree-running, they loved Haytham and everyone said that the Templars were the best yet. Almost no discussion online has yielded considerable affection for aspects of UNITY. Everyone likes Elise but people are disappointed by how badly she gets treated, everyone liked Bellec but same here. The game has the worst Templars in the entire franchise with Germain making Rodrigo Borgia look like Michael Corleone. And I can't think of anyone saying one mission that was genuinely great, not one iconic moment or dialogue that was shared or exchanged, its something people have to talk themselves into liking rather than the immediate praise AC3 got for comparable elements.

With regards to Connor, Connor was loved and still remains loved by fans, he won character awards at VGA (not a good measure but he did win it), whereas Arno has inspired nothing like the loyalty he has.
It is clear that you like AC3 more,but try being a little objective here.
It seems that tou either weren't a fan back in 2012,or you have clearly forgotten some things.
First of all,AC3 did not have a "terrific launch".The game was filled with bugs and had many performance issues.Maybe not as much as ACU,but they were definitely there.And also,the games got more or less similar scores(especially considering that next gen games get lower scores).You are acting as if Unity got a 3/10 and AC3 got a 7/10,while the truth is that they are much closer.See metacritic if you don't believe me.
I agree that AC3 had more memorable characters,but you are conveniently downplaying to a huge extent the sh**storm revolving Connor.This was the seconf biggest bad reaction in AC history after ACU's performance issues.There were hundreds of people ranting over Connor being a potato(that thread lol),while there were very few(but passionate)Connor fans.You must have forgotten the "Where is Charles Leeeeeeeeee?!?!?!?!"And no,Germain was not the worst villain,or at least he wasn't as bad as you describe him(i can find a poll if you want).This is your opinion,and i respect it,but it is not common for everyone.
Furthermore,AC3 may have had more memorable moments,but i prefer an epic assassination in Notre Dame,than killing my target in a cutscene,not once,not twice but 3 times.Unity had hands down the best assassinations in the series,while AC3 was one of the weakest games regarding this,if no the weakest.Name ONE AC3 assassination that is better than Sivert's,La Touche's,Marie's(or something) or Pelletier's.The game is called "Assassin's Creed"
Finally,i agree that Arno wasn't the most inspiring protagonist.Connor is loved by many,but he is also hated by many,especially back at launch

m4r-k7
07-15-2015, 10:30 PM
Unity was an emotional roller coaster for me. I started liking it, then I didn't, then I did again and now I don't.

I preferred AC 3 just because I remember playing it and loving it. I only started shifting my opinion of it once I saw everyone elses dislike in it lol

AC 3 for me was smoother, had a more interesting story and I suffered from more bugs in Unity. Of course this argument is all based on personal opinion and preference :)

RVSage
07-16-2015, 12:48 AM
AC3 is better overall than ACU...

Betters of AC3

1. Story (But not Desmonds end)
2. Haytham and Connor (Arno is duhhhhhh)

Betters of ACU
1. Graphics
2. Combat/stealth

steveeire
07-16-2015, 01:38 AM
Where is the option that AC3 is the worst game ever made?

If Ubisoft sticks to the trend it has set itself ACS will be awesome.

king-hailz
07-16-2015, 02:52 AM
AC3 was better but Unity lived up to its hype because I wasn't even that hyped.

However quality wise they aren't that different.

AC3 has a better overall plot but it's written badly with bad pacing and has terrible execution with the presentation of the story.

ACU has great presentation of the story and is written well, but the overall plot is just mind numbingly weak.

I give AC3 the edge because rogue made Connor look so much better. Also because although I don't love the game I feel a certain nostalgia towards it, it also has a modern day...

Fatal-Feit
07-16-2015, 03:37 AM
Unity is undoubtedly better.

Comparatively, Unity destroys AC3 in terms of gameplay. AC3 has many mechanics and tools that Unity doesn't have, but the game does a terrible job of doing them any justice, let alone explaining them, whereas Unity makes good usage of everything. And Unity's level designs and balance are far superior to AC3.

In terms of narrative, I still feel Unity has the edge. Both of them are controversial, and people have their biases, but Unity simply did a better job of conveying its narrative. The pacing didn't hinder gameplay (like Haytham and young Connor's sequences taking up half the game), sequences weren't inconsistent with their design (i.e Connor's hanging and war scenes to accommodate the narrative was bad), etc. AC3, on paper, is very good, but what was represented in the game did it no justice. Unity on the other hand, was more steady.

Side missions. Come on, questionable motives aside, Unity has the edge here.

Then there's the technical problems. It comes up to which game gave you the most issue, and for me, it was definitely Unity.

But yeah, put them in the ringer and I believe Unity wins.

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 04:33 AM
It is clear that you like AC3 more,but try being a little objective here.

I should try to be a "little objective". Between us, who is citing empirical evidence outside the confines of these forums? Hmm? I have been objective and objectively UNITY is the failure, ugly stepchild and black sheep of the Assassin's Creed franchise. Ubisoft apologized for this game, which I doubt it has done for any other game in any of its other franchises. They lost money over DLC (aka add-on intended to draw sheep to shell out more cash), that is a huge embarassment. They had to give season pass owners a free game. And the reason for that is, the vast majority of gamers, aka, people not on these forums were not happy whereas a considerable portion of those gamers were happy with AC3.


First of all,AC3 did not have a "terrific launch".

Well it was and still is the best-selling and most revenue generating game of the entire franchise and they made money of the DLC. The bugs and performance issues were much smaller (and largely exaggerated by the frothing-at-the-mouth crowd). Yes it had hiccups but as they say, "any accident you walk away from..." Unity was not an accident Ubisoft could walk away from.


Unity is undoubtedly better.

