PDA

View Full Version : The biggest disappointment or why Assassinís Creed 3 is bad (spoilers)



usedtobeacfan
11-01-2012, 09:26 AM
First of all I must say that I had a long and colorful history with Assassinís Creed games and I got really attached to this universe and itís great characters. So yes, I used to be a fan, a big and devoted one, and I got really excited when I first found out about AC3 comingÖ and then this game put an end to everything. I tried this game at my friendís place and now Iím deeply annoyed that I got into this game in the first place!

The bad things Iím going to mention are obviously not the only failures of the game, but the game itself is not bad, sure. However it feels like a complete flop in the comparison with the previous ones.
So, here we go.

1) The first thing that confuses is the gameís settings. The game is set during America's war for independency. Allright, I say but my confusion goes even deeper than the fact that lots of AC fans from OTHER countries have no interest at all for America's history. Does it mean AC3 is intended for Americanís people? Actually yes, yes it is, and it's done quite plainly. It has very and very strong pressure on the specific themes that wasnít so much highlighted in the previous games. That's kind of insulting what the game is made not for everyone, but for some exact group of people in the first place. I'm not American, I have no interest in all the independency stuff, but that is not all! Sure, Cross is a bad guy. Russians are all the bad guys. And the way he is presented in the game automatically hints that all the Russians are bad, that they all are drunkards, and drug users, and traitors and uneducated aggressive bastards. And then I thought the period of cold war with all that insulting stereotypes and propaganda is over! Oh yeah, different faiths and believes. SURE. Well, it's only proves that this game has been created for Americans. As for the others... well, they will blindly like this game anyway, just because itís Assassinís Creed game and not because itís good or bad game. Fans are like this, blind and sometimes too tolerant.

2) The most painful thing that makes a lot of people out there sincerely sad is the new faces of our beloved characters. Iím really sorry, but ARE THE DEVS BLIND or something? I wonder what the designers are paid for? They completely have no aesthetical taste and I guess they are actually truly blind - there is no other sane explanation or practical excuse for the indescribably ugly mugs that used to be our beloved modern assassins. So, I guess all the game budget went into the designing of Connor's costume, right? The character designers should be fired for such a fail with the faces, epic fail, to be exact. And also it's a grand mystery where QA's and testers have been looking. Also the creepy way Desmond moves is beyond any definition. Is he paralytic after his coma or what?

3) Now itís time to mention the lame script play for the secondary characters. But no, there are NO characters anymore, now they are mostly silent and unmoving objects. For example letís take an ending. SoÖ Desmondís fellow assassins turned out to hate him that much so they donít even say goodbye to him, huh? Because he's going to die, DIE, to willingly sacrifice himself, dammit! And what they do? They do NOTHING, not even look at him, no "Goodbye, Desmond, we will miss you!", not a single hug for the savior of human kind from Rebecca, not a single approving nod from Shaun - nothing, null, NADA! They stand there silently like a dumb paper dolls, like a useless decoration, and his father speaking in the funny tones, but it clearly feels like heís saying: "Well, son, you going to die now, but that's okay, because no one ever loved you and you are just a tool, so go ahead and die while you can and we'll go have some drinks to celebrate." And then they all turn silently and coldly and walk away. What is that, I ask you?? Is that allright? Where is the gameís script?? That is why this game's characters are terrible, lifeless and bleak and even half-homo jokes that appear in Shaun's logs doesn't improve the terrible and sad situation. It feels like EVERYTHING that happened to Desmond in the previous game was in vain. Sure, he saves the Earth, but it still feels like being fooled, smacked in the face and then thrown away.
Another example of the stupid AI: in the beginning of the game they line up in the perfect like in front of the cave and stand there like robots holding the boxes - and that's it, not moving, not speaking. They just stand silently in the perfect line - bravo animations, bravo screen writers! Bravo, indeed. They looks like an amateur level theater actors that don't even TRY to perform because they are bored themselves with all the insincerity that is happening in the game.

4) The ending of the game is disappointing to say at least! It is terrible itself and also quite resembles the one of Mass Effect 3 with almost the same idea of joining Rippers or merging with Rippers, but in AC3 gamers are not given even a slightest illusion of choice. The goddesses behave like they are some kind of cheap women, fighting over their stupid man and discussing the future of the Earth like if itís kind of kitchen battle. They play the exact same role as the Catalyst boy in ME3 and itís quite strained and secondary move. I don't even mention the rude method of moving away the character everyone got to love through 4 previous games. Well done, UBISOFT, you're definitely saving Biowareís reputation, winning the prize of the worst game ending this year by killing Desmond in the most inelegant and unoriginal way possible. Looks like the script writers were terribly out of time and completely out of imagination as if they was working just for money (which they do indeed, but still!) this time and with not a single bit of creative imagination. Despite all the speeches and loud promises, the devs are obviously deadly tired of this game and the project that begun as really interesting one now turned out to be quite boring and predictable.

5) Now I must explain the high scores the game received among the critics. Yes, the average scores goes between 8 and 9, BUT this is not the score for the game itself, it's the score for the AC universe in general, all this games and sites, and the large community. Everyone remembers the previous games which was fantastic and even though AC3 is frankly weak project with a lot of failures, the criticís area has it's own rules, so it would be really strange if AAA title would get low scores. Moreover, AC3 is not a bad game, but doesnít go to any comparison with the previous games.

6) The game itself is utterly boring. It's long, very long, open world and all the stuff, but the longer doesn't always mean the better. A lot of useless national pathos and stereotypes, clichť characters. Jokes are not funny. Well, they can be funny for the correct people, but in my opinion they are too cheap now and we are not in the standup comedy show in any case. The games tries with all the might to be serious, but in the end it turns out to be bleak, and annoying, and don't give any emotions because it has been created without any emotions and only with the magical use of money.

In my conclusion I must say that I will never buy this game on any platform, I will never rent it or borrow it from a friend, I will never even get it from the torrents, because the main reason for my broken heart is not the money issues. Iím heartbroken because the great game is not here anymore, itís gone forever and what ISOFT now is selling to us is just a crap. And as I know the taste of the really good things, Iíll better be dead from the hunger than eat a rotten apple even though itís an Apple of Eden.
Thanks for nothing.

pirate1802
11-01-2012, 09:33 AM
Meh..

JCearlyyears
11-01-2012, 11:25 AM
I think I'll petition for a new ending.The ending for Desmond seemed like it was just a way to kill him. Pretty lame.

Toa TAK
11-01-2012, 12:18 PM
I think that the new historical setting is brilliant. It works on so many thematic levels.
And yes, that ending... was unsatisfactory, but it will never be on Mass Effect 3 ending bad, because we know the story isn't done yet.

mlazun
11-01-2012, 02:42 PM
desmon can be alive. we see he save the world and juno, now free, aproach desmond.
also there is a gamplay after end, and some guy speak to us, so speak to desmond actualy.

also piece of eden like shraud and ankh can heal or revive desmond, so show go on in ac4, or connor sequal which i prefer more.

MRNMRSPACER
11-01-2012, 03:00 PM
as i agree the ending was horrible....there is always a chance ac4 will make it all better(:

POP1Fan
11-01-2012, 03:43 PM
I think I'll petition for a new ending.The ending for Desmond seemed like it was just a way to kill him. Pretty lame.
That's stupid.

AmneonX
11-01-2012, 05:56 PM
You complain about the game's setting, but was 14th Century Italy meant just for Italian gamers? Was Assassin's Creed only meant for Middle Eastern gamers? They felt it was a good idea, and they are a FRENCH company, they don't give a **** about just americans.

So far I enjoy the game, and maybe it's just me.

Eurostar7
11-01-2012, 07:18 PM
I dont care if Desmond dies, they can do what they want to any character they want but give them the respect they deserve. Desmond was an important Assassin despite what anybody says. Without Desmond i dont think anybody would have found Apple of Eden, his mind was strong enough to handle all that time in the Animus (nobody else could have handled it) and he talked directly to the First Civ.

So they can kill Desmond off, i dont expect him to be in every game but they just didnt do a good job with the ending it was very poorly made. The writing and the execution of the scenes were bad, it was all bad. Everything that had to do with modern-day storyline felt very rushed, felt very convenient. They just took the easy way out.

They said the same team that did AC2 was doing AC3 but it didnt feel like it AT ALL. I refuse to accept the same team who did AC2 was behind this because AC2 storytelling was excellent and had great emotion and great mystery as well. AC3 has none of this. They used the 18th century US to drive the game, but they ignored a lot of other stuff and even contradicted the previous games in the series which made it seem like the new people working on AC3 had no knowledge of previous games.

Eurostar7
11-01-2012, 07:30 PM
I think I'll petition for a new ending.The ending for Desmond seemed like it was just a way to kill him. Pretty lame.

I agree with this, i think we need to petition for a new ending, replace the current ending via game update or something. I cannot believe Alex Hutchinson allowed this to happen.

Spyyke1
11-01-2012, 08:56 PM
why i think AC3 IS bad!! - SPOILERS!!

So i JUST fininshed the game.. and what the actual ****?!

as a die hard AC fan I just can't believe how they ended this game, considering the hype Ubisoft have created since the release of AC Brotherhood, and in the the E3 Expo with all the "aahhhhh well... we can't say much yet, we don't wanna ruin the game" all coming in full circle to this ****ty ending!

I mean, granted that they've worked SO hard to break the game down and reconstructing from the bottom up with the gameplay but Ubisoft know that gamers play for the storyline if anything, and they're defiantly not this stupid.

don't get me wrong, the gameplay was VERY refreshing and i actually enjoyed the new Anvil engine, the controls were hard to get used to but it sunk in, i also did enjoy how we played through Haythem before playing as Conner

I can't explain the frustration of crushing my ps3 controller in to dust on how they just made Desmond feint like a pansy girl at a Justin Bieber concert when he touched the orb (yeah i said it)

But as a die hard AC fan these are what really pissed me off the most:

1. as "usedtobeanacfan" stated before the character designs were just, well awkward really, as we first play as Desmond there was they Dev yet again changed his facial design which is REALLY REALLY NOT nessecary, (they also changed his shirt as it was showing an eagle you can see this clearly in Brotherhood and Revelation not much of a problem but was cool to leave in), they all seemed dead also, their overall design and playing Desmond as he first steps out of the van his movement was very contained and it seemed like most of the time the game was in control not the player as the free running looked great but just VERY straightforward, like everything was on "assist".

2. The new Anvil Engine that Alex Hutchinson bragged so much about was a little laggy, i just recently updated my ps3 to a 350 Gig, and basically got the whole thing looking fresh and even then it was lagging quite a bit, kudos for him to sticking to his words about the seasons changing and that, but in the old PS2 game Canis Canem Edit, or Bully as its called in the US the seasons changed then, and that game was released over 7+ years ago, but the weakest part is that it the fact the contents in the game and as they said "there will be a huge variety of things" yes like side mission or weapons and collectibles were just THERE for the sake of being there, meaning in AC2 and Brotherhood and possibly Revelation we could customize our weapons, upgrade to get better ones, change costume, ect. now they just threw in a bit of the old and new like a bad attempt to re piece an broken watch.

3. Very sad to say but lastly is unfortunately the storyline, most gamers play for the multiplayer or storyline, and Ubisoft know that we again play for the story and MAINLY Desmond. Why?! because they've been creating a huge excitement over the years in which they have succeeded the four previous games and defiantly caught our attention.
but what i don't understand is the Ubisoft members, creators and developers are clearly like us gamers and understand what we want, which they have delivered and as they've been working on the game since AC2 apparntly, so thats more that 3 years.

whats very frustrating is that why the game just took a whole new turn and seemed to alienate the gamers, I noticed while playing that the story was very spread out across the 8 sequences, not sayings it's bad.. but it was weakly scripted and the concept was thin, alot of plot holes SPOILER ALERT!!

When near the end of the game Desmond says when he was being controlled by Minerva or Juno can't remember which one, said that Lucy was going to betray them.. ok we kinda sort of knew that but they just put it like it was nothing, all AC fans knew that Lucy and Desmond had some chemistry going on in BROTHERHOOD but the way it was brought forward was very dead, it was just shown to us in a cutscene, not even a cutscene, you could still move desmond around at the point were he said that.

Finally, the ending.. as you can all agree and in my own opinion it was literally a "DAFUQ?!" moment. no SRSLY i actually said "DAFUQ" very loudly at 4am in the morning.
I've got to say that it was a MAJOR, MAJOR disappointment, yes even though it's been a day or two since it's come out there are rumors (Amongst gamers not offical Ubisoft rumors) that all will be explained in a sequel.. now hold on a minute...

Didn't Alex Hutchinson say the same with this game at the E3 Expo and in the Dev Diaries?? "all will be explained in this game" but again their trademark cliffhanger at each game pops up, except there are billions of pissed off gamers, just the opposite eh? Even though some gamers think there will be a sequel and great i do hope there is, it would be great in fact but the way the Devs just created that last cutscene it seemed off.:
- Juno and Minerva were arguing which was like watching a two women fight over a guy over some *****y squable
- Desmond and his father obviously have some tension but they do still have some emotional attachment, the Devs though "screw that" and just it wasn't even no goodbye hug or "im sorry son for being blah blah blah"
-The Orb? wtf even is that thing, i mean is juno inside the orb? is her dna embeded in there? did she clone herself? and were was that guy we saw with juno and minerva at the end of revelations?
- Desmond is clearly more alien then human as his father said he has a high concentration of First Civ dna, they didn't even go in to that.
- the game made it seem that Conners journy was pointless, just like a rehash of Ezio of him being just a messenger or deliver for Desmond, i mean we see what happens to both Ezio and Altier at the end of Revelation but Conners story just seemed to be like another Ezio, didn't really explain his purpose in the big plan of the first civ.
- the game took a cliche turn as Juno is the bad guy.
- they didn't even mention on what that weird cutscene was of Adam and Eve in AC2 in the game.

So has you can see from my massive ***** fit this game is just a dissapoinment, in summary the gameplay: refreshing but stiff and lifeless, the contents: just there for the sake of being there, no purpose for it, the storyline: turned into a bollywood cliffhanger where the good guy is actually a bad guy and no one understands what the **** is even going on half the time anyway, and it had no purpose, thin and weak script and it was like watching amatuer porn, where the game at certain times was like "is this ok for you?" and was simply awkward when you play as desmond.

Please feel free to let me know what you think about this installment of AssCrapIII.




"Hello police... i've just been trolled"

StubbyMarlin71
11-02-2012, 10:07 AM
desmon can be alive. we see he save the world and juno, now free, aproach desmond.
also there is a gamplay after end, and some guy speak to us, so speak to desmond actualy.

also piece of eden like shraud and ankh can heal or revive desmond, so show go on in ac4, or connor sequal which i prefer more.

Actually the shroud will just reanimate his body but it will have no life in it. But for the ending lets just put the pieces together. So from the beginning it was Juno's plan to us Desmond. She could only use him to save the world because he had the DNA of the ones who came before. So I was thinking maybe they had a switcheroo thing going on where they trade places, and the new hero has to defeat Juno with the help of Desmond through pieces of Eden, now that he is trapped in the vault.

qabbalist
11-03-2012, 11:18 AM
i agree with all of the bad points ppl have added
what made things worse was too many d*mn cutscenes (a quick cs then loading then another cs a short quest/mission then more cs's and loading). Thats what makes the game so long and boring theres more cs's in the game than doing actual gameplay (in the 6 hours i played)
i played the game for 6 hours at most (had to force myself hoping things would get better on the game) i dont think i'll bother finishing it
i enjoyed all the other AC games and finished them enjoyed everything about the previous games ac3 dosn't have the edge of the seat effects like other ac games (fun and excitement and the holy **it chases / escapes) :( the controls take some getting used too also

ACPrincess
11-03-2012, 01:30 PM
I wasnt intrested in 14th century Italy or the Crusades, I dont understand your point here. By the end of the game they actually portrayed the Ameicans as the bad guys. although the ending was rushed i do understand and apreciate it.

You talk about clichť characters well im sorry but your beloved Ezio was the most clichť character you could get, designed for the masses to love him. i though it was very serious dealing with Connors life.

I dont know why everyone is complaining about the faces they look 100% real, you can literely see the actors like what was done in L.A. Noire (I was so excited when i saw Leo from Charmed in it)

I think some people didnt give the game a chance because there still attached to Ezio

RinoTheBouncer
11-03-2012, 03:18 PM
I honestly agree with you.

I enjoyed the game and even though the idea of heading to America wasn't my favorite at all, that didn't ruin the experience for me. I like the graphics, I liked the gameplay, I enjoyed playing the game but the thing is they only gave soul to the environment and static objects not the people.

Death of Desmond: as much as I loved Desmond and wished he'd stay, I still accepted the idea that he might go away, I wished he'd live because he's become like the Lara Croft of Assassin's Creed, just like Ezio whom I can't imagine not seeing him again, but to end his story in a very cheaply directed manner, no conversation, no soul to the ending theme, now that's a ridiculous move and a crime against fans and a character that we grew to love so much. At least give the character the theme he deserves if you want him dead, at least make us feeling something. I'm usually a very sentimental person that such scenes make me cry, I cried for Ezio many times in many moments when he said powerful quotes but this one didn't because it was so flat with no depth at all.

Death of Haytham, excuse me, the whole Haytham vs. Connor thing was very flat and poorly directed and scripted. The moment they first met was like they both expected it and like they just reunited after meeting a few days ago and how Haytham died, seriously that's could've been done perfectly like how amazing the gameplay was in general.

I found cutscenes in the middle of the game were much more powerful than the last few parts of the game. The part when Charles Lee is killed was epic, the part when Desmond uses the apple to save his father made me clap for it, they could've done similar things with the ending. It makes it hardly believable that they've been working since 2010 because the game's ending feels unpolished. All other endings were much stronger and made you think "WHAT THE HELL!?" but this one makes you feel "Should I be happy or sad? what actually happened? why? and what is this?" You'd feel indifferent and unsatisfied rather than shocked or sad or happy.

The animations/motion capture of Desmond and his new facial redesign and outfit, I give it 0/10 because first, he looks like someone else with a totally different facial structure, his clothes feel like he just wore them in a hurry LOL and his movements, specially when he springs look so funny and unnatural. I had no idea the one who did the motion capture had a broken pelvis LOL.

I'm not gonna complain about Daniel or why bad guys are russians while the good guys are americans because this has become a clichť of all films and video games but to ruin the life of a character who could've done it in many different ways just because they wanted to end it is a crime against the franchise and the fans who've been spending money on the game, it's merchandise not to mention the collector's editions which we all loved to own because we loved the game as well as waiting for this for so long only to be disappointed after the huge excitement that the game and it's promising intro and first few chapters and environment built into us.