The existence of this poll proves that there is nothing "undoubtedly" about this at all. The failure and embarassment of Ubisoft for Unity is the only thing that is undoubtedly true. Everything else is sentimental wish-fulfillment here.

Xstantin
07-16-2015, 04:52 AM
UNITY is the failure, ugly stepchild and black sheep of the Assassin's Creed franchise.


that's Rogue. That thing was sent to die

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 05:02 AM
Since everyone wants to be objective here is what I am putting on a grid here.

UNITY's hype was that this would be a game that was going to be the Dishonored of the franchise. That this would be the game that in Next-Gen upgrades over the previous game. In terms of stealth, supposedly the main pillar of UNITY, It did not expand significantly in any pillar over any earlier title. There is nothing in Unity that is not there in earlier games:
-- Open Assassination missions were there in AC1 and some missions in later games.
-- Interiors and Exteriors were there in Castel Sant'Angelo in Brotherhood, and also the Pantheon Assassination of that guard earlier.
-- Alarm Bells and Sniper archetypes in stealth rooms was there in Black Flag (in-fact a lot of the stealth is from Black Flag and not AC1)
-- The day-glow X-Ray Eagle Vision comes from Black Flag too.
-- Collectibles and Puzzles mostly comes from earlier games.
-- About the chief innovations I can think of is customization options, although none of it serves an in-story purpose where-by dressing as a peasant or a nobleman blends better in a certain area. Its purely cosmetic and arcade. The earlier games had alternative outfits that at least tended to be more period fitting and so attractive to collect in place of the Assassin outfit, getting a certain dye made it more immersive into the environment and it was something that gamers did naturally rather than told to do so.
-- There's also the "difficult combat". UNITY's idea of difficulty is incredibly reactionary, they take away player abilities rather than give you tougher enemies. So you can't Double Assassinate and so on, until you do the Fetch Quest so you can see Arno's needlessly elaborate animation to kill two men in a really slow way. The toughest enemy archetype in the entire franchise remains AC3's Jaegars, so tough that Black Flag and Rogue didn't feature them and nothing in Unity has them either. In AC3 the combat was a little tougher than earlier games mostly because they gave you tougher enemies that you can't counter-spam all the time. Of course its simple if you master the controls, but UNITY's combat is simpler if you merely want to waste time whereby a master-assassin challenges even the lowest mook to a swordfight worthy of Errol Flynn-Basil Rathbone mostly because Arno is some sort of psychopathic imbecile.

The host of new features introduced in AC3 are far too numerous to list here, but I will say that in terms of stealth, AC3 did a lot more than UNITY, even if the story missions gave you few chances to use it. In AC3, you can blend into any crowd and NPC, this was something they introduced. You also had an intuitive cover system, where Connor could lean against the corner by simply stretching against the wall, you had Rope Darts, which is a dedicated stealth tool. And of course, they introduced whistling, simple, practical, easy to pass of as environmental noise. In place of that, UNITY had firecrackers which you can use indoors? (and firecrackers were there in Freedom Cry so UNITY didn't even introduce that).

In terms of hype, AC3 promised a game unlike anything made in the gaming industry, with the biggest and most beautiful openworld yet. That it did deliver and more. Its promos and trailers never said that this would be the uber-stealth game so it can hardly be faulted for that. So yeah, AC3 did live up to its hype whereas UNITY can claim not even the modest goals it set to achieve.

LoyalACFan
07-16-2015, 05:09 AM
Unity is better and lived up to its hype more, simply because it wasn't as hyped as AC3. Both of them were disappointing to me personally, but I (and many others) were acting like AC3 was going to be akin to the second coming of Jesus Christ. After all, it was the epic conclusion of the modern day Desmond saga! A completely new setting unlike anything we'd seen in the series before! The first time since 2009 that we got a new Assassin! Unity didn't have any of that going for it. Nobody cared about the modern day story anymore, we had already been to crowded European cities, and we had gotten new Assassins two years in a row right beforehand. That's not to say I wasn't looking forward to it, because I was, it's just that it's harder to get megahyped for "oh maybe this one will get the series back on track" versus "oh my God this is the game we've all been waiting for since 2007."

As far as it being better than AC3, it's of course just personal opinion. AC3 is, without question, an action game. I don't care how many new stealth mechanics were added, there were only a precious few ultra-linear scenarios where they could be used. If you're more interested in AC as an action game, it's probably more your style. Unity is more of a stealth game (though it's still more action-oriented and primitive in its stealth mechanics than I would like for this series) and that's what I want when I buy an Assassin's Creed game. SUPER basic stealth elements like waist-high cover and crouching finally got added (about nine games too late, but still) and the gorgeously-crafted city of Paris offered plenty of scenarios to actually put them to use. Conversely, AC3 added a ton of new things it didn't seem to know what to do with (e.g. crafting, guilds, corner cover, naval battles, kinda-free-aim) but in fairness, both of the games feature a ton of superfluous content that has no business being there. Story-wise I prefer AC3, but only because Unity's was just... nothing. Not memorable in any way at all. I had my gripes with AC3's (IMO) inconsistent writing but it at least had some shining moments that come to mind, and a protagonist that wasn't a mopey entitled bastard whose prime directive was hooking back up with his ex.


The toughest enemy archetype in the entire franchise remains AC3's Jaegars.

Counter + Tool = Instant Dead Jaeger. And AC3's abundance of tools made sure you pretty much always had ammo for a tool counter; you could do it with a rope dart, gun, bow, snare, or bomb. Adding all that up means you can carry enough ammo for ~70 Jaeger insta-kills at any time before restocking. Just saying. Unity's combat is much more challenging IMO, I don't recall a single combat death in AC3 (or anything between AC2 and Rogue for that matter, but we're only talking ACU vs. AC3 here).