I honestly wished that the ending would either be a totally happy one even if it means holding hands and walking towards the sunset, using minerva's choice or use a truly shocking one which is that this whole game turns out to be someone else's investigation through an animus in a distant future and Desmond being an ancestor to that person which will give the developers to create stories either based on Desmond's grand/great grand son/daughter or continue to see what happened to Desmond and how he had the children ...etc. I think that would've been absolutely perfect but apparently, some developers want to reach a certain goal without thinking how good is the way they're paving to be there.


I think some people didnt give the game a chance because there still attached to Ezio

If Ezio was that perfectly-made that people compare every coming AC character/game to him and his games for evermore and dislike this one because it doesn't live up to Ezio and his adventures' greatness, that means Ubisoft had done a great job back then but are clearly slowing down and relying on their past success now instead of surprising us with something more powerful. They were almost there but they broke it in half near the end.

ACPrincess
11-03-2012, 03:35 PM
If Ezio was that perfectly-made that people compare every coming AC character/game to him and his games for evermore and dislike this one because it doesn't live up to Ezio and his adventures' greatness, that means Ubisoft had done a great job back then but are clearly slowing down and relying on their past success now instead of surprising us with something more powerful. They were almost there but they broke it in half near the end.

Oh no it has nothing to do with how powerful the story is. Ezio was designed for people to instantly love him, when people get to attached to something and something completly diffrent takes its place they tend not to like it. Yes AC3 isnt the best game but it really doesnt deserve such critercism because the story as a whole is very strong

Pr0metheus 1962
11-05-2012, 07:21 PM
I don't think the game is bad. I just think it should have been much better. My biggest disappointment? The fast travel tunnels - they SUCK! Who would have thought a game feature could be this boring - spending hours navigating a dimly lit maze and lighting oil lamps - after all these years, just what I've been waiting for in a game!

LLAMACYDE
11-10-2012, 03:07 AM
I actually didnt like the game at all because it had a lot of glitches in the most random places and it just seemed premature in its release. As for the guy complaining about the location/ history of the game, are YOU blind? if you paid any attention to any of the past AC games you would notice they were in america he lived as a bar tender, or grew up on "the farm" all of that was in America. and the whole game is about Desmond's linage not the locations of his ancestors so obviously the game would have to get to one of his ancestors with a form of his families american history. And your random Russian complaint. Cross only freaks out and speaks Russian at one point in the game because he is suffering from the bleeding effect, and his ancestor just happens to be some Russian guy. So idfk what your talking about or where you got druggies or drunk's from but it wasn't from assassins creed 3. Im all for bashing on a game when they have to go and change things or make it annoying but at least get your facts straight. I beat the game, they changed too many things in it for it to run perfect so that was annoying. The ancestor you play as is kind of an idiot compared to Ezio or AltaÔr, im not being raciest to native Americans (i am one) the character is just kind of a stupid kid through the whole game and never really learns from his mistakes, and alot of the missions are annoying or boring. idk about other ppl all i know is i didn't love the game i think revelations was by far the best. through out the whole game of AC3 i was waiting for some decent cinimatic's or even decent cut scenes that were at an even level with revelations but the graphics in the game were just kinda so-so. nothing too flashy nothing too wow factor wise. the big open frontieer was kinda cool but it doesn't make up for the vast majority of the games both graphic errors and mechanics errors. if the ending wasnt so terrible id of enjoyed it but it was the worst thing i ever seen. so ya AC3 sucked.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2012, 03:30 AM
I agree with this, i think we need to petition for a new ending, replace the current ending via game update or something. I cannot believe Alex Hutchinson allowed this to happen.

I think the ending is one of the few things this game gets right. I just hope they don't bring Desmond back. It's about time we had a somewhat likeable character as our 21st Century hero. Desmond always was a total downer.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2012, 03:34 AM
By the end of the game they actually portrayed the Ameicans as the bad guys.

No they didn't!

Okay, in what way was any Colonist a 'bad guy'? In what way was any Briton a good guy? Apart from the main mission cut scenes there is nothing in this game that even comes close to giving a fair portrayal of the British - they are all rotten to the core. And all the Americans are portrayed as honest folks being oppressed by the British. Just look at the homestead missions - not one of the people Connor brings to the homestead was oppressed by any American - no men unwillingly conscripted by the Continental Army, no victims of colonial brutality, no moneygrubbing colonial landlords - all the bad guys are British, and the game makes a point of telling us the nationality of every single one of them.

It's childish and superficial 'good guys vs. bad guys' with no depth or moral ambiguity whatsoever. AND it's not historically accurate. If the British at the time were evil incarnate, and if Colonists were all pure as the driven snow, I would have no problem with it, but they were not.

Assassin's Creed used to be better than this. It should be better than this.

Sure, you 'can' kill American soldiers at the game's end, but you don't have to. Compared to the British soldiers you really have to do a lot to get on an American soldier's bad side. These are not 'bad guys' - they're just soldiers doing their job. They only attack you if you've attacked them and they'll virtually ignore you even if the stealth meter shows you are under suspicion. British soldiers, on the other hand, often attack you on sight - sometimes even if you're incognito.

And what makes the whole thing more ridiculously childish is the fact that the story missions (at least in the beginning during the Boston Massacre etc.) make such a big point of showing how wrong that 'black and white' viewpoint is. It's a pity that, apparently, none of the folks making the game's side quests ever actually bothered to read the main story script.

JCearlyyears
11-10-2012, 03:55 AM
No they didn't!

Okay, in what way was any Colonist a 'bad guy'? In what way was any Briton a good guy? Apart from the main mission cut scenes there is nothing in this game that even comes close to giving a fair portrayal of the British - they are all rotten to the core. And all the Americans are portrayed as honest folks being oppressed by the British. It's childish and superficial 'good guys vs. bad guys' with no depth or moral ambiguity whatsoever.

Assassin's Creed used to be better than this. It should be better than this.

And what makes it more ridiculously childish is the fact that the story missions (at least in the beginning during the Boston Massacre etc.) make such a big point of showing how wrong that viewpoint is. It's a pity that, apparently, none of the folks making the game's side quests ever actually bothered to read the main story script.

Unfortunately, Shaun is the only one with a defense for the British.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-10-2012, 04:12 AM
Unfortunately, Shaun is the only one with a defense for the British.

I guess we are lucky in that his defense is pretty robust. But it's still just one minor character's voice against a whole game (again, with the exception of a few early game main story cut scenes) that effectively demonizes the British. And Shaun is merely stating an opinion. Connor's reality is that he never sees or hears of a British person doing a single good deed.

There is only one Briton in the entire game who is a 'good guy', and that's Shaun Hastings. To be honest, the bias in this game is so overwhelming that I half suspected that Shaun was going to turn out to be an Abstergo mole.

leedev
11-13-2012, 08:14 AM
I also agree that the game is a huge disappointment

first some good things
-The programmers did a good job in improving the engine, all the more the game had potential
-The texture quality, especially that of the faces is beautiful
-The improved details, like animals in cities and woods really made things look more interesting
-The modern day action with desmond breaking into abstergo was pretty good
-The rope dart is really cool

I also find it poor that the game plays during the american history. Just as usetobeafan says, the only people really interested in that history are americans. AC used to be a lot about exploring exotic cultures, enjoying the charm of those people. Something like acient Russia or Japan would have been awesome. In AC3 the only charm the game brings is with the british accents, the indians and Americans could have had potential, but were made very dull.
Also most characters you encounter are really really ugly. Not because of the quality, its because of the design. Most characters look like drunks, hillbillies, rapists or a combination of those.

A big flaw on the american theme is the cities. After each AC2 Game I felt an urge to go on holiday. The cities were shown in a really good light, portraying many things you can still go and look at today. Boston and New York however were still fairly new in that time period and therefore can only show some random old buildings, it really doesn't matter if its New York or Boston or some other city. They all look the same to me and can't contain the things one would want to see if you would go there today.

The really sad thing however is, that the action really flops in the game. I mean the whole thing with the american theme could have worked if the game would have followed the same style as its precessors. Playing hide and seek in the woods is not fun. It's nice to have animals in the woods, even being attacked by them, but farming animals isn't fun, I'd play Word of Warcraft if I wanted to do that. Animals should just be a side effect of the game. The new trade system is lame and complicated, hard to believe they brought something like that, where they already had so much experience in the past. Most former stealth attacks now draw attention, it seems as backstabbing is the only way to get along unnoticed. All the action is just hack and slaying trough large amounts of soldiers. The dialogs are utterly booring. I used to love to see Ezio talking in cut scenes and never had to listen to dialogs that don't have any cause. In AC3 most dialogs are time consuming small talk without any reason, for the first time ever I started skipping cut scenes because I just don't want to waste my time with such. The dialogs are also in no way entertaining, not like the former ones in the AC2 row.

In general most of the game is just about wasting time. The fast and impressive action and the humor from the previous games just seems to be gone.

I have the strong impression, that whoever directed the game was not part of the previous team. The programmers, level designers, modlers, skinners etc may have been. But whoever was in charge of this game made a real mess out of it.

leedev
11-13-2012, 08:16 AM
...and why the hell can't you run inside the Taverns :(

projectpat06
11-13-2012, 08:38 AM
I guess we are lucky in that his defense is pretty robust. But it's still just one minor character's voice against a whole game (again, with the exception of a few early game main story cut scenes) that effectively demonizes the British. And Shaun is merely stating an opinion. Connor's reality is that he never sees or hears of a British person doing a single good deed.

There is only one Briton in the entire game who is a 'good guy', and that's Shaun Hastings. To be honest, the bias in this game is so overwhelming that I half suspected that Shaun was going to turn out to be an Abstergo mole.

They didn't typically show the Patriots as the best all around guys either. AC3 shows how the men on both sides where flawed and the fact that they were pro-Britian or anti-britian didn't ultimately determine their character. They did portray the colonists' disdain for the loyalists and the regulars and of course, Connor gets mixed up with this because they claim to be fighting for freedom. When Connor asks "for who," he comes to realize that this freedom is not for all men and certainly not the likes of people of his ethnicity. The game does a poor job at presentation but you still can see how Connor's enemy moves from the british to the new Americans. His ultimate goal was to save his land and his people. Achilles tells him that to do so, he must kill all those templars on the list. As time went on, the grey area of who his enemies are grew from just the black and white of the templars and the assassins

zhengyingli
11-13-2012, 09:24 AM
They didn't typically show the Patriots as the best all around guys either. AC3 shows how the men on both sides where flawed and the fact that they were pro-Britian or anti-britian didn't ultimately determine their character. They did portray the colonists' disdain for the loyalists and the regulars and of course, Connor gets mixed up with this because they claim to be fighting for freedom. When Connor asks "for who," he comes to realize that this freedom is not for all men and certainly not the likes of people of his ethnicity. The game does a poor job at presentation but you still can see how Connor's enemy moves from the british to the new Americans. His ultimate goal was to save his land and his people. Achilles tells him that to do so, he must kill all those templars on the list. As time went on, the grey area of who his enemies are grew from just the black and white of the templars and the assassins
The highlight for me was George Washington getting heavily criticized for ordering the attack on the Natives. But even in the background conversations, civilians are all discussing the pros and cons under British rule, such as the Empire being able to provide protection and the such, which I really appreciate the subtlety. Shaun's defense for the British was more of a case of telling instead of showing. This game did the "showing" part very well and not as blatant as I feared.

WiriestScroll3
11-13-2012, 09:42 AM
Those aint all what this game needs. If they wanna sell this game more i think they should start working.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-13-2012, 12:30 PM
They didn't typically show the Patriots as the best all around guys either...

You only find this in a few cut scenes towards the beginning of the game. After a while, it starts to get all 'Rah-rah America'. Look at the homestead missions - not a bit of depth there, and whenever someone gets oppressed, it's always - ALWAYS - some British person that's doing the oppressing.

projectpat06
11-13-2012, 12:43 PM
You only find this in a few cut scenes towards the beginning of the game. After a while, it starts to get all 'Rah-rah America'. Look at the homestead missions - not a bit of depth there, and whenever someone gets oppressed, it's always - ALWAYS - some British person that's doing the oppressing.

The patriots weren't around at the beginning of the game. The beginning took place during the French and Indian War. It was more during the last quarter of the game starting with the Thomas Hickey missions. The Sullivan Expedition was a huge event that show the patriots as the oppressors and bad guys. All of the Homestead missions take place during the American Revolution when the oppressors where the British. The British were the ruling government. The Patriots and many colonists were rebelling against the oppression and in turn many people become victimized by the British Army. I guess if the story continued past the REvolution, connor could have people come to the homestead who were screwed over by the new American government, but they show how the new government is just as oppressing by showing that Connor's village that he fought for the entire time was sold by the Patriots to one of their own.

WarriorAegis
11-13-2012, 04:12 PM
The biggest disappointment was the whiny fanbase.

Oh yes, I went there. :)

Kaswa101
11-13-2012, 05:34 PM
I think that the new historical setting is brilliant. It works on so many thematic levels.
And yes, that ending... was unsatisfactory, but it will never be on Mass Effect 3 ending bad, because we know the story isn't done yet.

This. Connor's story was brilliant for me, and Desmond's wasn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

leedev
11-13-2012, 07:53 PM
Connor's story was brilliant for me, and Desmond's wasn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.

Can't really understand that. I haven't finished it yet, but from what I've seen Desmonds part was far better than in the previous games. Infiltrating the Abstergo building was quite a nice change. And also that Ubisoft replaced the annoying platform jumping levels from the previous with a simple climbing/exploration area and video cut scenes was a real improvement.

Conner on the other side... I don't see any brilliance in his story. Most talk in the game is just long nonsense small-talk. Also Conner doesn't seem very confident, he's mostly just standing there nodding to everyones words. I really expected more from that character. Playing Conners Dad was actually more interesting. He seemed more confident, more like someone who knows what he's doing and has a plan.

The historical relevances feel more like they have been pasted into the story, kind of just made to let people like George Washington have a little guest appearance or make sure the Boston Tea Party takes place... I get the impression Ubi tried to much to make it as accurate to the American History Books, instead of making it fit into the Assassins word. It's just not comparable with the brilliance they brought up in the AC2 Line of games.

zhengyingli
11-13-2012, 09:00 PM
This. Connor's story was brilliant for me, and Desmond's wasn't nearly as bad as everyone is making it out to be.
In terms of missions, Desmond's weren't any different than what we got post AC1. So they're basically the same formula with different aesthetics, which is why I like them.

Revolution1776
11-14-2012, 08:52 AM
It would have been cool if they worked the not so well known destruction of the HMS Gaspee into the game. The ship ran aground off Warwick, RI. Before the ship could free itself at high tide, rebels went to seize the ship. They shot the captain (I think they suffered a casualty as well), took control of the ship, offloaded the crew then blew it up (they had gunpowder on board).

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 09:43 AM
I said I'd be fine with the same ending but just longer, but I also want a choice. They didn't seem to handle the ending they had with any care. It was so short. I want it to at least be longer and more detailed. I would really like a choice. It does work that way. People wanted a new ending for ME3 and they got it.

Uh, why a choice? It won't matter because

A:] It's not the last game in the series so OF COURSE the "messiah Desmond" ending isn't canon.

B:] It wouldn't fit Desmond's character to murder billions.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 09:48 AM
Shaun doesn't need to defend the British too much because he simply points out an obvious fact.

"Everyone here is British."

Besides there's a British-born Homesteader and a Hessian mercenary too.

Also, it's hard to say the Colonists are all sunshine and roses since all the major villains turn out to be them.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-14-2012, 11:33 AM
Shaun doesn't need to defend the British too much because he simply points out an obvious fact.

"Everyone here is British."

I wish the developers knew that. But as far as I can see, the only ones who know that are the folks who did the script for Shaun and those who did the script for the storyline missions set during the early part of the revolution.


Besides there's a British-born Homesteader and a Hessian mercenary too.

Both of whom are being oppressed by 'the British'.


Also, it's hard to say the Colonists are all sunshine and roses since all the major villains turn out to be them.

WARNING - SPOILERS

What? Haytham Kenway was English. Charles Lee was born in Cheshire, England. William Johnson was Anglo-Irish. Pitcairn was Scottish.

No one knows where Thomas Hickey came from.

Only Nicholas Biddle and Benjamin Church were American, born in Philadelphia, PA and Newport, RI respectively.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 12:49 PM
Sorry, I may be IMPLYING spoilers when I'm not.

In this case, Charles Lee is very clearly/obviously a Patriot General.

But yes, non-spoilers, I will say the game is schizophrenic on how much Connor is on the side of the Patriots. There's no reason, for example, to liberate the Forts from the British in the game.

Which isn't a spoiler but a game mechanic.

Pr0metheus 1962
11-14-2012, 01:32 PM
I mentioned spoilers because at the beginning of the game, new players have no idea that Haytham and his cronies are Templars.


In this case, Charles Lee is very clearly/obviously a Patriot General.

Since he was born in England, he is British even by today's standards. In the game, he works to support the Loyalist cause. Sure, he's a Patriot general, in the same way that Benedict Arnold was a Patriot general. Actually, less so, because Benedict Arnold did at one time actually support the Patriot cause. Lee (according to the game) never did.

Of course by the game's end, everyone who works for the Templars has switched to the American side, but that doesn't make them Patriots.

Charles_Phipps
11-14-2012, 01:45 PM
I mentioned spoilers because at the beginning of the game, new players have no idea that Haytham and his cronies are Templars.

Since he was born in England, he is British even by today's standards. In the game, he works to support the Loyalist cause. Sure, he's a Patriot general, in the same way that Benedict Arnold was a Patriot general. Actually, less so, because Benedict Arnold did at one time actually support the Patriot cause. Lee (according to the game) never did.

Of course by the game's end, everyone who works for the Templars has switched to the American side, but that doesn't make them Patriots.

I was under the impression the Templars were never actually working to support the British cause but actively attempting to found their own nation. Remember, Charles Lee triggered the Boston Massacre in-game and it was very obviously meant to enflame public sentiment against the British. Likewise, Haytham is working to put Charles Lee in charge f the Continental Army for the purposes of taking over the country.

The only one who seems off the reservation is Pitcarin and that actually is hilarious because he's trying to PREVENT Washington from being killed.

But yes, it's weird, you could have easily made a Neutral Connor without much difficulty. Just throw in a few levels with Continental irregulars attacking the Home village or committing atrocities.

The American Side got nasty several times.

twenty_glyphs
11-14-2012, 04:25 PM
Can't really understand that. I haven't finished it yet, but from what I've seen Desmonds part was far better than in the previous games. Infiltrating the Abstergo building was quite a nice change. And also that Ubisoft replaced the annoying platform jumping levels from the previous with a simple climbing/exploration area and video cut scenes was a real improvement.