SixKeys
07-16-2015, 07:10 AM
There is nothing in Unity that is not there in earlier games:


Co-op.

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 07:14 AM
Co-op.

Hardy Hardy Har.

RVSage
07-16-2015, 07:57 AM
Hardy Hardy Har.

Not just Co-op... seemless interiors.. sanbox assassinations

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 08:34 AM
Not just Co-op... seemless interiors.. sanbox assassinations

1) Sandbox assassinations were there in AC1 and you had missions in later games that could be done that way too. The Four Assassinations in San Gimignano in AC2 could be done in any order and you had three or four paths of traversals and blending in to reach your target, only they didn't chicken out like later games and UNITY by adding Full Synch objectives (obviously the one correct way to do it). In AC2, you also had Emilio Barbarigo at Palazzo della Seta, multiple ways to reach him and you can ghost him. All the Assassination missions in Bonfires DLC are open too.

In AC3, the William Johnson Assassination was the most open assassination at the time, you had four or five ways around three dimensions and a range of choices in use of topography to approach and exit. The Pitcairn Assassination granted was more scripted but it was still a brilliant use of topography and access to get your target.

2) Seamless interior and exterior movement have always been there with Masyaf in AC1, some Churches in the open world, that mission in Garnier's hospital where you can enter and exit from a side-window. The Pantheon and Castel Sant'Angelo in Brotherhood. In Black Flag, you had the forts where interior and exteriors were fused well in Havana and Nassau.

EmptyCrustacean
07-16-2015, 08:49 AM
Objectively speaking, UNITY was the weaker game and failed to live up to its hype.

Why do I say objectively, the developers themselves explain this for Syndicate livestream launch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ty_5I5DiI0U

"With AC3, we said we could go anywhere do anything, the Frontier, the weather. We had a full seasonal weather - summer-winter-spring-fall..."

So they are proud of the game while they outright apologized for UNITY (the first game they did so far), one of them saying it was the first game where it was on a lower end. It wasn't just the glitches, they quoted the bad reviews which called the game an beautiful bore and "not so revolutionary".

Yeah, can't argue with that. When even the developers acknowledge Unity as a failure and still note AC3 as something they're proud of then the answer is obvious. AC3 was just so innovative and changed the series direction completely. Also, people have very short memories because AC3 was much better liked upon release (apart from a few bugs) than it was later.

LoyalACFan
07-16-2015, 10:28 AM
Also, people have very short memories because AC3 was much better liked upon release (apart from a few bugs) than it was later.

As someone who was a frequent visitor of these forums and others in November/December of 2012, I feel very comfortable calling BS on this statement. There were a few devoted fans of it immediately post-launch, but by and large this board went absolutely bats**t with outrage. If anything, I think people have become MORE fond of it as time goes by.

But more to the point (for everybody in this thread)... just stop trying to determine which game is "objectively" better, because you can't, and it just turns into a big argument. You liked AC3 or ACU better, good for you, but there's no way to objectively say which is the better game, it all comes down to personal preference. Your opinion =/= objective.

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 10:57 AM
As someone who was a frequent visitor of these forums and others in November/December of 2012, I feel very comfortable calling BS on this statement. There were a few devoted fans of it immediately post-launch, but by and large this board went absolutely bats**t with outrage. If anything, I think people have become MORE fond of it as time goes by.

But more to the point (for everybody in this thread)... just stop trying to determine which game is "objectively" better, because you can't, and it just turns into a big argument. You liked AC3 or ACU better, good for you, but there's no way to objectively say which is the better game, it all comes down to personal preference. Your opinion =/= objective.

AC3's amazing launch sales is not "personal preference", Ubisoft losing its stock after UNITY's launch is not "your opinion". Ubisoft outright apologizing for UNITY is nothing to argue against. A story-DLC given free of cost to all consumers is practically unheard of but it unquestionably happened with Unity. People preferring Unity over AC3 for whatever subjective reasons they talk themselves into liking is not going to change these facts. UNITY humiliated Ubisoft in the gaming world in a way no game did a major company. No one apologizes for weak releases and stuff. Nintendo never apologized for Wind Waker for instance, that Ubisoft apologized for Unity is pretty damning.

The discussion is "Is Unity or better and which lived up to its hype"? The discussion isn't if Unity has more stealth than AC3 or if Unity's stealth is good compared to other stealth games (It pretty much sucks in that regard). The discussion is the overall value of Unity as a game, pre-and-post launch compared to AC3. AC3 unquestionably lived up its hype far better than Unity did. It was sold as a complex, sad and mature story, with awesome battle scenes, naval gameplay and new open-world features, so what it hyped up, it did right.

Unity was sold as a complex love story with divided loyalties and murky lines between Assassins and Templars, in the game the bad guys are New-And-Even-More-Evil-Templars and the love story is the same old sexist piece of trash. It promised us stealth like never before, instead its Black Flag-AC1 in next-gen wrapped up in a bow to congratulate itself.

D.I.D.
07-16-2015, 12:16 PM
Thread cries out for the services of Fallacy Ref

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/arguing_with_idiots_online_wearing_you_down_you_ne ed_fallacy_ref

LoyalACFan
07-16-2015, 01:05 PM
AC3's amazing launch sales is not "personal preference"

:confused: Launch sales have nothing to do with anything here. That people preordered based on the hype shows nothing concerning their impressions of the game once they got their hands on it. If anything, it just shows it was more hyped than Unity.


Ubisoft losing its stock after UNITY's launch is not "your opinion".

That can't be attributed to a single launch. Unity's flubs didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened alongside a second shoddy game on the same day (Rogue) and after they had already "fooled us once," so to speak (AC3). There was more than one indicator that the series was in decline.