I actually hate the cutscenes in this game with a passion. Most of them are just people talking, and Connor often isn't even looking at the person he's talking to. In the past, many of these moments would be playable sequences where the character was talking in-game. I preferred that greatly, and felt more in control and more immersed because of it. AC3 literally feels like one long interactive movie to me, and that's not why I play games.

In AC1, I thought the way you could walk through the crowd while an assassination target was giving a speech or something was awesome. In AC2's ending, I thought controlling Ezio walking around the Vault while seeing all the holographic images being projected was fantastic. In AC3, it's just sit back and watch our cool cutscenes that use motion capture technology, aren't you impressed? Nope, because it'll never be as good as a real movie, so they should work harder at taking advantage of the unique medium of video games, which they had done in the past games. If I want to watch a movie, I'll watch a movie. I didn't play AC3 to watch a movie with an occasional "Press X" prompt on the screen just to trigger a final assassination scene.

luckyto
11-14-2012, 05:03 PM
twenty_glyphs,

It's really hit and miss. Some are fantastic. Some are just horrendously bad. I've sat through dozens that were almost unbearable and totally monotone, and I've been engrossed and really appreciating some of the others. The voice acting and model animation here is really inconsistent.

thePhilCasper
11-17-2012, 12:17 PM
First of all I must say that I had a long and colorful history with Assassin’s Creed games and I got really attached to this universe and it’s great characters. So yes, I used to be a fan, a big and devoted one, and I got really excited when I first found out about AC3 coming… and then this game put an end to everything. I tried this game at my friend’s place and now I’m deeply annoyed that I got into this game in the first place!

The bad things I’m going to mention are obviously not the only failures of the game, but the game itself is not bad, sure. However it feels like a complete flop in the comparison with the previous ones.
So, here we go.

1) The first thing that confuses is the game’s settings. The game is set during America's war for independency. Allright, I say but my confusion goes even deeper than the fact that lots of AC fans from OTHER countries have no interest at all for America's history. Does it mean AC3 is intended for American’s people? Actually yes, yes it is, and it's done quite plainly. It has very and very strong pressure on the specific themes that wasn’t so much highlighted in the previous games. That's kind of insulting what the game is made not for everyone, but for some exact group of people in the first place. I'm not American, I have no interest in all the independency stuff, but that is not all! Sure, Cross is a bad guy. Russians are all the bad guys. And the way he is presented in the game automatically hints that all the Russians are bad, that they all are drunkards, and drug users, and traitors and uneducated aggressive bastards. And then I thought the period of cold war with all that insulting stereotypes and propaganda is over! Oh yeah, different faiths and believes. SURE. Well, it's only proves that this game has been created for Americans. As for the others... well, they will blindly like this game anyway, just because it’s Assassin’s Creed game and not because it’s good or bad game. Fans are like this, blind and sometimes too tolerant.

2) The most painful thing that makes a lot of people out there sincerely sad is the new faces of our beloved characters. I’m really sorry, but ARE THE DEVS BLIND or something? I wonder what the designers are paid for? They completely have no aesthetical taste and I guess they are actually truly blind - there is no other sane explanation or practical excuse for the indescribably ugly mugs that used to be our beloved modern assassins. So, I guess all the game budget went into the designing of Connor's costume, right? The character designers should be fired for such a fail with the faces, epic fail, to be exact. And also it's a grand mystery where QA's and testers have been looking. Also the creepy way Desmond moves is beyond any definition. Is he paralytic after his coma or what?

3) Now it’s time to mention the lame script play for the secondary characters. But no, there are NO characters anymore, now they are mostly silent and unmoving objects. For example let’s take an ending. So… Desmond’s fellow assassins turned out to hate him that much so they don’t even say goodbye to him, huh? Because he's going to die, DIE, to willingly sacrifice himself, dammit! And what they do? They do NOTHING, not even look at him, no "Goodbye, Desmond, we will miss you!", not a single hug for the savior of human kind from Rebecca, not a single approving nod from Shaun - nothing, null, NADA! They stand there silently like a dumb paper dolls, like a useless decoration, and his father speaking in the funny tones, but it clearly feels like he’s saying: "Well, son, you going to die now, but that's okay, because no one ever loved you and you are just a tool, so go ahead and die while you can and we'll go have some drinks to celebrate." And then they all turn silently and coldly and walk away. What is that, I ask you?? Is that allright? Where is the game’s script?? That is why this game's characters are terrible, lifeless and bleak and even half-homo jokes that appear in Shaun's logs doesn't improve the terrible and sad situation. It feels like EVERYTHING that happened to Desmond in the previous game was in vain. Sure, he saves the Earth, but it still feels like being fooled, smacked in the face and then thrown away.
Another example of the stupid AI: in the beginning of the game they line up in the perfect like in front of the cave and stand there like robots holding the boxes - and that's it, not moving, not speaking. They just stand silently in the perfect line - bravo animations, bravo screen writers! Bravo, indeed. They looks like an amateur level theater actors that don't even TRY to perform because they are bored themselves with all the insincerity that is happening in the game.

4) The ending of the game is disappointing to say at least! It is terrible itself and also quite resembles the one of Mass Effect 3 with almost the same idea of joining Rippers or merging with Rippers, but in AC3 gamers are not given even a slightest illusion of choice. The goddesses behave like they are some kind of cheap women, fighting over their stupid man and discussing the future of the Earth like if it’s kind of kitchen battle. They play the exact same role as the Catalyst boy in ME3 and it’s quite strained and secondary move. I don't even mention the rude method of moving away the character everyone got to love through 4 previous games. Well done, UBISOFT, you're definitely saving Bioware’s reputation, winning the prize of the worst game ending this year by killing Desmond in the most inelegant and unoriginal way possible. Looks like the script writers were terribly out of time and completely out of imagination as if they was working just for money (which they do indeed, but still!) this time and with not a single bit of creative imagination. Despite all the speeches and loud promises, the devs are obviously deadly tired of this game and the project that begun as really interesting one now turned out to be quite boring and predictable.

5) Now I must explain the high scores the game received among the critics. Yes, the average scores goes between 8 and 9, BUT this is not the score for the game itself, it's the score for the AC universe in general, all this games and sites, and the large community. Everyone remembers the previous games which was fantastic and even though AC3 is frankly weak project with a lot of failures, the critic’s area has it's own rules, so it would be really strange if AAA title would get low scores. Moreover, AC3 is not a bad game, but doesn’t go to any comparison with the previous games.

6) The game itself is utterly boring. It's long, very long, open world and all the stuff, but the longer doesn't always mean the better. A lot of useless national pathos and stereotypes, clichť characters. Jokes are not funny. Well, they can be funny for the correct people, but in my opinion they are too cheap now and we are not in the standup comedy show in any case. The games tries with all the might to be serious, but in the end it turns out to be bleak, and annoying, and don't give any emotions because it has been created without any emotions and only with the magical use of money.

In my conclusion I must say that I will never buy this game on any platform, I will never rent it or borrow it from a friend, I will never even get it from the torrents, because the main reason for my broken heart is not the money issues. I’m heartbroken because the great game is not here anymore, it’s gone forever and what ISOFT now is selling to us is just a crap. And as I know the taste of the really good things, I’ll better be dead from the hunger than eat a rotten apple even though it’s an Apple of Eden.
Thanks for nothing.

Agreed. Assassinīs Creed used to be really good series. Now itīs gone because of dollar-vision. Before Assassinīs Creed, almost no one noticed Ubisoft, maybe only because of Prince of Persia. Assassinīs Creed brought fame to Ubisoft. And that changed Ubisoft. If some smaller Game-Studio would make ACIII it would have uglier graphics but better plot and ending. Thatīs why AC1, AC2 and ACB were FAR better than ACR and AC3. They had unique chance to end all Apples, TWCB, Artifacts, Animus, Ends of the world and then come with fresh new AC without the side-idea of previous games. But they just killed-off Desmond and his plot in present day continues without him. This ending didnīt end anything but Desmondīs Life. That isnīt so bad. I didnīt expect him to survive but to achieve something before death. He didnīt achieve anything. He killed two Templars who can be replaced by anyone and he judged the World to fall in the hands of Juno (her thinking is so templarish) while he got killed himself. Ending is so disconnected from everything before, even the rest of ACIII plot... They better should have made 5 super games instead of 25 not-so-good games, which seems to be their goal. What do they want? To explain ACIII ending in ACIV DLC like they did explain ACB ending in The Lost Archive DLC?! Many people have to admit that this is just exhausting... :( P.S Sorry for my English

thePhilCasper
11-17-2012, 12:20 PM
In terms of missions, Desmond's weren't any different than what we got post AC1. So they're basically the same formula with different aesthetics, which is why I like them.

Yes, Desmond was boring in previous games, but it was only because he was preparing for actions in AC3 that Ubisoft promised. But there was still nothing... There was only three Desmond missions and unsatisfying ending... ACIII had such a potential for Desmondīs story.

thePhilCasper
11-18-2012, 06:37 PM
I think I'll petition for a new ending.The ending for Desmond seemed like it was just a way to kill him. Pretty lame.

Here the petition is : https://www.change.org/petitions/ubisoft-montreal-ubisoft-change-the-ending-of-desmond-miles-in-assassin-%CC%81s-creed-iii-video-game?utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=34369292

Iīm big AC fan since the very first game in 2008. I used to think there is a couple of geniuses in Ubisoft when I was 11 years old (After AC2)... Now Iīm 15 and I finally understand that even Ubisoft writter is just a man. But there are patches, DLCs and more stuff to fix what people f*cks.

thePhilCasper
11-18-2012, 06:43 PM
I dont care if Desmond dies, they can do what they want to any character they want but give them the respect they deserve. Desmond was an important Assassin despite what anybody says. Without Desmond i dont think anybody would have found Apple of Eden, his mind was strong enough to handle all that time in the Animus (nobody else could have handled it) and he talked directly to the First Civ.

So they can kill Desmond off, i dont expect him to be in every game but they just didnt do a good job with the ending it was very poorly made. The writing and the execution of the scenes were bad, it was all bad. Everything that had to do with modern-day storyline felt very rushed, felt very convenient. They just took the easy way out.

They said the same team that did AC2 was doing AC3 but it didnt feel like it AT ALL. I refuse to accept the same team who did AC2 was behind this because AC2 storytelling was excellent and had great emotion and great mystery as well. AC3 has none of this. They used the 18th century US to drive the game, but they ignored a lot of other stuff and even contradicted the previous games in the series which made it seem like the new people working on AC3 had no knowledge of previous games.

Agreed. ACIII was very different but not bad ( except for ending ). Yes Desmondīs Ending was lame and Ubisoft lost their former passion for originality and mysterious storytelling... ACIII was just... *Cough* - *Money Grab*

DemonLordSparda
11-18-2012, 08:57 PM
You do realize most Patriots came from Britain right? Sure Charles Lee isn't a Patriot, because he's a Templar. Saying you aren't a Patriot if you come from Britain is so wrong for so many reasons. The people who moved to America did so for religious freedom and the chance to grow on their own. However the Crown tried to put its boot on the colonies neck and raise taxes to an insane degree. They could take conscripts whenever they wanted for any reason and they could just take over anyone's house to use as their own. The Crown was bullying the states from across the ocean where the colonies couldn't even petition the Crown to lay off.

It became a war for freedom and independence. If you think Britain didn't do a bloody thing wrong during this time period then I don't know what to tell you. They were oppressors in that conflict, and while I understand they wanted to protect what they felt was theirs but they stole peoples liberty and freedom. I'm not saying the colonists and their leaders are much better. I don't know how the heck you can say the game gets all "Rah rah America" at the end. Washington is portrayed in game as a man who barely wins any battles, who has no plan, and who would rather play games after he wins the war rather than think about the future. Ben Franklin is accurately portrayed as a man who likes to hop between women like nothing without making any commitments. All of the colonists are shown to distrust the Native Americans and want them dead. In fact in the game most natives want to join with the Red Coats because the Colonists and not the British are the ones killing them.

Now we get to Conor's role which is obvious to me. Conor is a man who lost his mother and wants revenge. He sees the Redcoats as an enemy of freedom, and his culture and upbringing makes him value what he sees them taking from people. As for the battles he joins, those battles happened and the Colonists won them. So it's fairly obvious why from a story perspective he was on the side he wound up on. I'd also hate to break it to you but the colonies won the Revolutionary war. So to prevent Conor from being backed into a corner in terms of the side he ends up on they put him with the people fighting for their own freedom which fits him well. That is until he learns that Washington ordered the attack on his tribe. Then he goes off on his own not happy about either side. Because the Red Coats want to take the Colonies freedom, but the Colonists still believe in slavery and taking Native American land. That is why he goes home and shaves his hair and adds the war paint. It paints both sides in a bad light, as it should. War is not pretty and it should never be shown to bring glory to either party, everyone was at fault in that conflict.

Homestead missions. I can think of a few that didn't have British oppressors. The Huntress was fighting poachers, who were Colonists. The Woodworker was going up against his apprentice, who was a colonist. The Tailor was going up against her husband, who was a colonist. The lumberers were going up against themselves, they are colonists. The Blacksmith was being followed because he is a deserter of the Red Coats, I don't view that as oppression by them, The Doctor was just trying to help people and in the end the Colonists were the ones who posted all the bad propaganda about him. The Miner was trying to blow up some deposits on British territory, and they attacked. Hardly oppression there. Then there was the Farmers who only in the very first mission are being oppressed and bullied by the Red Coats.

So in short it seems to me that you just don't like or care for America much which is fine. But to describe this game as completely pro America is just flat out wrong. Also in the past we had games about Italian, Roman Catholic, Constantinople, and Crusade history. Not everyone cares about those events, but I do. I think the Revolutionary war was just as interesting as any other major historical event. I don't get why people are so against American history when they accuse us of not caring about other peoples history. History is history and no matter where it comes from it's important to know so our perceptions of things aren't skewed. Since you play Assassin's Creed I'd think you know why learning the truth about history is important, and ignoring any of it out of hand is bad form.

All that being said yes the game has flaws, and I was let down completely by the ending. This was supposed to be a wrap up for Desmond but it wasn't. He pushes a button to stop the conflicts and then within five minutes a new threat is released and all his work, and bleeding effect training comes to nothing. If Desmond's alive in future games that just cheapens his choice here and makes it obvious the creators don't want him around anymore. If he is dead then they did not in any way shape or form give him a proper send off. The game has pretty obvious glitches that a few of them (namely the dual holder glitch, and the annoying repeat messages after finishing Captain Kidds missions) should have easily been caught in play testing. Overall though I like this game a lot, but the ending still tears me up.

Shingram
11-18-2012, 09:10 PM
You complain about the game's setting, but was 14th Century Italy meant just for Italian gamers? Was Assassin's Creed only meant for Middle Eastern gamers? They felt it was a good idea, and they are a FRENCH company, they don't give a **** about just americans.

So far I enjoy the game, and maybe it's just me.

Was gonna say this too.

Biggest point where I massively agree with OP is characterization. Ubisofts writers are quite frankly grade school when it comes to eliciting emotional responses and paying proper respect and tribute to characters. Storyline presentation in the entire AC series is VERY FREQUENTLY unfulfilling at best.

Here I was going to put this in its own thread but it might as well go here.

SPOILERS in the following paragraphs

I'm also put off by how poorly they handle major developments in the AC universe storyline. Where nearly every other game has a cutscene going back to the playstation this game chooses to either ignore or use still motion images where the camera pans out. Altair's tragic life is not even touched on in AC2-RV (barely acknowledged in RV). But AC3 was just atrocious to the point of insult in this respect. Achilles spends all game referencing how the assassin order was destroyed and never ever goes into any detail in game? No cutscenes? Cutscenes are awesome and extremely rewarding ESPECIALLY to end the game or end a major plot point. It's a long journey how bout put in the effort to reward a little more? To start the battle of the Kenway's was awesome. preceded by a cutscene, good music. The way Cross and Desmond end their thing?

There's a cutscene showing Cross run away but there's no connection to Cross established by the game. The two big characters don't really exchange any meaningful dialougue. Desmond seems to be pretty oblivious to the horrible damage Cross caused to the Assassin order. Hell he doesn't even seem to acknowledge that Cross abducted him and ruined his life. See establishing an emotional connection, characterization these things are crucial and yet they are wholly absent in many areas in the AC games and thats inexcusable.

To continue Cross flips out and then Cross dives through a window and here is where the final battle is going to happen but I honestly didn't even know. I jumped into the cubicle room. Ran around a little and couldn't find Cross anywhere. Killed 5 bodyguards and ran around wondering uhh ok what now? Then I climb one cubicle at random and see Cross running at me so I held X and ran at him. No cutscene, not even a fight he just died. You guys at Ubi sold all this merchandise related to Cross, had this great purge (again never mentioned or shown in game), felt this story was important enough to sell and have your fans spend money on. Then my journey with Cross ends when I climb onto a plastic cubicle he's running right at me ignoring the fact that I am standing there and I hidden blade clothesline him...then I just stood there waiting for a cutscene, for even a word of acknowledgment that a major major character to AC just got killed and instead there's nothing.

Kenway is a templar? Huge shock, cool development...ok now how bout some explanation? Exposition? The fact that he's a templar is a MAJOR thing and no one at Ubi thought it'd make for a good storyline to actually explain this a bit in game?

It's pretty pathetically blatantly obvious whats going on here. These major resolutions and points are saved for garbage side games and merchandise. I will never buy your portable games which come off as shallow cash grabs b/c they are poorly done. Yet you guys insist on saving major plot resolutions by going for cash grabs in these poorly designed side games. Or you put these major points in comic books, short films, books (which is it true completely ignore the present day storyline?). It is no secret that major game companies are now driven by profit margins and this shows up in a myriad of ways. The fact that the destruction of the colonial assassins or kenways defection was wholly ignored in AC3 indicates that one or both will appear in some side game or comic book. If they do I have to seriously question whether I continue to buy from this company.

But this doesn't explain the pathetic lameness of Cross's death or the indifference of the other assassins to Desmond's ultimate sacrifice. The fate of the entire world is literally down to that very second and the way it was presented Desmond essentially just looked at his companions and by default the entire AC fanbase and essentially just said "Oh it's Ok I got this." No threats aimed at Juno no emotional arguement about how he can't do this from his companions. I think someone said "Come on we can find another way" wow. Great resistance there. I would have at LEAST expected them to rationalize that his skills make him essential to the order and maybe his dad with the same bloodline knocks him out and takes the sacrifice on himself. Stereotypical but at least there's SOME impact in that. Or have the dad flip out about it.

How come they can show him the future if he doesn't touch the orb but no one thinks to ask Ok show me what happens if I release Juno? Not to mention if a tiny homo sapien population went toe to toe with the first civ why should we buy Juno alone is a threat to 7 bil? And how the hell did releasing Juno save the planet anyway but nothing could be done when the first civ was still around? Juno magically now can single handedly save the earth but the entire firt civ (including Juno) couldn't back then? If Juno preserved herself how come none of the other first civ figured out to do the same for themselves? And how about ramping up the anxiety of the moment by showing maybe a countdown clock? Images of the Earth going to hell? The ending and l;ack of characterization paints the characters as emotionless morons and by extension indicates a lack of planning and logic from the writing team. Having Desmond die and Juno awaken? leaving us hanging for the next AC4 ok fine but the brevity and garbage presentation of these pivotal moments seriously makes me want to jump ship and stop buying this product. You will NOT make it to AC 6 let alone AC 10 with garbage presentation and resolution like this.

The assassins in the modern day say repeatedly that they have no idea whether any of this will do anything to save the earth. The mystery is in the air how come if the first civ failed back then suddenly they will succeed now? After finishing the game it seems noboy at ubi thought this was an important enough question to actually answer which is just plain pathetic from a design and planning standpoint.

Shingram
11-18-2012, 11:37 PM
America and Washington come off as plain evil by the end of the game. Anyone who failed to realize this...what were you playing? This game did a 10/10 job of asking questions and provoking thought about how the American colonists fighting the british were not simply the good guys. Connor's ignorance and sudden realization that America was just as bad unless "you were a rich white man" (from the game) is very well done. Shaun's arguement with Desmond was well done and that frontiersman who sits with connor in what used to be Connor's native land may have only been around for a short time but his words were hugely important.

The end of the game annihilates the founding fathers hypocrisy while the overall game does a great job of supporting the goals they claimed to fight for. Humanity not just America not just Britain but Humanity always has a top level that benefits off the backs of those who are lower on the totem pole. Some places like present day America have distributed convenience and comfort to a larger majority of the population then say china but until each individual starts massively reducing consumption and until we stop population growth then countries have no choice but to take advantage of portions of its population or else they will crumble.

During the 3 way argument with haytham, Connor and Washington: Haytham makes an excellent point about "the symptom" of what causes people such duress. The symptoms are the fact that this planet only has so much in terms of resources and our ability to harvest those resources is limited. What's more our ability to then fairly spread those resources out cannot possibly match our population size. There were only 1 billion people in the 1800's. That's thousands of years it took to get to 1 billion. Now 200 years and we are at 7 billion and GROWING. Govts aren't the problem our overall ignorance and greedy consumption across the earth is the problem. This game starts to come close and a few times I thought they'd bring that point up. The reality is that life goes so far beyond blaming america or britain or the middle east or whatever. Let's say the founders weren't massive hypocrites so what does this change the way every single civilization has developed? No. Clearly Europe is no better, neither is asia or the middle east. Having that arguement while ignoring the bigger issue frustrates me.

BradleyKalerAC
11-22-2012, 04:45 PM
I'VE BEEN READING THIS THREAD AND I'M WONDERING, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANOTHER ASSASSINS CREED?
IF SO, HOW'RE UBISOFT PLANNING TO REVIVE THE FRANCHISE, SO TO SPEAK?

THE ENDING OF AC3 WAS TERRIBLE, I HOPE WE CAN ALL PUT TOGETHER A PETITION TO GET UBISOFT TO RE-DO THE ENDING?
AC3 IN COMPARISON WITH ALL THE OTHER ASSASSINS CREED GAMES (EXCLUDING REVELATIONS) WAS A GIANT FLOP, IT WAS SO GLITCHY AND HAD SO MANY BUGS, FLOATING WEAPONS, MOVING BLOOD SPOTS ON BODIES, IT REALY PISSED ME OFF BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN READING, AND PLAYING ASSASSINS CREED, SINCE I WAS 11 YEARS OLD. AND TO END IT ALL LIKE THAT, MADE IT FEEL UNWORTHWHILE. AND AFTER ALL THE MONEY I SPENT ON THE BOOKS, GAMES, AND OTHER THINGS, TO END EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, IN SUCH A BAD MANOR, JUST WONT CUT IT FOR ME. THE ENDING WAS SO UNREALISTIC TOO, LIKE SAID ABOVE, REBECCA, SHAUN, AND DESMOND'S FATHER DIDN'T REACT IN THE WAY THAT ANY REAL PERSON WOULD, DESMOND TOLD THEM TO LEAVE, SO THEY TURNED AROUND WITHOUT A HUG OR EVEN A GOODBYE, AND JUST LEFT HIM TO DIE. THE ENDING QUITE FRANKLY RUINED THE WHOLE FRANCHISE FOR ME, AC WILL ALWAYS HAVE A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART AND I HOPE THERE WILL BE MORE ASSASSINS CREED GAMES, BUT PLEASE, I URGE UBISOFT TO RE-DO THE ENDING.

and sorry about the caps, i wanted to make sure people saw this!

Bradley Kaler,
Devoted Assassin's Creed fan
since 2006 - present

BradleyKalerAC
11-22-2012, 05:08 PM
First of all I must say that I had a long and colorful history with Assassinís Creed games and I got really attached to this universe and itís great characters. So yes, I used to be a fan, a big and devoted one, and I got really excited when I first found out about AC3 comingÖ and then this game put an end to everything. I tried this game at my friendís place and now Iím deeply annoyed that I got into this game in the first place!

The bad things Iím going to mention are obviously not the only failures of the game, but the game itself is not bad, sure. However it feels like a complete flop in the comparison with the previous ones.
So, here we go.

1) The first thing that confuses is the gameís settings. The game is set during America's war for independency. Allright, I say but my confusion goes even deeper than the fact that lots of AC fans from OTHER countries have no interest at all for America's history. Does it mean AC3 is intended for Americanís people? Actually yes, yes it is, and it's done quite plainly. It has very and very strong pressure on the specific themes that wasnít so much highlighted in the previous games. That's kind of insulting what the game is made not for everyone, but for some exact group of people in the first place. I'm not American, I have no interest in all the independency stuff, but that is not all! Sure, Cross is a bad guy. Russians are all the bad guys. And the way he is presented in the game automatically hints that all the Russians are bad, that they all are drunkards, and drug users, and traitors and uneducated aggressive bastards. And then I thought the period of cold war with all that insulting stereotypes and propaganda is over! Oh yeah, different faiths and believes. SURE. Well, it's only proves that this game has been created for Americans. As for the others... well, they will blindly like this game anyway, just because itís Assassinís Creed game and not because itís good or bad game. Fans are like this, blind and sometimes too tolerant.

2) The most painful thing that makes a lot of people out there sincerely sad is the new faces of our beloved characters. Iím really sorry, but ARE THE DEVS BLIND or something? I wonder what the designers are paid for? They completely have no aesthetical taste and I guess they are actually truly blind - there is no other sane explanation or practical excuse for the indescribably ugly mugs that used to be our beloved modern assassins. So, I guess all the game budget went into the designing of Connor's costume, right? The character designers should be fired for such a fail with the faces, epic fail, to be exact. And also it's a grand mystery where QA's and testers have been looking. Also the creepy way Desmond moves is beyond any definition. Is he paralytic after his coma or what?

3) Now itís time to mention the lame script play for the secondary characters. But no, there are NO characters anymore, now they are mostly silent and unmoving objects. For example letís take an ending. SoÖ Desmondís fellow assassins turned out to hate him that much so they donít even say goodbye to him, huh? Because he's going to die, DIE, to willingly sacrifice himself, dammit! And what they do? They do NOTHING, not even look at him, no "Goodbye, Desmond, we will miss you!", not a single hug for the savior of human kind from Rebecca, not a single approving nod from Shaun - nothing, null, NADA! They stand there silently like a dumb paper dolls, like a useless decoration, and his father speaking in the funny tones, but it clearly feels like heís saying: "Well, son, you going to die now, but that's okay, because no one ever loved you and you are just a tool, so go ahead and die while you can and we'll go have some drinks to celebrate." And then they all turn silently and coldly and walk away. What is that, I ask you?? Is that allright? Where is the gameís script?? That is why this game's characters are terrible, lifeless and bleak and even half-homo jokes that appear in Shaun's logs doesn't improve the terrible and sad situation. It feels like EVERYTHING that happened to Desmond in the previous game was in vain. Sure, he saves the Earth, but it still feels like being fooled, smacked in the face and then thrown away.
Another example of the stupid AI: in the beginning of the game they line up in the perfect like in front of the cave and stand there like robots holding the boxes - and that's it, not moving, not speaking. They just stand silently in the perfect line - bravo animations, bravo screen writers! Bravo, indeed. They looks like an amateur level theater actors that don't even TRY to perform because they are bored themselves with all the insincerity that is happening in the game.

4) The ending of the game is disappointing to say at least! It is terrible itself and also quite resembles the one of Mass Effect 3 with almost the same idea of joining Rippers or merging with Rippers, but in AC3 gamers are not given even a slightest illusion of choice. The goddesses behave like they are some kind of cheap women, fighting over their stupid man and discussing the future of the Earth like if itís kind of kitchen battle. They play the exact same role as the Catalyst boy in ME3 and itís quite strained and secondary move. I don't even mention the rude method of moving away the character everyone got to love through 4 previous games. Well done, UBISOFT, you're definitely saving Biowareís reputation, winning the prize of the worst game ending this year by killing Desmond in the most inelegant and unoriginal way possible. Looks like the script writers were terribly out of time and completely out of imagination as if they was working just for money (which they do indeed, but still!) this time and with not a single bit of creative imagination. Despite all the speeches and loud promises, the devs are obviously deadly tired of this game and the project that begun as really interesting one now turned out to be quite boring and predictable.

5) Now I must explain the high scores the game received among the critics. Yes, the average scores goes between 8 and 9, BUT this is not the score for the game itself, it's the score for the AC universe in general, all this games and sites, and the large community. Everyone remembers the previous games which was fantastic and even though AC3 is frankly weak project with a lot of failures, the criticís area has it's own rules, so it would be really strange if AAA title would get low scores. Moreover, AC3 is not a bad game, but doesnít go to any comparison with the previous games.

6) The game itself is utterly boring. It's long, very long, open world and all the stuff, but the longer doesn't always mean the better. A lot of useless national pathos and stereotypes, clichť characters. Jokes are not funny. Well, they can be funny for the correct people, but in my opinion they are too cheap now and we are not in the standup comedy show in any case. The games tries with all the might to be serious, but in the end it turns out to be bleak, and annoying, and don't give any emotions because it has been created without any emotions and only with the magical use of money.

In my conclusion I must say that I will never buy this game on any platform, I will never rent it or borrow it from a friend, I will never even get it from the torrents, because the main reason for my broken heart is not the money issues. Iím heartbroken because the great game is not here anymore, itís gone forever and what ISOFT now is selling to us is just a crap. And as I know the taste of the really good things, Iíll better be dead from the hunger than eat a rotten apple even though itís an Apple of Eden.
Thanks for nothing.

OFFICIAL FACEBOOK PETITION FOR AN ALTERNATIVE AC3 ENDING
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Petition-For-An-Alternative-Assassins-Creed-Ending/452186598150448?ref=hl

thePhilCasper
11-22-2012, 06:53 PM
I'VE BEEN READING THIS THREAD AND I'M WONDERING, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANOTHER ASSASSINS CREED?
IF SO, HOW'RE UBISOFT PLANNING TO REVIVE THE FRANCHISE, SO TO SPEAK?

THE ENDING OF AC3 WAS TERRIBLE, I HOPE WE CAN ALL PUT TOGETHER A PETITION TO GET UBISOFT TO RE-DO THE ENDING?
AC3 IN COMPARISON WITH ALL THE OTHER ASSASSINS CREED GAMES (EXCLUDING REVELATIONS) WAS A GIANT FLOP, IT WAS SO GLITCHY AND HAD SO MANY BUGS, FLOATING WEAPONS, MOVING BLOOD SPOTS ON BODIES, IT REALY PISSED ME OFF BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN READING, AND PLAYING ASSASSINS CREED, SINCE I WAS 11 YEARS OLD. AND TO END IT ALL LIKE THAT, MADE IT FEEL UNWORTHWHILE. AND AFTER ALL THE MONEY I SPENT ON THE BOOKS, GAMES, AND OTHER THINGS, TO END EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, IN SUCH A BAD MANOR, JUST WONT CUT IT FOR ME. THE ENDING WAS SO UNREALISTIC TOO, LIKE SAID ABOVE, REBECCA, SHAUN, AND DESMOND'S FATHER DIDN'T REACT IN THE WAY THAT ANY REAL PERSON WOULD, DESMOND TOLD THEM TO LEAVE, SO THEY TURNED AROUND WITHOUT A HUG OR EVEN A GOODBYE, AND JUST LEFT HIM TO DIE. THE ENDING QUITE FRANKLY RUINED THE WHOLE FRANCHISE FOR ME, AC WILL ALWAYS HAVE A SPECIAL PLACE IN MY HEART AND I HOPE THERE WILL BE MORE ASSASSINS CREED GAMES, BUT PLEASE, I URGE UBISOFT TO RE-DO THE ENDING.

and sorry about the caps, i wanted to make sure people saw this!

Bradley Kaler,
Devoted Assassin's Creed fan
since 2006 - present

Agreed. But here the petition is : https://www.change.org/petitions/ubisoft-montreal-ubisoft-change-the-ending-of-desmond-miles-in-assassin-%CC%81s-creed-iii-video-game?utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition&utm_term=34369292

dchil279
11-23-2012, 06:59 AM
The biggest disappointment was the whiny fanbase.

Oh yes, I went there. :)
My biggest disapointment is that people continue to defend the dumbing down of AC, and pounce on those who protest it.

Rebecca looked si ugly in ACII and nothing like she ever did in any other game. Desmond's face was good, thank god they changed it back from the terrible face from revelations.

OmegaRomik
11-23-2012, 07:17 AM
I like the game but i love the multiplayer. New player here. Hopefully single player is improved by the next one even tho i really liked the story but mission syncs are like WTF to me in this game lol.

orangebionic
11-23-2012, 09:47 PM
Unfortunately, questions are usually more interesting than anwers itself.. this is what I thought after going through ending cutscene.

Sadly, it seems that imagination tend to fail game writers badly in recent years(mass effect, cough , cough), the whole motive of deus ex machina(again different franchise, same theme), sacrifice, and possible future of the world is actually beaten to death in so many science fiction books, that i dont even care to give examples, what worries me that guys responsible for story didnt bother to check canon of the genre, and came up with something at least more original.

Durakken
11-23-2012, 10:32 PM
Nothing is true, Everything is Permissible.

There are some clues in the games that suggest that what you are playing/watching are not exactly the truth

For example..
When in AC2 Mina talks to Desmond she speaks to the camera, not to Ezio. If she is talking to Desmond she'd have talked towards Ezio.
Juno speaks as a "we" as far as i have seen and if you look at myth those three gods are not all that "nice" to humans.
Zeus and Hera are the rulers of the gods
Zeus would could be considered a rapist and he's the one who imprisoned the "ones who came before" him as well as punished the person who brought technology to man.
Hera was very wrathful and very much didn't like humans. I believe she is the goddess who was in the Arachnia story turning Arachnia in a spider woman
Minerva is again another god associated with war and being very spiteful. She in myth turned a person to a deer and hunted that person.
These are not the gods I'd be likely to consider "benevolent"

The question I'd have is "who are the titans" and "could it be possible that what we are seeing is a fabricated animus session in the future where the "first civ" is trying to convince the human race that they were first and that Desmond should be scorned, if anyone, for releasing them" or something like that.

Also. I don't think we've seen the last of Conner. They could link Conner's story to another character from the "present" and thus we'd have an easy link between "main characters"

legends7788
11-23-2012, 10:34 PM
Yes Finally Someone Is ACTUALLY INTELLIGENT ENOUGH TO CARE and is pointing out the game's flaws

GG

Durakken
11-23-2012, 11:20 PM
In my conclusion I must say that I will never buy this game on any platform, I will never rent it or borrow it from a friend, I will never even get it from the torrents, because the main reason for my broken heart is not the money issues.

So you didn't play the game and given what you are saying you aren't very observant of the game's story or world history or the fact that AC has never been marketed as a trilogy but rather as an ongoing story with a new game every year to progress the story and advance the engine/mechanics.

I see some parts that are so far worse than what i saw in previous games and other parts are better. However nothing that you said actually covers what is ACTUALLY bad or good, but rather just blathers on about what you dislike about the premise which does not make it bad or good. It makes it something you don't like.

Also... it sounds like you don't like the ending because it is, from what I have heard, a negative ending rather than a positive conclusion that gives you all the answers like you think it should, and would be predictable, even though AC3 was never marketed as the final game of the AC series

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 03:48 AM
Unfortunately, questions are usually more interesting than anwers itself.. this is what I thought after going through ending cutscene.

Sadly, it seems that imagination tend to fail game writers badly in recent years(mass effect, cough , cough), the whole motive of deus ex machina(again different franchise, same theme), sacrifice, and possible future of the world is actually beaten to death in so many science fiction books, that i dont even care to give examples, what worries me that guys responsible for story didnt bother to check canon of the genre, and came up with something at least more original.

Hero saves the world and lives has been done to death.
Hero saving the world and dying has been done to death.
Hero leading the population in a new world (Minerva's choice) has been done to death.
Hero turning out to be a pawn of the adversary has been done to death(?)

Every way the story could have possibly ended has already been done to death. The current choice hasn't been utilized as much as the other alternatives. Yet people seem to want those others more.. strange.

Also, nope. The ending wasn't deus ex machina. It was other things, it was poorly executed but it was no DEM.

Shingram
11-24-2012, 04:07 AM
My biggest disapointment is that people continue to defend the dumbing down of AC, and pounce on those who protest it.

Rebecca looked si ugly in ACII and nothing like she ever did in any other game. Desmond's face was good, thank god they changed it back from the terrible face from revelations.

Havent seen too many in this thread asking for anything to be dumbed down. I've seen it in other threads some real dumb complaints but the poor story execution is a legit issue

Durakken
11-24-2012, 04:12 AM
Hero saves the world and lives has been done to death.
Hero saving the world and dying has been done to death.
Hero leading the population in a new world (Minerva's choice) has been done to death.
Hero turning out to be a pawn of the adversary has been done to death(?)

Every way the story could have possibly ended has already been done to death. The current choice hasn't been utilized as much as the other alternatives. Yet people seem to want those others more.. strange.

Also, nope. The ending wasn't deus ex machina. It was other things, it was poorly executed but it was no DEM.

Trying to correct people on terms they use but don't actually know the meaning of will never work out in your favor ^.^

Deus Ex Machina means "Ghost in the Machine" and is used to explain things that just sorta happen without explanation and either needs a huge explanation to get to the point where it does make sense or it simply doesn't.
For example. If someone attacked in the alley and suddenly bob found a gun that wouldn't be a deus ex machina because there are rather simple explanations that could account for that. Likewise if Bob pulls the trigger and the gun doesn't fire until the 6th, that is also not one. However, if he were to find a fully loaded gun that was perfectly clean and pristine that looked like it was hidden there for some reason and then he turned and pulled the trigger repeatedly but nothing happened that might be considered a Deus Ex Machina but even that could be considered just barely.