Ubisoft outright apologizing for UNITY is nothing to argue against.

They did the same thing for AC3, Black Flag's entire marketing campaign was a parade of assurances that it would fix AC3's mistakes (albeit more subtly).


A story-DLC given free of cost to all consumers is practically unheard of but it unquestionably happened with Unity.

They did basically the same thing after AC3 launched by ditching the Uplay passport the day after and promising it would never come back.

Sorrosyss
07-16-2015, 01:08 PM
Ah this is a fun read. Passions running high, for these two controversial titles. As always, it does come down to one's own experiences and opinions. Mine is that AC3 is fundamentally a better game, and lived up to it's hype more.

Here's my thoughts on some areas;


Story (minor spoilers follows)

AC3 wins this one with ease. We had the first instance of us playing as a Templar, an excellent overview of the First Civilisation by Juno, and arguably the most compelling of the modern day treatments. The two main factions were greyer than ever, and some of the best one liners came out of this game.

By comparison, Unity felt like retreaded ground. Arno was Ezio 2.0 in many people's eyes, and the initial story pretty much followed AC2's themes far too closely. I never connected with any of the characters really, I could not even tell you the names of most of the Templars, as they were so forgettable. A needless death scene at the end just coloured my view of the entire story, and let's not forget the curious absence of the First Civilisation (save for a sword) and the modern day. Paraphrasing, but Bishop's parting words were "Good job, but all that hard work was for nothing." Way to integrate your audience. :p

Graphics

There are no doubts here, Unity excels and Paris is stunning to look at. The only disappointment would be in the variety aspect. Directly compared to AC3, we had so many more areas to explore, including the modern day. For example, climbing the skyscraper, or the assault on the Abstergo offices. Really enjoyed those.

Sound

I felt overall the voice acting was far superior in AC3. The terrible use of english accents around Paris really pulled me out of the immersion - I mean they could have at least tried to do accented French. I feel that worked so much better in the Italian games for example.

Then the soundtracks. AC3 obliterates Unity here in my view. Balfe did an amazing job, and some of the ambient tracks are my favourite in the entire franchise (an uncertain present^). Unity by comparison felt very empty, with so little music playing throughout. For me it is the weakest soundtrack of the franchise.

Combat

Ah this old chestnut. For me, I've always preferred the combat from ACB most. It was easier, faster, and more befit an Assassin in my eyes. AC3 very much mixed it up, and added far more blocking and parrying from npc's. Unity's is even more filled with this, but with slower animations. The removal of hidden blade combat forces me to give this one to AC3 again.

I do find it kind of funny though. People argue for the depth to be put into AC's combat, yet the Arkham games you can literally hammer one attack button without even pressing a direction to mow down enemies. And yet Arkham gets praised for it! :p I guess this may be why that Syndicate is trying to strip this down and speed things up the same way.

Side Content

Unity's missions usually revolved around the kill, steal, save mechanics. In fact the Initiate missions were literally this. Admittedly the murder mysteries were kind of fun, but they too got boring after awhile. I feel Unity's playtime is very much bumped up by just how many collectibles there are. Which is a shame. Arno doesn't really have much interaction in most of this content either, usually standing and listening to an npc.

Now look at AC3. We had the homestead missions, naval, hunting, a load of dlc content (with the crazy tyranny stuff too!). We had far more variety, and arguably far more interactive content back then.

The Launch

It's a while back now, but I originally played AC3 on the Xbox 360. At launch I recall seeing some strange bugs, like horses walking up the side of buildings, but nothing that really detracted from my playthrough. I recall in the media complaints about bugs, and some criticism for Connor.

Then there was Unity. I played this at launch, and in the space of a few hours I fell through the ground twice, suffered a hard freeze of my PS4, and had a save game corrupt. Luckily I chose to sit out and play Rogue whilst all this got fixed, but I watched on as the media tore into Unity, with faceless Arno all over the place. It was beyond obvious that Unity had been rushed, and when you look at how many features we lost compared to even black flag it is quite sad. (stealth swim, human shield, hidden blade combat etc)

Multiplayer was another victim, and they came into criticism on this too, as they did kind of imply that the game was a co-op experience, but it merely amounted to a few missions. Let's not forget that AC3 had a fully developed multiplayer, and even a co-op mode in the form of Wolfpack mode.

It was a shame, as Unity was supposed to lead us into a new age on the new consoles, and it utterly underwhelmed with its terrible launch. Ubisoft knew they had messed up, with the free game offers, and the free dlc, but the damage has already been done for many people who literally took the game back for their money and abandoned the franchise.

Unity failed to meet it's hype, and has proven to be the bigger disappointment for the franchise in my opinion. The cuts, the technical issues, and ultimately the story - my biggest draw to the series, were all quite a disappointment.

dimbismp
07-16-2015, 01:34 PM
AC3's amazing launch sales is not "personal preference", Ubisoft losing its stock after UNITY's launch is not "your opinion". Ubisoft outright apologizing for UNITY is nothing to argue against. A story-DLC given free of cost to all consumers is practically unheard of but it unquestionably happened with Unity. People preferring Unity over AC3 for whatever subjective reasons they talk themselves into liking is not going to change these facts. UNITY humiliated Ubisoft in the gaming world in a way no game did a major company. No one apologizes for weak releases and stuff. Nintendo never apologized for Wind Waker for instance, that Ubisoft apologized for Unity is pretty damning.

The discussion is "Is Unity or better and which lived up to its hype"? The discussion isn't if Unity has more stealth than AC3 or if Unity's stealth is good compared to other stealth games (It pretty much sucks in that regard). The discussion is the overall value of Unity as a game, pre-and-post launch compared to AC3. AC3 unquestionably lived up its hype far better than Unity did. It was sold as a complex, sad and mature story, with awesome battle scenes, naval gameplay and new open-world features, so what it hyped up, it did right.

Unity was sold as a complex love story with divided loyalties and murky lines between Assassins and Templars, in the game the bad guys are New-And-Even-More-Evil-Templars and the love story is the same old sexist piece of trash. It promised us stealth like never before, instead its Black Flag-AC1 in next-gen wrapped up in a bow to congratulate itself.
First of all,you are measuring a game's success by its sales.You are claiming that AC3 sold the most in the series' history,which is true.But you are forgetting that a big percentage of these sales,if not the majority,were preorders and D1(or at least close to release)sales.Guess what?All these sales were influenced to a big extent by the marketing machine(just like any other game ofc).And because AC3 is the most hyped game in AC history,it is obvious that it would make terrific sales.ACU also made quite good sales,considering that there are much fewer next gen consoles(i recall something like the 50% of the next gen consoles owners got it,but don't quote me on that).
The thing is that here we are debating about the game quality and not about its financial success(which obviously are not always the same).To claim that AC3 had a"terrific launch" regarding its reception,really makes me question my health.I am afraid that i have Alzheimer or something(other users like loyalACfan must suffer from it too).Because i remember hundreds of people ranting about the game,about the bugs,about Connor being boring,about the extremely lengthy prologue,about the qte assassinations,about Connor forrestgump-inf his way through all the important events,about Charles Leeeeeeeeeeee.Ofc,through the years people became less crtical,bur this doesn't mean that the game had a terrific launch.So,i(and others) am either having a mental illness,or you are conveniently forgetting some things.

As for the apology video:you must have also forgotten that AC4 devs contsantly saying that:"we learned from our mistakes,we know how to deal with things now".So,after two "terrific launches" in 3 years,Ubi now had to do something more drastic if they wanted ACS to sell.

As for your second point:you are forgetting AC3's failed promises(something that happened to ACU to a very small extent).They said that we could free roam in the battlefield.The nearest we got was the battle of bunker hill,where redcoats were firing in a 90 angle.The orher 2 battles were pathetic,both gameplay wise and narrative-wise(let's have a native we barely know command the troops,what could go wrong?).They said that we could free roam in the ocean,a feature that was kept for AC4.They promised canoes,frozen lakes,people trying to find shelter during rain,4 seasons,animals being real enemies and not qte material and many other.In other words,the game did not live up to its hype,because much of the marketing material was false advertising.

I agree on false advertising of ACU's story though.

Thing is that you are overplaying AC3's qualities and downplaying its failures.As i said in another post,a big rural environment was the next logical step to keep things fresh.And because the game revolves around parkour,tree climbing was a must.In other words it was bound to happen.AC3 introduced hunting,but it was completely useless to me(and others),as you could easily complete the game with the starting gear,without any upgrades.The frontier was beautiful,but mostly empty.On the other hand,the cities were hands down the less parkour-able in history.Plus,you had to deal with the AI's insane detection system.For an action-stealth game,the stealth part was really linear.A big amount of assassinations were qte/cutscenes,while the only two real assassinations were quite linear.

On the other hand,you are downplaying ACU's achievements.ACU finally introduced the crouch button,after 7 years in a (partly) stealth series.The open assassinations may not be the best in the industry's history,but they are a major step forward comparing to the other games.The game featured 10-ish huge landmarks with interiors,plus 1/4 of the normal buildings,and you are acting like it was the same with AC1.The game introduced the parkour down mechanic.The game introduced harder and more realistic combat.It may not have been perfect,but i prefer this,than being a god.

I like both games,but ACU is just better IMO.

steveeire
07-16-2015, 01:41 PM
It is also worth noting that AC3 was coming off a great game ACR and that would have helped increase AC3's sales but if you look at AC4 which is a better game in every way than AC3, it had low sales at launch because it was coming off a poor game, hell after the mess that was AC3 I was done with Assassin's Creed, the only reason I tried AC4 was it was getting excellent reviews and I'm glad I did it almost makes up for AC3.

SpiritOfNevaeh
07-16-2015, 02:29 PM
I just finished playing Unity and I have to say that, even thought both of them did not live up to their hype, both games were excellent in different parts of the game itself.

AC3 had a great story and combat, but no stealth was present and the mission design was terrible.

ACU had great graphics and mission design, but the story was "bland" and the combat was a killer.

In fact, I just posted a thread on my thoughts after just finishing ACUnity that gives further gives more detail for anyone interested:

http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/1221022-SPOILER-Finally-got-to-play-ACUnity-My-Thoughts-Verdict?p=10924103#post10924103

Anyways, as big of a fan as I am for AC3, I have to admit that Unity was a tiny bit better in regards to "hype", even though I don't hype. I just felt that ACU had kept more of its promises while advertising than AC3 did.

Xstantin
07-16-2015, 03:15 PM
That can't be attributed to a single launch. Unity's flubs didn't happen in a vacuum, it happened alongside a second shoddy game on the same day (Rogue) and after they had already "fooled us once," so to speak (AC3). There was more than one indicator that the series was in decline.


I'd add Watch_Dogs there somewhere people still bring it up when there is news about Ubi games.

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 04:28 PM
First of all,you are measuring a game's success by its sales.

The thing is that here we are debating about the game quality and not about its financial success(which obviously are not always the same).