A better example would be if Bob's friend who never comes to this part of the city, has no reason to be there, and never gives any explanation why he is there shows up with a gun and shoots the attackers, saving Bob's life. Or if suddenly Bob's attackers pass out or die or vanish. Or perhaps if the leader of the gang beating up on Bob suddenly turns without reason and saves Bob.

Funny enough... A god, or a being perceived to be a god literally being in a machine, as is the case with Assassin's Creed, is not an example of Deus ex Machina lol

yodeiu2
11-24-2012, 10:40 AM
Maybe they rushed to kill Desmond so they could bring in a fresh new character. I mean, guards are starting to have weapons, how are you going to survive with a tiny knife ? Maybe they'll bring another character like Desmond and we'll play as an assassin in ancient Greece, Rome or even Egypt, it would be a cool idea in my opinion.

pirate1802
11-24-2012, 11:25 AM
Maybe they rushed to kill Desmond so they could bring in a fresh new character. I mean, guards are starting to have weapons, how are you going to survive with a tiny knife ? Maybe they'll bring another character like Desmond and we'll play as an assassin in ancient Greece, Rome or even Egypt, it would be a cool idea in my opinion.

Yup I hope so. Would be even better if it is a female modern-day ancestor (as I hope).

zhengyingli
11-24-2012, 12:08 PM
Maybe they rushed to kill Desmond so they could bring in a fresh new character. I mean, guards are starting to have weapons, how are you going to survive with a tiny knife ? Maybe they'll bring another character like Desmond and we'll play as an assassin in ancient Greece, Rome or even Egypt, it would be a cool idea in my opinion.
After finishing ACII, I always imagined if we do get a full-blown modern day segment, we would be able to incorporate the bleeding effect along with using the various Pieces of Eden to fight the current weapons. To me, the security at Abstergo is too lacking for a top tier corporation to have. They should be shooting rapidly without allowing Desmond to close any distance. But if Desmond is able to counter such security with enhanced flexibility through the pieces of eden, the concept just sounds to fantastical.

thePhilCasper
11-24-2012, 07:05 PM
After finishing ACII, I always imagined if we do get a full-blown modern day segment, we would be able to incorporate the bleeding effect along with using the various Pieces of Eden to fight the current weapons. To me, the security at Abstergo is too lacking for a top tier corporation to have. They should be shooting rapidly without allowing Desmond to close any distance. But if Desmond is able to counter such security with enhanced flexibility through the pieces of eden, the concept just sounds to fantastical.

Imagined same things. Shame...

orangebionic
11-24-2012, 07:48 PM
Hero saves the world and lives has been done to death.
Hero saving the world and dying has been done to death.
Hero leading the population in a new world (Minerva's choice) has been done to death.
Hero turning out to be a pawn of the adversary has been done to death(?)

Every way the story could have possibly ended has already been done to death. The current choice hasn't been utilized as much as the other alternatives. Yet people seem to want those others more.. strange.

Also, nope. The ending wasn't deus ex machina. It was other things, it was poorly executed but it was no DEM.


the sphere is "dem" per se. Its not derived from main plot, its a crutch for writers to get the end of the story somehow, so it fits into that category. Compare this with deus ex endings, where videos of truth, or videos with fabricated "truth" were choices, and its consequences were endings. The whole game lead to this specific moment,with many hints, and gameplay actions, on the contrary to mass effect ending which was pure DEM. AC3 way of doing it is not as simplicistic, but it stinks of DEM crutch miles away.

Anyway, ppl tend to want other choices you've mentioned, because they feel that writers took huge evasive maneuvre here: there is no end of the world, but there is no proof that super powerful tyrant took domination of the world, it happened, but we are to limited to notice that,pretty much next part of franchise can be about anything, without even slight come back to previous lore. We wanted big climax, we got cliche stuff.

kNiGHtSFaLLEN
11-24-2012, 09:45 PM
For me......

This wasn't an Assassin's Creed game..... This was the equivalent to a Halo: ODST. Because it basically sucked. It starts with the simple fact Altair and Ezio are badasses... Quiet, reserved, stoic Assassin's..... They are characters if you were a kid you would role play with your friends... Connor is a punk, loud mouth, and a *****.... I was so looking forward to this tomahawk, which was cool but if they could have used a throwing aspect for it would have been better. And chase scenes were absolutely disgusting. They line up 4 men with muskets and you have no cool fight technique to break thru. Throwing knives or tomahawk would be nice or even something simple like a roll or dive move. Something quick that could be used while running. Using both shooting methods require too much time making them useless unless needed. Calling assassin's for help doesn't guarantee they will get there in time like they did in brotherhood. I also didn't upgrade any assassins, didn't see a need for it. Lberating forts wasn't a necessity so i didn't bother with all of them. I'm not an achivement junkie so i like when side quests or secondary missions atleast feel like they are needed or fun enough that i want to do them all.

The dialogue for every character except the father is horrible.... I found myself skipping every secondary cut scene and only kept the main ones because i wanted to have an understanding where this all was going.

The missions are bland and stupid. Making you travel long distances increasing mission play time doesn't make it any better.

Achillies character as a mentor is horrible. He shows no trace of assassin like characteristics..... he seems absolutely void of any real history of the brotherhood, but he magically trains Conner to be something he already learned as typical indian warrior growing up. He doesn't make connor earn his tools in any respectable manner. forcing him to find homstead workers to make his weapons for him would be a nice start. Ezio had to do it with Leonardo.

Also the focus on these major American historical moments were left to single missions and lack luster cut scenes showing what happened. I mean i would have never known the battle of the bulge was completed except for the fact i got an achievement stating so.

The ONLY 2 positives to all this is nautical warfare. I think they can talke this alot farther but it was my favorite part of the game. And secondly the real live story wasn't that bad. I mean regardless if Desmond is alive or dead doesn't matter. Perhaps and alliance with templars and assassins to fight Juno, Going back in time to find her weaknesses could be a nice storyline for AC4.

So disappointing game in general especially with all the hype. But it didn't kill the franchise in my eyes just yet........ definately can be salvaged, unlike Mass Effect

mindtrollingu
11-29-2012, 11:08 AM
Do none of you people have a brain or any sort of common sense? it's called Assassin's Creed for a reason. Because there assassins not lovey dovey people. As assassins they have killed and seen people being killed in front of them so they won't cry and fall into despair just because one man is gonna die to save the world and anyways Rebecca and Shaun don't have any sort of connection with Desmond nearly all the time he is in the Animus so they wouldn't be devastated if he died and his dad will he is a top trained assassin who won't let his emotions overcome him especially when the world is at stake. And Desmond and his father know there is no love list between them. It was a decision that had to be made now and Desmond doesn't really care for them except Lucy who he killed even though she was a templar she was the friend of Shaun and Rebecca. If you were looking for an ending where they would fall into years and beg him not to do it then go watch a romance movie. This is a game of life and death this is what the game is about. If any of you had any common sense or knowledge then you would realise they ended the game this way on purpose so they could set the stage up for the next one. During the whole game there were no glitches or floating weapons the game ran perfectly I don't know what console your playing this game on but I recommend you get a better console or put the game down and don't disgrace it. For the people that say this game was to get money you are truly a disgrace to mankind slot of effort was put in this game 3 years worth of it so they could provide you with the most realistic.assassins creed yet. Also the acting was realistic to the situations and protagonist. Connor is a person who wants to help his people that's all and doesn't care for the people he helps. They took that and made the script appropriate to it. The assassinations in this game are more realistic no one can just walk through a crowd and assassinate someone giving a speech without being seen first. They made the assassinations more realistic in terms of how you, the target and people react to the situation. Which is truly what happens no one just sits there and gets killed. I simply write this in the hope that people of your knowledge can be saved.

psf22
11-29-2012, 11:28 AM
Do none of you people have a brain or any sort of common sense? it's called Assassin's Creed for a reason. Because there assassins not lovey dovey people. As assassins they have killed and seen people being killed in front of them so they won't cry and fall into despair just because one man is gonna die to save the world and anyways Rebecca and Shaun don't have any sort of connection with Desmond nearly all the time he is in the Animus so they wouldn't be devastated if he died and his dad will he is a top trained assassin who won't let his emotions overcome him especially when the world is at stake. And Desmond and his father know there is no love list between them. It was a decision that had to be made now and Desmond doesn't really care for them except Lucy who he killed even though she was a templar she was the friend of Shaun and Rebecca. If you were looking for an ending where they would fall into years and beg him not to do it then go watch a romance movie. This is a game of life and death this is what the game is about. If any of you had any common sense or knowledge then you would realise they ended the game this way on purpose so they could set the stage up for the next one. During the whole game there were no glitches or floating weapons the game ran perfectly I don't know what console your playing this game on but I recommend you get a better console or put the game down and don't disgrace it. For the people that say this game was to get money you are truly a disgrace to mankind slot of effort was put in this game 3 years worth of it so they could provide you with the most realistic.assassins creed yet. Also the acting was realistic to the situations and protagonist. Connor is a person who wants to help his people that's all and doesn't care for the people he helps. They took that and made the script appropriate to it. The assassinations in this game are more realistic no one can just walk through a crowd and assassinate someone giving a speech without being seen first. They made the assassinations more realistic in terms of how you, the target and people react to the situation. Which is truly what happens no one just sits there and gets killed. I simply write this in the hope that people of your knowledge can be saved.

Made my day?

cmrggamer
11-29-2012, 02:36 PM
Yup I hope so. Would be even better if it is a female modern-day ancestor (as I hope).

This!

montagemik
11-30-2012, 03:56 AM
Do none of you people have a brain or any sort of common sense? it's called Assassin's Creed for a reason. Because there assassins not lovey dovey people. As assassins they have killed and seen people being killed in front of them so they won't cry and fall into despair just because one man is gonna die to save the world and anyways Rebecca and Shaun don't have any sort of connection with Desmond nearly all the time he is in the Animus so they wouldn't be devastated if he died and his dad will he is a top trained assassin who won't let his emotions overcome him especially when the world is at stake. And Desmond and his father know there is no love list between them. It was a decision that had to be made now and Desmond doesn't really care for them except Lucy who he killed even though she was a templar she was the friend of Shaun and Rebecca. If you were looking for an ending where they would fall into years and beg him not to do it then go watch a romance movie. This is a game of life and death this is what the game is about. If any of you had any common sense or knowledge then you would realise they ended the game this way on purpose so they could set the stage up for the next one. During the whole game there were no glitches or floating weapons the game ran perfectly I don't know what console your playing this game on but I recommend you get a better console or put the game down and don't disgrace it. For the people that say this game was to get money you are truly a disgrace to mankind slot of effort was put in this game 3 years worth of it so they could provide you with the most realistic.assassins creed yet. Also the acting was realistic to the situations and protagonist. Connor is a person who wants to help his people that's all and doesn't care for the people he helps. They took that and made the script appropriate to it. The assassinations in this game are more realistic no one can just walk through a crowd and assassinate someone giving a speech without being seen first. They made the assassinations more realistic in terms of how you, the target and people react to the situation. Which is truly what happens no one just sits there and gets killed. I simply write this in the hope that people of your knowledge can be saved.


??? Paragraph once in a while , may help your explanation look less like a frantic rant .

And while i understood the game / it's characters & the ending shown , perfectly -( so your text doesn't apply to me.)
I'm afraid this game has glitches, & bugs on EVERY format it's made for , Consoles / PC / Handhelds - Ubisoft don't make patches for non existent faults . Maybe you just missed them.

pirate1802
11-30-2012, 04:15 AM
??? Paragraph once in a while , may help your explanation look less like a frantic rant .

And while i understood the game / it's characters & the ending shown , perfectly -( so your text doesn't apply to me.)
I'm afraid this game has glitches, & bugs on EVERY format it's made for , Consoles / PC / Handhelds - Ubisoft don't make patches for non existent faults . Maybe you just missed them.

I'm stilling your sig.. if you don't mind :|

predatorpulse7
12-03-2012, 06:32 PM
The problem with Asassin's Creed 3 is that whoever designed this game had A LOT more misses than hits on this one though I'm sure the rabid fanboys won't agree.

The good:

Multiplayer still rocks(though that's not why I mainly play AC), new animations are fluid and amazing to look at, graphics(on PC) look **** good when upped to the max, naval battles are amazing and fun, guards can actually kill you in some situations, the new skillsets for your assassins(other than just kill mofos) and some secondary characters were memorable.

The bad:

Oh boy, where do I begin? Don't get me wrong, this was a good game. But in some ways it can't even approach BroHood levels let alone AC2 status.

1)The setting: I'm sure many here will call me anti-american for pointing this out but to my sensibilities, the American Revolutionary war and its aesthetics are BOOOOOORING.
I read every entry from the database(though I was pretty familiar with many of the subjects beforehand), tried to hype myself up as I was playing but then you get to the cities and they underwhelm you so much after seeing Rome,Venice,Florence,Constantinopole that it's not even funny. Yes, there are some pretty details but we're still talking about one story building plus 1-2 churches in a mostly grey setting(thank God for the greenery of the frontier) whereas those cities above had amazing architecture and stunning colour patterns.

2)The move away from rooftops: - look, almost every guard and his uncle can spot you and shoot you on most rooftops and there really aren't many high places that you can go to, not to mention that you don't really have a rooftop highway like in the past, the building aren't as interconnected as in past games. And no, I don't consider climbing on branches moving on high. I would rather be scurring about on a cathedral trying to figure out the next route than diddling about on branches.

3)the Frontier - this I have mixed feeling on to be honest. It looks great and moving through trees can be fun for the first hours or so but the problem is that it becomes boring very quick. Baiting,snaring,killing animals has a great feel to it for the first hours but afterwards it becomes quite boring and it's devoid of any interesting characters or quests unlike say Red Dead Redemption. And seriously, f**k those QTE for killing predators that have spotted you. They're not hard but QTE annoy the hell out of me in whatever game they are placed in. It's a pretty but mostly empty setting. It looks good but I don't see its point in an AC game.

4)the main character:

I know some will defend Connor and say that he is blank slate that players are supposed to project themselves on but you know what? That is major BS. Altair was an arrogant ******(for the first part of the game at least) who had to leard humility and Ezio was a playboy with a revenge story behind him, so both were somewhat tropes, yet people love them to this day. Why? Because they had some development and the way they were presented made you care about them or their story.

Connor on the other hand is as boring as a brick. I just don't understand why I am supposed to care about him or his story and I really really wanted to like the new guy. Ok, so he has had tragedy set upon him from a young age but does this really warrant him acting like a punk from day one till the very end of the game? I did 100% sync on this game, all the missions yet Connor is so incredibly boring, in almost all of the cutscenes, that I wonder what the hell Ubi's intention was with him. He has literally 2 states: when he says nothing and when he gets really angry. That's it. He is overshadowed by literally every character in the game. Haytham is awesome, Achilles is good but underused and even some f**king characters from the homestead have more personality to them than Connor. I don't know if it's the voice acting or the script that was wooden but they really dropped the ball on Connor. For example, him burying Achilles was supposed to be a touching moment but I felt NOTHING. Why? Achilles barely appeared in this game and the guy digging his grave is literally a brick.

5)some flawed mission design:

While most missions were at least decent, they really dropped the ball on a couple of the chase sequences due to the new controls. The Hickey chase sequence, the Public Execution sequence for full sync(took me like 15 tries and it was only due to luck because Hickey bumped into a civilian) and the Charles Lee chase in sequence 12 for full sync made me tear my hair out.

6) The ending:

And you thought ME3's ending was bad. This was literally tacked on cause they needed another game and it's clear that not even Ubi gives a s**t about Desmond. It's basically "hey Des, choose A or B, evil option or slightly more evil option? Sorry, it also means you have to die. Buy AC4!!!". The whole ending had a sort of cheesiness about it that didn't sit right with me, even with AC's universe paper thin sci-fi plot. It's pretty clear that the people writing this meta-story don't give a crap so why should I?

To conclude, this was a good game but even though Ubi worked 2-3 years on this, I doesn't come close to their former full title, AC2 and this is mostly due to setting, unlikable new character and some weird design choices. For the next game they should stick to the major cities(whether european/asian) with grand architecture, give us a decent new character and in a preferably interesting historical setting.

VitaminsXYZ
12-03-2012, 11:19 PM
^ So anyone who likes the things you hated must be a rabid fanboy? Number 2's the only one I kind of agree with, but given the way Boston and New York were at the time, it'd be pretty unrealistic if the buildings were packed extremely close together. The historical setting may not have been stellar, but I think the frontier more than made up for it.

Also, ME3's ending is in a category of its own. That didn't determine the quality of the game for me though, and I still enjoyed it a lot.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 01:22 AM
^ So anyone who likes the things you hated must be a rabid fanboy? Number 2's the only one I kind of agree with, but given the way Boston and New York were at the time, it'd be pretty unrealistic if the buildings were packed extremely close together. The historical setting may not have been stellar, but I think the frontier more than made up for it.

Also, ME3's ending is in a category of its own. That didn't determine the quality of the game for me though, and I still enjoyed it a lot.
Look Here`s what I learned from guys like him..

If you enjoyed the game...even to the slightest inch..Then you`re a fan-boy..No matter what you say or do, NOPE NOPE You`re a fan-boy. and you`re not allowed to argue, because if you do then you`re treading on his freedom of speech and Opinion and then he`ll begin to throw fits, cussing all over and wrap the whole pretty thing around YOU to make it seem like he`s the innocent victim who the evil fan-boys demolished for his honest Opinion:(

Yes...That`s how desperate they can get

Dangerzone50
12-04-2012, 04:06 AM
I enjoyed the game... But i also hate the game, what does that make me?

The beginning was epic but about halfway though the game made a sharp turn and became ****ty, the ending was horrible

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 04:38 AM
I enjoyed the game... But i also hate the game, what does that make me?

The beginning was epic but about halfway though the game made a sharp turn and became ****ty, the ending was horrible
You enjoyed the game, but hate the ending ?? Does that sound like it ?? Or perhaps, the ending spoiled the whole thing for you ??
Because...As you all know..Right now we`re on high alert...Anyone who enjoyed the game IS a Fan-boy by right...THEY said so..

So do any of the sentences above describe your experience with the game ??