You are the one who talked about hype and if the games lived up to it. Measuring a game by Hype/Expectations/Promises Kept by Developers etcetera etcetera is even more irrelevant to a debate of a game's merit than its financial success. Financial success is not a total or final indicator of a game's quality but its definitely a more useful indicator than fan-boy expectations, reactions and nerd-rage. After all, its always one or two fans claiming to speak for everyone whereas commercial success and general reaction is a much wider judgment about "Hype" or if it met it. Based purely on that, objectively UNITY did not meet its hype, trying to argue otherwise or change facts is wish fulfillment pure and simple. In fact its kind of sad that Unity defenders are relying on something as lowly as "hype" to squeeze some grounding to stand on.

It doesn't matter if some people looked at the trailers and expected that AC3 would be a super-stealth game and not the action-adventure game it clearly was showing all along. It doesn't matter, likewise, if UNITY is not the complex, interesting story which would be accurate to the spirit of the Revolution, that I and several others got from the trailers. Ultimately, once you clear the hype, the games are there and have to speak for itself. However this is a poll about AC3 versus Unity on the scale of hype, there have been other discussions about AC3 and Unity and I kind of want to keep this discussion specific to what is essentially about the legacy and memory of AC3 versus Unity in the franchise.


Thing is that you are overplaying AC3's qualities and downplaying its failures.As i said in another post,a big rural environment was the next logical step to keep things fresh.

And as Assassin_M responded to you in another thread (I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him): Assassin_M[/B]That's all hindsight talking. When you get a time machine, show me people suggesting what AC III introduced before AC III, I'll believe you. Thing is, I was there. I'v been here through a lot of stuff. The only things constantly asked for were an East Asian setting, scrapping modern day storyline and WW II. No one ever suggested what AC III brought forward. AC III introduced what a WHOLE game was based on.


On the other hand,you are downplaying ACU's achievements. ACU finally introduced the crouch button,

Remember when PD and others said that AC was a different kind of game, dedicated to doing things no other game did? Hmm? Remember when developers repeatedly said how a crouch button in an open-world game is pointless? Remember that? The earlier AC games didn't need a crouch button, and I think Unity would not be any different if they removed it altogether. It only makes it look "more stealth" as if its some Boy Scout merit badge, all it does is make Arno walk like an overgrown blue turtle in interiors. Assassins are not stealth operatives, they are fast, fleet hit-and-run guerrila adventurers.

I keep repeating this. Assassin's Creed has never been [B] a conventional stealth game, or a conventional single-genre game. Even Assassin's Creed 1, had several open combat sequences, the Liberation Missions for instance cannot be done stealthily, you cannot enter any of the cities without saving a citizen, and each one had to be attacked because an Assassin is a hero and do-gooder.


The game featured 10-ish huge landmarks with interiors,

Except none of the architecture ever has a personality and purpose in the game. In AC2, each monument and building was almost like a character you had multiple main and side missions set there. Especially in Brotherhood and Revelations. In UNITY you have one main mission in Notre Dame and one or two side missions and that's it. The fact is you can't get credit for putting period architecture if you have no real interest in history, time and place.


plus 1/4 of the normal buildings,and you are acting like it was the same with AC1.The game introduced the parkour down mechanic.The game introduced harder and more realistic combat.It may not have been perfect,but i prefer this,than being a god.

You mean you prefer Day-Glo Eagle Vision that gives Arno Superman-like X-Ray vision? Or that Arno like all Assassins has insane stamina that allows him to Parkour without fatigue and grip control. The fact is one has to follow the other. If you want realism you have to go all the way. If you are going to introduce harder combat by putting stuff earlier Assassins had behind a skill-tree then that is plainly bad design. The combat in Unity is not hard at all, the enemies and stuff are not difficult to fight, they are annoying and irritating to fight because I am expected to pretend that some lower guard is a fencing champion when an Assassin should be able to take him out.

Sushiglutton
07-16-2015, 04:45 PM
And as Assassin_M responded to you in another thread (I hope he doesn't mind me quoting him): Assassin_MThat's all hindsight talking. When you get a time machine, show me people suggesting what AC III introduced before AC III, I'll believe you. Thing is, I was there. I'v been here through a lot of stuff. The only things constantly asked for were an East Asian setting, scrapping modern day storyline and WW II. No one ever suggested what AC III brought forward. AC III introduced what a WHOLE game was based on.

Here are some forums/articles where the American Revolution was suggested as a possible setting before AC3 was announced:


http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/565191-Assassin-s-Creed-3-and-beyond?p=7768641&viewfull=1#post7768641

This OniLinkSword guy knew what was up :). He even used the correct reasoning for why firearms would work:

"Why not the American rev? Guns were hugely inaccurate and were limited to one bullet before they had to reload. Bladed weapons still had a great roll."

http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/sowhat-era-is-next-for-assassins-creed-272211/ (http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/general-discussion-30/sowhat-era-is-next-for-assassins-creed-272211/)
http://gamercrash.com/2010/09/08/speculation-assassins-creed-3-ideas/
http://community.eu.playstation.com/t5/Assassin-s-Creed/Possible-Assassin-s-Creed-3-Settings-amp-Locations/td-p/11996915
http://www.xboxachievements.com/forum/showthread.php?t=277713
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.157180-Modern-Day-Assassins-Creed-Can-it-Be-Done

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 05:05 PM
Here are some forums/articles where the American Revolution was suggested as a possible setting before AC3 was announced:
/

And as one of those articles you quote state clearly: Chances of Happening: 20% – Not confident but could provide some good story moments.

It was just random hashing off settings. And all of them clearly expected an American revolution game with you as a Patriot or dealing with Free masons and stuff. Not even remotely close to AC3. What Assassin_M clearly said was "show me people suggesting what AC III introduced before AC III, I'll believe you."

Xstantin
07-16-2015, 05:11 PM
Assassins are not stealth operatives, they are fast, fleet hit-and-run guerrila adventurers.

I keep repeating this. Assassin's Creed has never been a conventional stealth game, or a conventional single-genre game. Even Assassin's Creed 1, had several open combat sequences, the Liberation Missions for instance cannot be done stealthily, you cannot enter any of the cities without saving a citizen, and each one had to be attacked because an Assassin is a hero and do-gooder.




There's not much of hit and run in ACIII as well.

I don't think the whole stealth thing is about AC being Splinter Cell, but more about options and ways to deal with the situations. You said Unity was basically five ways past a door but you still had opportunities to decide what to do and how to get around it unlike simple only one way solutions.

Sushiglutton
07-16-2015, 05:12 PM
And as one of those articles you quote state clearly: Chances of Happening: 20% – Not confident but could provide some good story moments.

It was just random hashing off settings. And all of them clearly expected an American revolution game with you as a Patriot or dealing with Free masons and stuff. Not even remotely close to AC3. What Assassin_M clearly said was "show me people suggesting what AC III introduced before AC III, I'll believe you."

In the quote you gave it was stated that: "The only things constantly asked for were an East Asian setting, scrapping modern day storyline and WW II.". As my links show this was simply not the case (I have no time machine, but Google's filter worked well enough ;) ). Specifically the American Revolution was one setting being discussed.


Edit: That being said I'm sure M was mostly refering to the climbable wilderness/naval warfare and not the setting per se

VestigialLlama4
07-16-2015, 05:42 PM
In the quote you gave it was stated that: "The only things constantly asked for were an East Asian setting, scrapping modern day storyline and WW II.". As my links show this was simply not the case (I have no time machine, but Google's filter worked well enough ;) ). Specifically the American Revolution was one setting being discussed.

And most of the settings in the forum links above discuss Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Japan, World War II which are far more popular and so on. So you can forgive most people for ignoring it. So the point still stands. That said, I will say the American Revolution was probably more expected than Black Flag's Golden Age of Piracy, that was something no one saw coming.


I don't think the whole stealth thing is about AC being Splinter Cell, but more about options and ways to deal with the situations. You said Unity was basically five ways past a door but you still had opportunities to decide what to do and how to get around it unlike simple only one way solutions.

1) In the case of the King of Beggars it takes place in an underground sewer (that suspiciously looks like Arkham City's sewer tunnels) and its structured the opposite of a typical AC mission, which is that the targets are usually killed before witnesses in public view. Here its you sneaking in and killing a dude in a dark subterranean cavern, which is essentially <INSERT STEALTH GAME> space. In this mission, sure you can avoid being seen but its essentially a scripted mission because you can't access Roi du Thunes by any other way or any other fashion than what the game shows. You can't use your knowledge of the level and patterns to get to him sooner, newer or in a quieter way.

2) Then you have La Touche and the Guillotine, its essentially Majd Addin and the Public Execution from AC1 with La Touche playing a similar role in grandstanding and riling the public (where are the lovely Tricoteuses who did this in real life history...ah yes "women are too hard to animate" I keep forgetting). Here again you have a scripted moment clearly established, freeing up those thugs and joining the crowd and then...did they even show Arno escape? The point is the game nudges you to a clear single way on "how it should be done".

3) Levesque, Peletier and Rouille are interior missions where you can dawdle your way in and around a wide area (similar to Laurens Prins in Black Flag, a game which pioneered most of the stealth that UNITY parasitically absorbs). You can say that its less scripted than Juan Borgia in The Party mission of Brotherhood but I don't think you can claim its especially different in basic mission structure, which is essentially a cliche in stealth games -- kill a host at his party (Levesque and Peletier). Compare that to Lady Boyle's Last Party in Dishonored where you had multiple pathways, ways of access and exits and where the mission design is really versatile and stylish. Whereas here you can set up a Poison Wine for a private assassination and listen to a unique audio conversation.

4) Lafreniere's Assassination is set in a graveyard and this one was pretty suspenseful so I'll give it a pass. Sivert was the best mission but even there, the true way to attack him is clear and its inventive because its the only point in the game where architecture comes alive in level design. Its the only mission that is really open and does what they advertised. In that sense its like William Johnson's Assasination in AC3 and that one is still better because Johnson is an interesting character whereas Sivert is this odious scumbag.

Sushiglutton
07-16-2015, 06:15 PM
And most of the settings in the forum links above discuss Russian Revolution, French Revolution, Japan, World War II which are far more popular and so on. So you can forgive most people for ignoring it. So the point still stands. That said, I will say the American Revolution was probably more expected than Black Flag's Golden Age of Piracy, that was something no one saw coming.

The challenge posed in the quote was to show that these things were suggested at all, not that they were the most popular. You are def correct that the other settings you mentioned were discussed more. This discussion is starting to become a bit more detailed than what it's worth though. I'll let you have last word if you want it, otherwise cheers and see you around ;)!

Xstantin
07-16-2015, 06:45 PM
snip

1) the King of Beggars still had several ways to climb around that chamber at least iiirc
2) LaTouche & thugs set up just gives you a signature kill or whatever they were called but it wasn't the only way - and Arno still needs to escape afterwards to run towards the glitch bridge thingy
ACIII nudges you way more often anyway
3) Levesque/Peletier still had multiple pathways. They had some direct approach (run inside and kill him), bribe the window chick so he walks right past Arno, poison thing (set-piece). Roille was way easier to do going into tunnels instead of climbing and jumping through windows
4) I don't really get what Sivert being a scumbag has to do with Johnson's assassination being a better mission :confused: both are just there to get killed

shobhit7777777
07-16-2015, 08:23 PM
Unit was by far the superior AC game IMO

AC3 was not only a ****ty AC game but a terrible game overall.