Dangerzone50
12-04-2012, 05:27 AM
meh, it wasn't just the ending... it literally feels like the first and last halves of connors story are 2 completely different games... it was fun up till about the end of sequence 9, then it was like "WTF is this?" for the last few sequences and ending

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 05:31 AM
meh, it wasn't just the ending... it literally feels like the first and last halves of connors story are 2 completely different games... it was fun up till about the end of sequence 9, then it was like "WTF is this?" for the last few sequences and ending
Did you enjoy any part of the game ? If your answer is Yes, then welcome to the club

Dangerzone50
12-04-2012, 06:18 AM
i enjoyed a lot of it yes, i also loved haythems part in the story and thought the length of his prelude was perfect... i hope they do something like that in the future once again (with multiple assassins in one title)

but... i know they wont, cause too many people like the morons over at IGN complained and totally did not get the point of his story or why he is in the game... they all just say "it took 5 hours to play as connor" well, so what?!

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 06:36 AM
i enjoyed a lot of it yes, i also loved haythems part in the story and thought the length of his prelude was perfect... i hope they do something like that in the future once again (with multiple assassins in one title)

but... i know they wont, cause too many people like the morons over at IGN complained and totally did not get the point of his story or why he is in the game... they all just say "it took 5 hours to play as connor" well, so what?!
Well sorry, IGN for trying to build a decent back-story to the Protagonist, next time we`ll just start the game pitting youright before a car crash and you have to push square quickly or you`ll die...Oh wait...then they`ll complain that there`s no tutorial or decent back-story to explain why the **** we`re in the middle of a car crash -_-

Dangerzone50
12-04-2012, 08:37 AM
yeah i laughed at how they said half the game was a tutorial... well, what was AC2 then? they kept introducing new features/moves/equipment all the way to to sequence 11 of 14 lol, and half of brotherhood and revelations did the same

But i am not complaining, this is one thing i like about AC (and one of the few things AC3 did right) i enjoy constantly being rewarded for playing by unlocking new things. Hell, even being able to play as connor was a reward for completing haythems story... but they also realize there is a point where you just want to have everything unlocked and be the fully geared up bad*** for the final few sequences, cause no one wants to have a new game play ability unlocked in the final part of the game and only get to use it once or twice

predatorpulse7
12-04-2012, 01:37 PM
Look Here`s what I learned from guys like him..

If you enjoyed the game...even to the slightest inch..Then you`re a fan-boy..No matter what you say or do, NOPE NOPE You`re a fan-boy. and you`re not allowed to argue, because if you do then you`re treading on his freedom of speech and Opinion and then he`ll begin to throw fits, cussing all over and wrap the whole pretty thing around YOU to make it seem like he`s the innocent victim who the evil fan-boys demolished for his honest Opinion:(

Yes...That`s how desperate they can get

Here's my thoughts on the fanboy bit: anybody who says that this game is all that it is cracked up to be is a major fanboy and I say this as a guy that bought AC2,Brotherhood,Revelations,AC3 on DAY ONE so don't make me out to be a hater of this series.

As I said before, taken on its own it is a good game, I played it for four days straight but at the end I can't help feeling disappointed because it simply failed to live up to the hype. This was the first true sequel to AC2 yet it felt empty and bland. Sure, I had fun with it for a day or two but after that I was just going to the motions to see if the story or the characters would get better. They didn't. Can you honestly say anyone other than Haytam is a worthy addition to the AssCreed mythos? Achilles is severely underused, Connor has all the appeal of a brick and the villains make the one-note bad guys from Brohood and Revelations look like genuine threats. And it's a shame because the villains here have some good VA but they are horribly written.

As the sequel to the outstanding AC2(which I still load up nowadays, 3 years after I finished it, just to go around the beautifully crafted cities) it is, in my mind, a failure and I can't believe they worked 3 years for this.

AC2(and its expansions) recreates some outstanding cities from the Renaissance and Constantinopole, all with massive vertical components, just like in AC1.
AC3 brings us Boston and New York with one story buildings plus 1-2 churches and let's face it, we are encouraged to stay on the ground in this one. The frontier looks great but what does moving through trees have to do with the AssCreed franchise which is all about moving on buildings. And the hunting got boring quick. Take the RDR out of my AC games, Ubi. They should be ASSASSINATIONS, interesting historical settings and have a major vertical component.

AC2 introduces us to the character of Ezio(who grows a lot during that game, nevermind during Brohood and Reveleations) and quite a number of memorable secondary characters including DaVinci, Ezio's brother(and his whole family tbh), Machiavelli, your uncle Mario, La Volpe, Bartolomeo, the thief leader Antonio, Rosa, Cristina, Teodora, even the villains aren't half bad and they serve their purpose.

AC3 introduces us to Haytham and that's about it. I would actually like a game about this guy's beginnings and please no more Connor for me. Altair in AC1 with his awful VA had more charm than this guy. And I wouldn't mind it THAT much if the secondary cast was much better but outside of Achilles, everybody is woefully boring as well.

I wasn't super hyped for this game(no GOTY expectations for me) but I expected it to be better than its predecessor since that's what anybody with standards tends to do and knowing that they had 3 years to work on this.

However I struggle to find ONE THING that AC3 does better than AC2. Maybe the graphics since we are talking about a new engine but that's about it. The already simple gameplay has been made even simpler, most of the characters so bland that you immediately forget about them after finishing the game, the setting isn't as great as the ones in previous games and ending outdoes AC2's in how much it sucks(and AC2 had a AWFUL ending).

THANK GOD FOR THE NAVAL MISSIONS. If anyone from UBI is listening, please make a pirate game, it's clear that you have some potential on this front. I went back and played the privateer missions dozens of times because they were FUN. After getting 100 sync I never reloaded another mission from the main story.

Sorry if this ruffles some feather but this is my opinion on AC3. Only a major fanboy would call this game great or a worthy sequel to AC2. I would rank it above AC1 and just above Revelations, but this is mostly because Revelations is incredibly short. At least AC3 offers some content, even if most of it is just filler.

predatorpulse7
12-04-2012, 01:40 PM
yeah i laughed at how they said half the game was a tutorial... well, what was AC2 then? they kept introducing new features/moves/equipment all the way to to sequence 11 of 14 lol, and half of brotherhood and revelations did the same



People who complain about the tutorial of this game are *******es. It is a good tutorial that shows you the mechanics of the game, it actually features a likeable protagonist in Haytham and it has one of the best twists I've recently seen in a game. It's no coincidence that the best sequences in the game after you control Connor are the ones in which his father is involved.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 01:51 PM
Here's my thoughts on the fanboy bit: anybody who says that this game is all that it is cracked up to be is a major fanboy and I say this as a guy that bought AC2,Brotherhood,Revelations,AC3 on DAY ONE so don't make me out to be a hater of this series.

Sorry if this ruffles some feather but this is my opinion on AC3. Only a major fanboy would call this game great or a worthy sequel to AC2.
So basically you`re allowed to make a rule and based on that you can label a person fan-boy, fair enough, BUT WAIT....you do not want to be labeled a hater, but you give yourself the freedom to call someone fan-boy based on YOUR rules....I think I have the MOST suitable label for you

pirate1802
12-04-2012, 02:26 PM
So basically you`re allowed to make a rule and based on that you can label a person fan-boy, fair enough, BUT WAIT....you do not want to be labeled a hater, but you give yourself the freedom to call someone fan-boy based on YOUR rules....I think I have the MOST suitable label for you

LOL. I am a long time AC fan and I think AC3 is not only a worthy sequel, but the best of em. Zero ****s given to whoever thinks I'm a fanboi. Keep thinking that if it makes you happy!

Back to the Frontier I go!

predatorpulse7
12-04-2012, 02:42 PM
LOL. I am a long time AC fan and I think AC3 is not only a worthy sequel, but the best of em. Zero ****s given to whoever thinks I'm a fanboi. Keep thinking that if it makes you happy!

Back to the Frontier I go!

Care to tell us why? Do you honestly love the story in AC3 more than in AC 2 or AC1? Do you think Connor is better/more likable protagonist than Altair or Ezio?

As for the frontier it's basically a big empty space(though pretty to look at, I must admit) in which you can take a handful of quests(outside of the main story I mean) and in which you can do 3 things: run around(on branches or not), kill animals and get collectibles. That's it. In a game called ASSSASSIN'S CREED. Has this series sunk so low that we are getting off on air assassinating a bunny in the forest when instead we should be prowling around city rooftops for our next human target?

The frontier in this game is a pale imitation of the one from Red Dead Redemption, which not only had better hunting, it had random events, interesting characters(even outside of the main story) and quests though for aesthetic appeal I would likely go with the AssCreed one.

I don't understand why the frontier is being held up as an example in this game when there are actually better examples of it in other games, not to mention that Assassins Creed games are all about the CITIES, not the countryside and in this respect, Boston and New York can't hold a candle to Jerusalem,Acre,Rome,Florence,Venice or Constantinopole.

Exactly 3 things are good about AC3(that almost everybody online agrees upon): The new engine, Haytham and the naval missions.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 02:45 PM
Care to tell us why? Do you honestly love the story in AC3 more than in AC 2 or AC1? Do you think Connor is better/more likable protagonist than Altair or Ezio?

As for the frontier it's basically a big empty space(though pretty to look at, I must admit) in which you can take a handful of quests(outside of the main story I mean) and in which you can do 3 things: run around(on branches or not), kill animals and get collectibles. That's it. In a game called ASSSASSIN'S CREED. Has this series sunk so low that we are getting off on air assassinating a bunny in the forest when instead we should be prowling around city rooftops for our next human target?

The frontier in this game is a pale imitation of the one from Red Dead Redemption, which not only had better hunting, it had random events, interesting characters(even outside of the main story) and quests though for aesthetic appeal I would likely go with the AssCreed one.

I don't understand why the frontier is being held up as an example in this game when there are actually better examples of it in other games, not to mention that Assassins Creed games are all about the CITIES, not the countryside and in this respect, Boston and New York can't hold a candle to Jerusalem,Acre,Rome,Florence,Venice or Constantinopole.

Exactly 3 things are good about AC3(that almost everybody online agrees upon): The new engine, Haytham and the naval missions.
And your opinion is the right one...Anyone else BELIEVING anything else is a fan-boy...

Well At least your being honest....Yes.

Call me fan-boy....LOVED AC III.....LOVED IT...

predatorpulse7
12-04-2012, 02:59 PM
And your opinion is the right one...Anyone else BELIEVING anything else is a fan-boy

My opinion is also the one of the majority of players who played this game. A fun game but overall a disappointment when compared to its predecessors. Most people that give this game 9/10, say it is the best ever in the series, are either americans(who want the game set in their revolutionary war period to be the best) or people who have never played the Ezio trilogy. Even critics, who give out 9 and 10's like candy, put this game in the low 80's and very few of them say that this is the best AC. Maybe the biggest but clearly not the best.

A person that sees the game's flaws isn't a hater. I thought Revelations was pretty average as well and that doesn't make me a hater of this series, I just hate to see potential squandered.

Assassin_M
12-04-2012, 03:04 PM
My opinion is also the one of the majority of players who played this game. A fun game but overall a disappointment when compared to its predecessors. Most people that give this game 9/10, say it is the best ever in the series, are either americans(who want the game set in their revolutionary war period to be the best) or people who have never played the Ezio trilogy. Even critics, who give out 9 and 10's like candy, put this game in the low 80's and very few of them say that this is the best AC. Maybe the biggest but clearly not the best.

A person that sees the game's flaws isn't a hater. I thought Revelations was pretty average as well and that doesn't make me a hater of this series, I just hate to see potential squandered.
Just look at him putting rules on who`s a fan-boy and who`s a hater...Exempting himself and putting it above EVERYONE

Why should I take you seriously ?? Your posts are Hilarious xD

Also...I LOVE RED...I`m a red fan-boy

pirate1802
12-04-2012, 04:31 PM
Do you honestly love the story in AC3 more than in AC 2 or AC1?
Yes.


Do you think Connor is better/more likable protagonist than Altair or Ezio?
Yes.


As for the frontier it's basically a big empty space(though pretty to look at, I must admit) in which you can take a handful of quests(outside of the main story I mean) and in which you can do 3 things: run around(on branches or not), kill animals and get collectibles.
Thats one way to look at it. A painting is just some paint smeared on paper. What's so special about that?


That's it. In a game called ASSSASSIN'S CREED. Has this series sunk so low that we are getting off on air assassinating a bunny in the forest when instead we should be prowling around city rooftops for our next human target?
Not to forget out Assassin is a native growing up in the forest and trying to rebuild his mentor's homestead. Makes sense to focus on the forest.


The frontier in this game is a pale imitation of the one from Red Dead Redemption, which not only had better hunting, it had random events, interesting characters(even outside of the main story) and quests though for aesthetic appeal I would likely go with the AssCreed one.
Never played RDR..


I don't understand why the frontier is being held up as an example in this game when there are actually better examples of it in other games, not to mention that Assassins Creed games are all about the CITIES, not the countryside and in this respect, Boston and New York can't hold a candle to Jerusalem,Acre,Rome,Florence,Venice or Constantinopole.
I consider the Frontier AC3's "city" and It's my new favourite in the franchise. Opinions..


Exactly 3 things are good about AC3(that almost everybody online agrees upon): The new engine, Haytham and the naval missions.
In your opinion, ok...

pirate1802
12-04-2012, 04:34 PM
My opinion is also the one of the majority of players who played this game. A fun game but overall a disappointment when compared to its predecessors.
Please show us the poll you consulted. Would love to see it :D

TrueAssassin77
12-04-2012, 05:34 PM
Exactly 3 things are good about AC3(that almost everybody online agrees upon): The new engine, Haytham and the naval missions.

i hate haytham. he ruined the game imo. hes Ezio Jr. in every way that matters. Connor is more likable. Ezio is simply more entertaining. Ezio is the type of guy that is in your group of friends, and has had "physical Relations" with every girls in your circle. including your current girlfriend... and their "physical relations" may(more than likely) also be just as current current. that does not sound like a likeable guy to me... its the type of guy, i may be forced to punch in the face on day.

rego00123
12-05-2012, 03:46 AM
the whole game after completing it felt like a sum of great ideas not put together well. each component in and of themselves is a great idea or execution, but they do not feel like a cohesive product when all assembled as one game.
it felt like a case of way too many cooks in the kitchen delivering a meal without any solid direction other then "food"

this is AC:3 in a nutshell for me.

ACIIISucked
12-07-2012, 02:23 AM
Oh boy.. I don't know where to begin with this.
First of all, as most of the people, the game did not please me AT ALL. Made the account just for posting this comment.
Let's begin, shall we?
1) Voice acting
Although the voice acting for Haytham was appropriate, Connor's accent didn't convinced me that he's really a Native American. The voice actor of Charles Lee did a terrific job at making me hate him through the game. But Connor's..? Meh.. It's just a detail that must be there. (and no, it's not because of Ezio)
2) Facial movements
The glitchiest thing that has ever happened to an Assassin's Creed game. Did anyone notice this except me? When you talk to an NPC (not during a cutscene), their lips start to move like those badly translated Chinese/Japanese movies when it goes out of synch. It's really annoying to see that little detail, however small it is.
3) Connor's character
This, among with the end of the game, is what disappointed me THE MOST, because the thing that always amazed me with AC is how it's almost you can feel the character how it progresses. Altair went from top, to bottom, then to top again. His emotions change throughout the game, much like the Ezio's who went from a teenager to an old, wise man through 3 games that I loved.
Connor? Connor is dull. I don't even know how to describe him better. His accent sounds too noble, his voice is soft and he acts TOO polite. It isn't FUN to play as him! 'I'm sorry you' 'Pardon me ma'am'. Altair was arrogant. Ezio was witty. Connor has no GOOD emotion with him that you can feel attached. His voice is almost always like a straight line. JUST BECAUSE his father is English doesn't mean he should be 90% english and 10% Native. In short words; polite, posh, no energy, no power, no emotions and almost felt snobby with the accent.
4) White loading screen
Just want to add this part. It's not a big deal, but god ****, it's annoying when the monitor blasts kamehameha in my face every 5 minutes. Why can't the screen be BLACK?
5) Assassin's Creed small details
I don't know if anyone noticed this, but both Altair and Ezio had a scar on their lips. Connor, however, did not, and that's what pisses me off for some reason. It's like the developers are FORCING the Assassin's Creed franchise to CHANGE. You can't kill civilians anymore. You can run along the trees. The BLADES move sideways! They're calling it innovative; I call it stupid. Why are they trying to change it tho? I don't know. Maybe they ran out of ideas. I'd much like to see the franchise 'DIE' and end with a pleasing END than to be reanimated over and over and OVER again in some pathetic way to earn more money from AC. Is that so hard to do?
6) Combat
Way too easy. You can kill a squad in a moment. It just takes you a push of a button when you kill one. You kill one soldier, you wait till he dies, then you click again and repeat it. On bigger ones are slightly different controls.
7) Ship battles
This feature is GREAT, and I wouldn't change a thing about it, except if it's possible that you could ram in the bigger ships, board them and attack the crew (like from one of the main missions). If you try to ram in a big ship, or if you just barely GRAZE It... it falls apart. Oh well. Still great.
8) Haytham's death and Charles Lee's mission
Haytham's death: This was BY FAR the WORST death in the Assassin's Creed games. You toss him into a BARREL to hurt him! A BARREL! The fight isn't epic, or emotional, or anything! At one point you're down on the ground, you press a button, Connor stabs his FATHER in the throat.. and then the best part begins: they haven't even shared a father-son moment, and the speech where Haytham told him that he's proud of him didn't do a squat. Achille's death was way too emotional, IMO.
Charles Lee's mission: You're kidding me, right? What does a man have to do to get a good, decent, TEMPLAR VS ASSASSIN worthy battle here. It's not a bar fight. It's not a soldier quarrel. It sounds big, and it's presented POOR. Charles Lee is running and you have to catch him, do a cheap shot with the gun and stab him in a bar later on? It's dumb, and it felt more like a Hollywood movie with too much make up on because of all the cutscenes.
9) Viddic's death
I don't know why, but this was really annoying. I was expecting much, much, MUCH more. Desmond trumps along the way to ABSTERGO, brings with him the apple and uses it to kill Viddic. Now, this part was bothering. He didn't even killed Warren! SOMEONE ELSE DID! Why couldn't he kill all the guards and leave the Viddic? Then he could stab him, maybe chase him at first and ask him 'Why?' or for some answers. But let's go with '**** on all the characters that were important in the last few years, make a whole new concept that will fill our pockets and piss off loyal fans' That seems to work so far!
10) Ending
Finally, this piece of ****. This was WORSE than ME3 ending. Yep, I said it. It's worse than ME3 ending, Twilight's beginning and every Jersey Shore's episode ever made. Alright, so.. You take the magic apple, open a path to a cave where you need ANOTHER key, and when you find that other key you unlock the door. And what do you get? A ****ty ending, that's what? What the hell were the story makers thinking? Even I can be a better story maker than them, god dammit. First I'll tell you what they did, then I'll tell you what I think should've happen IF THEY WANT SO BADLY TO CONTINUE THE SERIES)
-Their ending: Juno turns out to be a bad guy, Minerva is quarreling with her like Earth is a man. One ****ty ending gives you the choice to doom the earth and let it rebuild. Other ****ty(er) ending FORCES you to choose it, where Desmond dies in terrible pain, his friends are like: 'Okay, cya man, Luke I'm your father and all, we're gonna take that vacation now!' It ends with a utter CLICHE, JUST SO UbiFU can make another game and exploit it further. Well done.. Want to read what Hutchinson said?
"Things that go on too long lack resonance. Weíre asking people to remember seven years worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now youíre finishing college. And you need to remember what you were doing in junior high." <- Really?
How I would like that the game finished;
The game gives you 4 choices.
1) That's the one that game forces you to pick. Everything happens as it did and you get THE BAD ENDING.
2) That's what Minerva offered you. To let the Earth rebuild, while you and your team are classified as Gods and are forced to look at the Earth while Minerva asks you if you made the right choice. [Choice happens at 50% completition of the game)
3) If all the main missions are done in 100% synch, a 3rd choice offers where you use the hidden blade to take Juno's powers away from her by attacking her with it. Juno is dead, you gain her powers, you save the earth and you get the ending that Juno tells you what would happen if you chose Minerva.
4) If everything is done in 100% synch, a 4th choice offers where you use the Apple of Eden on Juno to control her to do the job for you. That way, the bad ending from choice 3 won't happen. Desmond leaves the apple in the cave, they all walk out, Desmond talks about going home with his father, they all talk about the vacation BUT just before the game ends the whole screen goes out of synchronization and a new protagonist wakes up from the animus in a far future (made to look like inception). So in the other game you get to play as Desmond while using the protagonist that woke up.
Hire me, Ubisoft. Just kidding, but that would be awesome, now wouldn't it?

Elite_scam
12-07-2012, 10:21 PM
Oh boy.. I don't know where to begin with this.
First of all, as most of the people, the game did not please me AT ALL. Made the account just for posting this comment.
Let's begin, shall we?
1) Voice acting
Although the voice acting for Haytham was appropriate, Connor's accent didn't convinced me that he's really a Native American. The voice actor of Charles Lee did a terrific job at making me hate him through the game. But Connor's..? Meh.. It's just a detail that must be there. (and no, it's not because of Ezio)
2) Facial movements
The glitchiest thing that has ever happened to an Assassin's Creed game. Did anyone notice this except me? When you talk to an NPC (not during a cutscene), their lips start to move like those badly translated Chinese/Japanese movies when it goes out of synch. It's really annoying to see that little detail, however small it is.
3) Connor's character
This, among with the end of the game, is what disappointed me THE MOST, because the thing that always amazed me with AC is how it's almost you can feel the character how it progresses. Altair went from top, to bottom, then to top again. His emotions change throughout the game, much like the Ezio's who went from a teenager to an old, wise man through 3 games that I loved.
Connor? Connor is dull. I don't even know how to describe him better. His accent sounds too noble, his voice is soft and he acts TOO polite. It isn't FUN to play as him! 'I'm sorry you' 'Pardon me ma'am'. Altair was arrogant. Ezio was witty. Connor has no GOOD emotion with him that you can feel attached. His voice is almost always like a straight line. JUST BECAUSE his father is English doesn't mean he should be 90% english and 10% Native. In short words; polite, posh, no energy, no power, no emotions and almost felt snobby with the accent.
4) White loading screen
Just want to add this part. It's not a big deal, but god ****, it's annoying when the monitor blasts kamehameha in my face every 5 minutes. Why can't the screen be BLACK?
5) Assassin's Creed small details
I don't know if anyone noticed this, but both Altair and Ezio had a scar on their lips. Connor, however, did not, and that's what pisses me off for some reason. It's like the developers are FORCING the Assassin's Creed franchise to CHANGE. You can't kill civilians anymore. You can run along the trees. The BLADES move sideways! They're calling it innovative; I call it stupid. Why are they trying to change it tho? I don't know. Maybe they ran out of ideas. I'd much like to see the franchise 'DIE' and end with a pleasing END than to be reanimated over and over and OVER again in some pathetic way to earn more money from AC. Is that so hard to do?
6) Combat
Way too easy. You can kill a squad in a moment. It just takes you a push of a button when you kill one. You kill one soldier, you wait till he dies, then you click again and repeat it. On bigger ones are slightly different controls.
7) Ship battles
This feature is GREAT, and I wouldn't change a thing about it, except if it's possible that you could ram in the bigger ships, board them and attack the crew (like from one of the main missions). If you try to ram in a big ship, or if you just barely GRAZE It... it falls apart. Oh well. Still great.
8) Haytham's death and Charles Lee's mission
Haytham's death: This was BY FAR the WORST death in the Assassin's Creed games. You toss him into a BARREL to hurt him! A BARREL! The fight isn't epic, or emotional, or anything! At one point you're down on the ground, you press a button, Connor stabs his FATHER in the throat.. and then the best part begins: they haven't even shared a father-son moment, and the speech where Haytham told him that he's proud of him didn't do a squat. Achille's death was way too emotional, IMO.
Charles Lee's mission: You're kidding me, right? What does a man have to do to get a good, decent, TEMPLAR VS ASSASSIN worthy battle here. It's not a bar fight. It's not a soldier quarrel. It sounds big, and it's presented POOR. Charles Lee is running and you have to catch him, do a cheap shot with the gun and stab him in a bar later on? It's dumb, and it felt more like a Hollywood movie with too much make up on because of all the cutscenes.
9) Viddic's death
I don't know why, but this was really annoying. I was expecting much, much, MUCH more. Desmond trumps along the way to ABSTERGO, brings with him the apple and uses it to kill Viddic. Now, this part was bothering. He didn't even killed Warren! SOMEONE ELSE DID! Why couldn't he kill all the guards and leave the Viddic? Then he could stab him, maybe chase him at first and ask him 'Why?' or for some answers. But let's go with '**** on all the characters that were important in the last few years, make a whole new concept that will fill our pockets and piss off loyal fans' That seems to work so far!
10) Ending
Finally, this piece of ****. This was WORSE than ME3 ending. Yep, I said it. It's worse than ME3 ending, Twilight's beginning and every Jersey Shore's episode ever made. Alright, so.. You take the magic apple, open a path to a cave where you need ANOTHER key, and when you find that other key you unlock the door. And what do you get? A ****ty ending, that's what? What the hell were the story makers thinking? Even I can be a better story maker than them, god dammit. First I'll tell you what they did, then I'll tell you what I think should've happen IF THEY WANT SO BADLY TO CONTINUE THE SERIES)
-Their ending: Juno turns out to be a bad guy, Minerva is quarreling with her like Earth is a man. One ****ty ending gives you the choice to doom the earth and let it rebuild. Other ****ty(er) ending FORCES you to choose it, where Desmond dies in terrible pain, his friends are like: 'Okay, cya man, Luke I'm your father and all, we're gonna take that vacation now!' It ends with a utter CLICHE, JUST SO UbiFU can make another game and exploit it further. Well done.. Want to read what Hutchinson said?
"Things that go on too long lack resonance. We’re asking people to remember seven years worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you’re finishing college. And you need to remember what you were doing in junior high." <- Really?
How I would like that the game finished;
The game gives you 4 choices.
1) That's the one that game forces you to pick. Everything happens as it did and you get THE BAD ENDING.
2) That's what Minerva offered you. To let the Earth rebuild, while you and your team are classified as Gods and are forced to look at the Earth while Minerva asks you if you made the right choice. [Choice happens at 50% completition of the game)
3) If all the main missions are done in 100% synch, a 3rd choice offers where you use the hidden blade to take Juno's powers away from her by attacking her with it. Juno is dead, you gain her powers, you save the earth and you get the ending that Juno tells you what would happen if you chose Minerva.
4) If everything is done in 100% synch, a 4th choice offers where you use the Apple of Eden on Juno to control her to do the job for you. That way, the bad ending from choice 3 won't happen. Desmond leaves the apple in the cave, they all walk out, Desmond talks about going home with his father, they all talk about the vacation BUT just before the game ends the whole screen goes out of synchronization and a new protagonist wakes up from the animus in a far future (made to look like inception). So in the other game you get to play as Desmond while using the protagonist that woke up.
Hire me, Ubisoft. Just kidding, but that would be awesome, now wouldn't it?

Wow, That would be a LOT worse.

Why didn't you mention all the stuff they left out? like the sun your son, find Eve, the key her DNA, glyphs, mystery etc.
Now those are big ****-ups.

SixKeys
12-08-2012, 12:39 AM
1) Voice acting
Although the voice acting for Haytham was appropriate, Connor's accent didn't convinced me that he's really a Native American.

Umm, the actor is native American. Maybe you were expecting him to talk differently because you have a stereotypical image of natives?

predatorpulse7
12-21-2012, 01:16 AM
Oh boy.. I don't know where to begin with this.
First of all, as most of the people, the game did not please me AT ALL. Made the account just for posting this comment.
Let's begin, shall we?
1) Voice acting
Although the voice acting for Haytham was appropriate, Connor's accent didn't convinced me that he's really a Native American. The voice actor of Charles Lee did a terrific job at making me hate him through the game. But Connor's..? Meh.. It's just a detail that must be there. (and no, it's not because of Ezio)
2) Facial movements
The glitchiest thing that has ever happened to an Assassin's Creed game. Did anyone notice this except me? When you talk to an NPC (not during a cutscene), their lips start to move like those badly translated Chinese/Japanese movies when it goes out of synch. It's really annoying to see that little detail, however small it is.
3) Connor's character
This, among with the end of the game, is what disappointed me THE MOST, because the thing that always amazed me with AC is how it's almost you can feel the character how it progresses. Altair went from top, to bottom, then to top again. His emotions change throughout the game, much like the Ezio's who went from a teenager to an old, wise man through 3 games that I loved.
Connor? Connor is dull. I don't even know how to describe him better. His accent sounds too noble, his voice is soft and he acts TOO polite. It isn't FUN to play as him! 'I'm sorry you' 'Pardon me ma'am'. Altair was arrogant. Ezio was witty. Connor has no GOOD emotion with him that you can feel attached. His voice is almost always like a straight line. JUST BECAUSE his father is English doesn't mean he should be 90% english and 10% Native. In short words; polite, posh, no energy, no power, no emotions and almost felt snobby with the accent.
4) White loading screen
Just want to add this part. It's not a big deal, but god ****, it's annoying when the monitor blasts kamehameha in my face every 5 minutes. Why can't the screen be BLACK?
5) Assassin's Creed small details
I don't know if anyone noticed this, but both Altair and Ezio had a scar on their lips. Connor, however, did not, and that's what pisses me off for some reason. It's like the developers are FORCING the Assassin's Creed franchise to CHANGE. You can't kill civilians anymore. You can run along the trees. The BLADES move sideways! They're calling it innovative; I call it stupid. Why are they trying to change it tho? I don't know. Maybe they ran out of ideas. I'd much like to see the franchise 'DIE' and end with a pleasing END than to be reanimated over and over and OVER again in some pathetic way to earn more money from AC. Is that so hard to do?
6) Combat
Way too easy. You can kill a squad in a moment. It just takes you a push of a button when you kill one. You kill one soldier, you wait till he dies, then you click again and repeat it. On bigger ones are slightly different controls.
7) Ship battles
This feature is GREAT, and I wouldn't change a thing about it, except if it's possible that you could ram in the bigger ships, board them and attack the crew (like from one of the main missions). If you try to ram in a big ship, or if you just barely GRAZE It... it falls apart. Oh well. Still great.
8) Haytham's death and Charles Lee's mission
Haytham's death: This was BY FAR the WORST death in the Assassin's Creed games. You toss him into a BARREL to hurt him! A BARREL! The fight isn't epic, or emotional, or anything! At one point you're down on the ground, you press a button, Connor stabs his FATHER in the throat.. and then the best part begins: they haven't even shared a father-son moment, and the speech where Haytham told him that he's proud of him didn't do a squat. Achille's death was way too emotional, IMO.
Charles Lee's mission: You're kidding me, right? What does a man have to do to get a good, decent, TEMPLAR VS ASSASSIN worthy battle here. It's not a bar fight. It's not a soldier quarrel. It sounds big, and it's presented POOR. Charles Lee is running and you have to catch him, do a cheap shot with the gun and stab him in a bar later on? It's dumb, and it felt more like a Hollywood movie with too much make up on because of all the cutscenes.
9) Viddic's death
I don't know why, but this was really annoying. I was expecting much, much, MUCH more. Desmond trumps along the way to ABSTERGO, brings with him the apple and uses it to kill Viddic. Now, this part was bothering. He didn't even killed Warren! SOMEONE ELSE DID! Why couldn't he kill all the guards and leave the Viddic? Then he could stab him, maybe chase him at first and ask him 'Why?' or for some answers. But let's go with '**** on all the characters that were important in the last few years, make a whole new concept that will fill our pockets and piss off loyal fans' That seems to work so far!
10) Ending
Finally, this piece of ****. This was WORSE than ME3 ending. Yep, I said it. It's worse than ME3 ending, Twilight's beginning and every Jersey Shore's episode ever made. Alright, so.. You take the magic apple, open a path to a cave where you need ANOTHER key, and when you find that other key you unlock the door. And what do you get? A ****ty ending, that's what? What the hell were the story makers thinking? Even I can be a better story maker than them, god dammit. First I'll tell you what they did, then I'll tell you what I think should've happen IF THEY WANT SO BADLY TO CONTINUE THE SERIES)
-Their ending: Juno turns out to be a bad guy, Minerva is quarreling with her like Earth is a man. One ****ty ending gives you the choice to doom the earth and let it rebuild. Other ****ty(er) ending FORCES you to choose it, where Desmond dies in terrible pain, his friends are like: 'Okay, cya man, Luke I'm your father and all, we're gonna take that vacation now!' It ends with a utter CLICHE, JUST SO UbiFU can make another game and exploit it further. Well done.. Want to read what Hutchinson said?
"Things that go on too long lack resonance. We’re asking people to remember seven years worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you’re finishing college. And you need to remember what you were doing in junior high." <- Really?
How I would like that the game finished;
The game gives you 4 choices.
1) That's the one that game forces you to pick. Everything happens as it did and you get THE BAD ENDING.
2) That's what Minerva offered you. To let the Earth rebuild, while you and your team are classified as Gods and are forced to look at the Earth while Minerva asks you if you made the right choice. [Choice happens at 50% completition of the game)
3) If all the main missions are done in 100% synch, a 3rd choice offers where you use the hidden blade to take Juno's powers away from her by attacking her with it. Juno is dead, you gain her powers, you save the earth and you get the ending that Juno tells you what would happen if you chose Minerva.
4) If everything is done in 100% synch, a 4th choice offers where you use the Apple of Eden on Juno to control her to do the job for you. That way, the bad ending from choice 3 won't happen. Desmond leaves the apple in the cave, they all walk out, Desmond talks about going home with his father, they all talk about the vacation BUT just before the game ends the whole screen goes out of synchronization and a new protagonist wakes up from the animus in a far future (made to look like inception). So in the other game you get to play as Desmond while using the protagonist that woke up.
Hire me, Ubisoft. Just kidding, but that would be awesome, now wouldn't it?

I have to agree with almost everything you wrote here and a great post to be sure.

I've 100%'ed the single player, done all the achievements, still having a great time with the MP but I've sat back and pondered this question: why hasn't AC3 gripped me like the previous games have? I mean, Revelations was pretty half-baked but at least I have some fond memories with Ezio/Altair moment and the beautifully rendered city of Constantinopole, not to mention the end of Ezio's story(a character we've seen from birth to grave).

The answer to my question is two-fold: MAIN CHARACTER and SETTING. The other games also had stupid endings and plot-holes galore, lest we forget.

CHARACTER: I don't think anyone was expecting a character as memorable as Altair or Ezio but holy crap is Connor boring. Not his kill animations, those are sweet, probably the best in all the series but Jesus, as a character, he might as well be a board with eyes. He goes through very little growth in the course of the game and has precisely 2 states: when he is angry(being an annoying punk to Achilles of all people) and when he listens like a puppy. I guess they were going for a early dissobedient Altair kind of model but Altair(even with his awful VA) had a far more developed relationship with Al Mualim as a mentor and let's face it, Achilles(while one of the decent characters here) is no Al Mualim charisma wise. I tried very hard to care about Connor, I went in with a positive mindset but all I saw was a one-dimensional bore. The scene where he is burying Achiles was supposed to be touching but I hardly felt anything because I was not connected to any of the 2 characters:Achilles gets maybe 10 minutes in the whole game and Connor himself is a dullard. I've seen secondary characters from the AC1/AC2 with more appeal than Connor and that's just sad.
If this guy gets another game I would be VERY surprised.

SETTING: Let's get one thing out of the way from the very start. The game looks great. The frontier and the cities are admirably well done, especially the little details and even on a technical level(I know people complain about bugs but I've been playing for quite some time now and I've only had 4-5 minor issues - pc version).
However, I don't think the setting is the best for an AC game, the design choices are pretty uninspired. We went from assassinating human targets while perched on tall buildings in european/middle eastern enviroments to stalking animals in the woods and air assassinating bunnies. We went from the medieval cities of the Holy Land, Renaissance Italy and Constantinopole to one story buildings that appear like shanties when compared to the buildings we were used to.

It's all fine as an isolated exercise but I can't see the series buidling on this experiment. I certainly don't want to be messing about on branches and baiting bears in the next game, even though it was fun for the first couple of hours. I want to be stalking targets in an urban enviroment. It's criminal to keep Assassins on the ground and guess what, for most of this game, I was on the ground. I spent more time in the air in the frontier than I did in the cities and that's inexcusable. Why? Cause you are discouraged to stay on rooftops in this game, almost every guard can spot you and the rooftop highways from previous games are missing.

I will end my post with this parting thought, if anyone at Ubi is listening:

MAKE THIS GAME HARDER. Yes, it's a BIT harder than Revelations but it's still way way too easy. We need at least SOME challenge.

VARY YOUR MISSION STRUCTURE. I felt like I was being handheld in almost every single mission here and I'm tired of the "follow x around from checkpoint to checkpoint/kill these people"
No one's expecting the moon here but the missions were incredibly formulaic and some important ones were decidedly embarassing(charles lee sequence 12 chase for one). These patterns are starting to become stale. Try something like the one with Ezio in Sequence 5 Brohood where you escort a senator to his house without being detected, follow someone to the money, infiltrate the Pantheon, take out a target and take his costume and take the money to the meeting on the bridge.