Purely from a gameplay perspective, ACU ****s on AC3....however there were some questionable design choices in the game and it felt a bit tired due to franchise fatigue. ACU had a stronger systemic design and its core assassin gameplay was the best in the franchise

One thing is certain, both were technological marvels. ACU with its game world and AC3 with its animation system.

VestigialLlama4
07-17-2015, 04:33 AM
1) the King of Beggars still had several ways to climb around that chamber at least iiirc

So? Give a cookie to Unity. Yay. Having that is pathetic compared to a genuine stealth game like Dishonored. All the earlier titles had variations in pathway. When you have to jump Thomas Hickey in New York, that big running chase where you can't hit people you have multiple ways to do that too. Even the slow-mo run to Hickey you can do it in two ways at least. The final Charles Lee mission depending on the gear you have can also wary widely. What's there in UNITY is nothing remotely like player choice its just more visible as a pattern of choices that's all. Easy to fool stealthmongers.


ACIII nudges you way more often anyway

So what? All the games since Brotherhood have nudged you. These are not stealth games, they are hybrid games and a good scripted mission is better than a pathetic stealth game that compares poorly to the genuine thing, however many variations of the same choice it offers you.


3) Levesque/Peletier still had multiple pathways. They had some direct approach (run inside and kill him), bribe the window chick so he walks right past Arno, poison thing (set-piece). Roille was way easier to do going into tunnels instead of climbing and jumping through windows

The fact is the poison approach is clearly the "right one" so its a scripted mission in all but name. You can go off-script in earlier AC missions too. The fact that UNITY retains optional objectives and full synch proves that its not a true stealth game.


4) I don't really get what Sivert being a scumbag has to do with Johnson's assassination being a better mission :confused: both are just there to get killed

"Both are just there to get killed" is the complete opposite of what an AC game was in earlier games. The targets, their motivations and the relationship the assassin has with him are important because there are not medieval Hitman (as producer Jade Raymond said about the first game) where you get a target and kill him. Each killing is supposed to have a gravity and impact. Arno killing Sivert has no dramatic impact whatsover, its just an empty mission exercise that tells you nothing about the character aside from the fact that he's an unthinking psychopath. The stakes in the William Johnson mission where the meeting with the Iroquois tribesman and the conflict were much higher. Here there's nothing. Arno kills target, reads his corpse mind for information that he already knew anyway and then gets a face of the next target and so on.

Unity is a game purely about killing people.

Xstantin
07-17-2015, 04:42 AM
^ Hickey mission was pathetic compared to anything in Unity (I like ACIII but seriously).
Dishonored is not a pure stealth game, it's hybrid like AC and Unity is the one which is still way closer to it than ACIII if you want to compare them.

That King of Beggars tunnel layout is definitely more interesting than running in a straight line.

Poison is not the right way to go, something like running after Hickey is the only "right" way to go since it's the only way to do it with a stupid op objective on top of that.

Of course Unity is about killing people. But whatever I think there's no point to discuss anything.

VestigialLlama4
07-17-2015, 04:57 AM
Dishonored is not a pure stealth game.

You can ghost Dishonored and do a Pacifist Run. You cannot do that in any AC game. Though I must say that in AC3, you had a lot more nonlethal options than UNITY does. You can knock out and do non-lethal takedowns for instance. I guess Connor is less bloodthirsty and less of a psychopath than Arno.


Of course Unity is about killing people. But whatever I think there's no point to discuss anything.

Well if you blindly ignore Unity's design flaws and story weakness as irrelevant next to "gameplay" (which is not gameplay at all) and simply give it undue credit for being "more stealth than AC3 and AC2" then there is really no point. AC is a hybrid game, its story-driven, its determined by immersion in a historical setting and context and gameplay that is a mix of platform action-adventure and stealth. That's always been what it is. By focusing on one aspect while ignoring and outright maligning everything else, UNITY cannot be a game worthy of respect in any real sense.

In any case the debate is about Unity vs AC3 in terms of hype. Or more precisely the legacy of AC3 versus Unity. So as long as you can focus on that, its fine.

Xstantin
07-17-2015, 04:59 AM
You can knock out and do non-lethal takedowns for instance. I guess Connor is less bloodthirsty and less of a psychopath than Arno.



Unity got that too :confused: no fistfights but still. Also knocking out people in ACIII counted as kills sometimes. I guess Connor is a monster too

Hans684
07-17-2015, 07:56 AM
Unity got that too :confused: no fistfights but still. Also knocking out people in ACIII counted as kills sometimes. I guess Connor is a monster too

Knocking people out so they don't get up is dangerous, the person done that to can get in coma. Non-lethal is lethal

VestigialLlama4
07-17-2015, 08:07 AM
Knocking people out so they don't get up is dangerous, the person done that to can get in coma. Non-lethal is lethal

In videogame land, that is non-lethal. Batman is lethal too by that logic.

Hans684
07-17-2015, 08:28 AM
In videogame land, that is non-lethal. Batman is lethal too by that logic.

I know, still don't change what would happen in reality.

Anykeyer
07-21-2015, 08:48 AM
Unity - extremely boring and repetitive crap. Worst game in the series (aside from handhelds and phones).
I just dont get all this talk about how wonderfully designed its core gameplay is. How none of the systems are not being used. Well ofc they arent. I can say the same about every dumbed down game. Flappy bird is perfect. Will I play and enjoy it? NO. In the end only one thing matters - Unity is simply not a fun game.
AC3. There is only one problem with it. Its bigger than itself. It tried to tell the story that required 2 games the size of AC3. It also has a lot of underused features. I think the main reason for this was Ubisoft's decision to release AC 3.5 instead of AC3 (they said so themself). So many of the things were added on top as extras after mission's design was done. And while this isnt exactly a perfect situaion its still much better than not having those extras at all.