Not exactly the greatest of missions but a nice change-up. I don't remember anything remotely like this in AC3. Oddly enough, I though the earlier missions in AC3 had a bit more creativity to them than later ones and to me that is never a good sign.

predatorpulse7
12-21-2012, 01:26 AM
Oh boy.. I don't know where to begin with this.
First of all, as most of the people, the game did not please me AT ALL. Made the account just for posting this comment.
Let's begin, shall we?
1) Voice acting
Although the voice acting for Haytham was appropriate, Connor's accent didn't convinced me that he's really a Native American. The voice actor of Charles Lee did a terrific job at making me hate him through the game. But Connor's..? Meh.. It's just a detail that must be there. (and no, it's not because of Ezio)
2) Facial movements
The glitchiest thing that has ever happened to an Assassin's Creed game. Did anyone notice this except me? When you talk to an NPC (not during a cutscene), their lips start to move like those badly translated Chinese/Japanese movies when it goes out of synch. It's really annoying to see that little detail, however small it is.
3) Connor's character
This, among with the end of the game, is what disappointed me THE MOST, because the thing that always amazed me with AC is how it's almost you can feel the character how it progresses. Altair went from top, to bottom, then to top again. His emotions change throughout the game, much like the Ezio's who went from a teenager to an old, wise man through 3 games that I loved.
Connor? Connor is dull. I don't even know how to describe him better. His accent sounds too noble, his voice is soft and he acts TOO polite. It isn't FUN to play as him! 'I'm sorry you' 'Pardon me ma'am'. Altair was arrogant. Ezio was witty. Connor has no GOOD emotion with him that you can feel attached. His voice is almost always like a straight line. JUST BECAUSE his father is English doesn't mean he should be 90% english and 10% Native. In short words; polite, posh, no energy, no power, no emotions and almost felt snobby with the accent.
4) White loading screen
Just want to add this part. It's not a big deal, but god ****, it's annoying when the monitor blasts kamehameha in my face every 5 minutes. Why can't the screen be BLACK?
5) Assassin's Creed small details
I don't know if anyone noticed this, but both Altair and Ezio had a scar on their lips. Connor, however, did not, and that's what pisses me off for some reason. It's like the developers are FORCING the Assassin's Creed franchise to CHANGE. You can't kill civilians anymore. You can run along the trees. The BLADES move sideways! They're calling it innovative; I call it stupid. Why are they trying to change it tho? I don't know. Maybe they ran out of ideas. I'd much like to see the franchise 'DIE' and end with a pleasing END than to be reanimated over and over and OVER again in some pathetic way to earn more money from AC. Is that so hard to do?
6) Combat
Way too easy. You can kill a squad in a moment. It just takes you a push of a button when you kill one. You kill one soldier, you wait till he dies, then you click again and repeat it. On bigger ones are slightly different controls.
7) Ship battles
This feature is GREAT, and I wouldn't change a thing about it, except if it's possible that you could ram in the bigger ships, board them and attack the crew (like from one of the main missions). If you try to ram in a big ship, or if you just barely GRAZE It... it falls apart. Oh well. Still great.
8) Haytham's death and Charles Lee's mission
Haytham's death: This was BY FAR the WORST death in the Assassin's Creed games. You toss him into a BARREL to hurt him! A BARREL! The fight isn't epic, or emotional, or anything! At one point you're down on the ground, you press a button, Connor stabs his FATHER in the throat.. and then the best part begins: they haven't even shared a father-son moment, and the speech where Haytham told him that he's proud of him didn't do a squat. Achille's death was way too emotional, IMO.
Charles Lee's mission: You're kidding me, right? What does a man have to do to get a good, decent, TEMPLAR VS ASSASSIN worthy battle here. It's not a bar fight. It's not a soldier quarrel. It sounds big, and it's presented POOR. Charles Lee is running and you have to catch him, do a cheap shot with the gun and stab him in a bar later on? It's dumb, and it felt more like a Hollywood movie with too much make up on because of all the cutscenes.
9) Viddic's death
I don't know why, but this was really annoying. I was expecting much, much, MUCH more. Desmond trumps along the way to ABSTERGO, brings with him the apple and uses it to kill Viddic. Now, this part was bothering. He didn't even killed Warren! SOMEONE ELSE DID! Why couldn't he kill all the guards and leave the Viddic? Then he could stab him, maybe chase him at first and ask him 'Why?' or for some answers. But let's go with '**** on all the characters that were important in the last few years, make a whole new concept that will fill our pockets and piss off loyal fans' That seems to work so far!
10) Ending
Finally, this piece of ****. This was WORSE than ME3 ending. Yep, I said it. It's worse than ME3 ending, Twilight's beginning and every Jersey Shore's episode ever made. Alright, so.. You take the magic apple, open a path to a cave where you need ANOTHER key, and when you find that other key you unlock the door. And what do you get? A ****ty ending, that's what? What the hell were the story makers thinking? Even I can be a better story maker than them, god dammit. First I'll tell you what they did, then I'll tell you what I think should've happen IF THEY WANT SO BADLY TO CONTINUE THE SERIES)
-Their ending: Juno turns out to be a bad guy, Minerva is quarreling with her like Earth is a man. One ****ty ending gives you the choice to doom the earth and let it rebuild. Other ****ty(er) ending FORCES you to choose it, where Desmond dies in terrible pain, his friends are like: 'Okay, cya man, Luke I'm your father and all, we're gonna take that vacation now!' It ends with a utter CLICHE, JUST SO UbiFU can make another game and exploit it further. Well done.. Want to read what Hutchinson said?
"Things that go on too long lack resonance. We’re asking people to remember seven years worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you’re finishing college. And you need to remember what you were doing in junior high." <- Really?
How I would like that the game finished;
The game gives you 4 choices.
1) That's the one that game forces you to pick. Everything happens as it did and you get THE BAD ENDING.
2) That's what Minerva offered you. To let the Earth rebuild, while you and your team are classified as Gods and are forced to look at the Earth while Minerva asks you if you made the right choice. [Choice happens at 50% completition of the game)
3) If all the main missions are done in 100% synch, a 3rd choice offers where you use the hidden blade to take Juno's powers away from her by attacking her with it. Juno is dead, you gain her powers, you save the earth and you get the ending that Juno tells you what would happen if you chose Minerva.
4) If everything is done in 100% synch, a 4th choice offers where you use the Apple of Eden on Juno to control her to do the job for you. That way, the bad ending from choice 3 won't happen. Desmond leaves the apple in the cave, they all walk out, Desmond talks about going home with his father, they all talk about the vacation BUT just before the game ends the whole screen goes out of synchronization and a new protagonist wakes up from the animus in a far future (made to look like inception). So in the other game you get to play as Desmond while using the protagonist that woke up.
Hire me, Ubisoft. Just kidding, but that would be awesome, now wouldn't it?

I have to agree with almost everything you wrote here and a great post to be sure.

I've 100%'ed the single player, done all the achievements, still having a great time with the MP but I've sat back and pondered this question: why hasn't AC3 gripped me like the previous games have? I mean, Revelations was pretty half-baked but at least I have some fond memories with Ezio/Altair moment and the beautifully rendered city of Constantinopole, not to mention the end of Ezio's story(a character we've seen from birth to grave).

The answer to my question is two-fold: MAIN CHARACTER and SETTING. The other games also had stupid endings and plot-holes galore, lest we forget.

CHARACTER: I don't think anyone was expecting a character as memorable as Altair or Ezio but holy crap is Connor boring. Not his kill animations, those are sweet, probably the best in all the series but Jesus, as a character, he might as well be a board with eyes. He goes through very little growth in the course of the game and has precisely 2 states: when he is angry(being an annoying punk to Achilles of all people) and when he listens like a puppy. I guess they were going for a early dissobedient Altair kind of model but Altair(even with his awful VA) had a far more developed relationship with Al Mualim as a mentor and let's face it, Achilles(while one of the decent characters here) is no Al Mualim charisma wise. I tried very hard to care about Connor, I went in with a positive mindset but all I saw was a one-dimensional bore. The scene where he is burying Achiles was supposed to be touching but I hardly felt anything because I was not connected to any of the 2 characters:Achilles gets maybe 10 minutes in the whole game and Connor himself is a dullard. I've seen secondary characters from the AC1/AC2 with more appeal than Connor and that's just sad.
If this guy gets another game I would be VERY surprised.

SETTING: Let's get one thing out of the way from the very start. The game looks great. The frontier and the cities are admirably well done, especially the little details and even on a technical level(I know people complain about bugs but I've been playing for quite some time now and I've only had 4-5 minor issues - pc version).
However, I don't think the setting is the best for an AC game, the design choices are pretty uninspired. We went from assassinating human targets while perched on tall buildings in european/middle eastern enviroments to stalking animals in the woods and air assassinating bunnies. We went from the medieval cities of the Holy Land, Renaissance Italy and Constantinopole to one story buildings that appear like shanties when compared to the buildings we were used to.

It's all fine as an isolated exercise but I can't see the series buidling on this experiment. I certainly don't want to be messing about on branches and baiting bears in the next game, even though it was fun for the first couple of hours. I want to be stalking targets in an urban enviroment. It's criminal to keep Assassins on the ground and guess what, for most of this game, I was on the ground. I spent more time in the air in the frontier than I did in the cities and that's inexcusable. Why? Cause you are discouraged to stay on rooftops in this game, almost every guard can spot you and the rooftop highways from previous games are missing.

One more thing:

MAKE THIS GAME HARDER. Yes, it's a BIT harder than Revelations but it's still way way too easy. We need at least SOME challenge.

VARY YOUR MISSION STRUCTURE. I felt like I was being handheld in almost every single mission here and I'm tired of the "follow x around from checkpoint to checkpoint/kill these people"
No one's expecting the moon here but the missions were incredibly formulaic and some important ones were decidedly embarassing(charles lee sequence 12 chase for one). These patterns are starting to become stale. Try something like the one with Ezio in Sequence 5 Brohood where you escort a senator to his house without being detected, follow someone to the money, infiltrate the Pantheon, take out a target and take his costume and take the money to the meeting on the bridge.

Not exactly the greatest of missions but a nice change-up. I don't remember anything remotely like this in AC3. Oddly enough, I though the earlier missions in AC3 had a bit more creativity to them than later ones and to me that is never a good sign.

For AC4, Ubi needs a tighter approach to this series - PLEASE STOP THE CLUTTER. Assassin's Creed is about ASSASSINATIONS(as in high profile victims that we need to learn about, not just the joe schmoe on the street) and URBAN ENVIROMENTS. Stop with the Sim City for dummies stuff and other assorted mini-games. Who the hell enters a AC game to play checkers or bowls? I do like the collectibles bit because they encourage you to explore the map(and you won't have money for maps early on) but everything else needs to go and fast. I don't want to play as Assassin administrator of the Order, I want to play as an Assassin on the actual streets. Let's get back to the roots of the franchise a bit cause me thinks that we've strayed off quite a bit.

DemonLordSparda
12-21-2012, 02:09 AM
Oh boy.. I don't know where to begin with this.
First of all, as most of the people, the game did not please me AT ALL. Made the account just for posting this comment.
Let's begin, shall we?
1) Voice acting
Although the voice acting for Haytham was appropriate, Connor's accent didn't convinced me that he's really a Native American. The voice actor of Charles Lee did a terrific job at making me hate him through the game. But Connor's..? Meh.. It's just a detail that must be there. (and no, it's not because of Ezio)
2) Facial movements
The glitchiest thing that has ever happened to an Assassin's Creed game. Did anyone notice this except me? When you talk to an NPC (not during a cutscene), their lips start to move like those badly translated Chinese/Japanese movies when it goes out of synch. It's really annoying to see that little detail, however small it is.
3) Connor's character
This, among with the end of the game, is what disappointed me THE MOST, because the thing that always amazed me with AC is how it's almost you can feel the character how it progresses. Altair went from top, to bottom, then to top again. His emotions change throughout the game, much like the Ezio's who went from a teenager to an old, wise man through 3 games that I loved.
Connor? Connor is dull. I don't even know how to describe him better. His accent sounds too noble, his voice is soft and he acts TOO polite. It isn't FUN to play as him! 'I'm sorry you' 'Pardon me ma'am'. Altair was arrogant. Ezio was witty. Connor has no GOOD emotion with him that you can feel attached. His voice is almost always like a straight line. JUST BECAUSE his father is English doesn't mean he should be 90% english and 10% Native. In short words; polite, posh, no energy, no power, no emotions and almost felt snobby with the accent.
4) White loading screen
Just want to add this part. It's not a big deal, but god ****, it's annoying when the monitor blasts kamehameha in my face every 5 minutes. Why can't the screen be BLACK?
5) Assassin's Creed small details
I don't know if anyone noticed this, but both Altair and Ezio had a scar on their lips. Connor, however, did not, and that's what pisses me off for some reason. It's like the developers are FORCING the Assassin's Creed franchise to CHANGE. You can't kill civilians anymore. You can run along the trees. The BLADES move sideways! They're calling it innovative; I call it stupid. Why are they trying to change it tho? I don't know. Maybe they ran out of ideas. I'd much like to see the franchise 'DIE' and end with a pleasing END than to be reanimated over and over and OVER again in some pathetic way to earn more money from AC. Is that so hard to do?
6) Combat
Way too easy. You can kill a squad in a moment. It just takes you a push of a button when you kill one. You kill one soldier, you wait till he dies, then you click again and repeat it. On bigger ones are slightly different controls.
7) Ship battles
This feature is GREAT, and I wouldn't change a thing about it, except if it's possible that you could ram in the bigger ships, board them and attack the crew (like from one of the main missions). If you try to ram in a big ship, or if you just barely GRAZE It... it falls apart. Oh well. Still great.
8) Haytham's death and Charles Lee's mission
Haytham's death: This was BY FAR the WORST death in the Assassin's Creed games. You toss him into a BARREL to hurt him! A BARREL! The fight isn't epic, or emotional, or anything! At one point you're down on the ground, you press a button, Connor stabs his FATHER in the throat.. and then the best part begins: they haven't even shared a father-son moment, and the speech where Haytham told him that he's proud of him didn't do a squat. Achille's death was way too emotional, IMO.
Charles Lee's mission: You're kidding me, right? What does a man have to do to get a good, decent, TEMPLAR VS ASSASSIN worthy battle here. It's not a bar fight. It's not a soldier quarrel. It sounds big, and it's presented POOR. Charles Lee is running and you have to catch him, do a cheap shot with the gun and stab him in a bar later on? It's dumb, and it felt more like a Hollywood movie with too much make up on because of all the cutscenes.
9) Viddic's death
I don't know why, but this was really annoying. I was expecting much, much, MUCH more. Desmond trumps along the way to ABSTERGO, brings with him the apple and uses it to kill Viddic. Now, this part was bothering. He didn't even killed Warren! SOMEONE ELSE DID! Why couldn't he kill all the guards and leave the Viddic? Then he could stab him, maybe chase him at first and ask him 'Why?' or for some answers. But let's go with '**** on all the characters that were important in the last few years, make a whole new concept that will fill our pockets and piss off loyal fans' That seems to work so far!
10) Ending
Finally, this piece of ****. This was WORSE than ME3 ending. Yep, I said it. It's worse than ME3 ending, Twilight's beginning and every Jersey Shore's episode ever made. Alright, so.. You take the magic apple, open a path to a cave where you need ANOTHER key, and when you find that other key you unlock the door. And what do you get? A ****ty ending, that's what? What the hell were the story makers thinking? Even I can be a better story maker than them, god dammit. First I'll tell you what they did, then I'll tell you what I think should've happen IF THEY WANT SO BADLY TO CONTINUE THE SERIES)
-Their ending: Juno turns out to be a bad guy, Minerva is quarreling with her like Earth is a man. One ****ty ending gives you the choice to doom the earth and let it rebuild. Other ****ty(er) ending FORCES you to choose it, where Desmond dies in terrible pain, his friends are like: 'Okay, cya man, Luke I'm your father and all, we're gonna take that vacation now!' It ends with a utter CLICHE, JUST SO UbiFU can make another game and exploit it further. Well done.. Want to read what Hutchinson said?
"Things that go on too long lack resonance. We’re asking people to remember seven years worth of story. Which is like saying you were in junior high and now you’re finishing college. And you need to remember what you were doing in junior high." <- Really?
How I would like that the game finished;
The game gives you 4 choices.
1) That's the one that game forces you to pick. Everything happens as it did and you get THE BAD ENDING.
2) That's what Minerva offered you. To let the Earth rebuild, while you and your team are classified as Gods and are forced to look at the Earth while Minerva asks you if you made the right choice. [Choice happens at 50% completition of the game)
3) If all the main missions are done in 100% synch, a 3rd choice offers where you use the hidden blade to take Juno's powers away from her by attacking her with it. Juno is dead, you gain her powers, you save the earth and you get the ending that Juno tells you what would happen if you chose Minerva.
4) If everything is done in 100% synch, a 4th choice offers where you use the Apple of Eden on Juno to control her to do the job for you. That way, the bad ending from choice 3 won't happen. Desmond leaves the apple in the cave, they all walk out, Desmond talks about going home with his father, they all talk about the vacation BUT just before the game ends the whole screen goes out of synchronization and a new protagonist wakes up from the animus in a far future (made to look like inception). So in the other game you get to play as Desmond while using the protagonist that woke up.
Hire me, Ubisoft. Just kidding, but that would be awesome, now wouldn't it?

Alright, I'll take this on

1. Connor's voice actor is in fact a native american. You seem to have a stereotype in your head about how native americans sound when they speak English. Their language is mostly set up to convey emotion through the words and not tone. Just like most cultures when they learn English, it's more stilted and not as lively. He does not sound like an Englishman at ALL. You say his voice is too flat and English, but Haythem always had snark and pride on his lips and you can hear that. Connor is more soft spoken, but more on this in another point.

2. Fair is fair, the lip desynch is bad and not excusable.

3. This just shows your attitude. Connor has emotions, just subtle ones. When he is happy you can see it on his face with his small smile and way he holds himself. When he is sad he won't be crying, but his face show much pain it hurts. You say his voice is noble then call it flat, even though a noble voice implies arrogance and a self assured attitude. Connor grows quite a lot. I hate to bring this up over and over again but so many people don't seem to get this. Native Americans were raised in a different culture with different ideals. Connor was raised in his village learning that if you explain yourself fully then people will understand and listen. However this is not how Colonial America works. It's a bunch of lying and power plays. Connor was naive of this and thinks differently than others in the game. It's an easy enough concept to grasp once you realize the whole world isn't raised the same way and doesn't think alike. You not being able to relate to his story is you not being able to accept different lifestyles, and that is not a failure of the writing.

4. Every single Assassin's Creed game has had a white loading screen. It only happens a lot when you are fast traveling a lot, otherwise in a city or zone there is no loading screen. So do yourself a favor and get some good lighting in your room so the light balance doesn't mess up your eyes. Why people play games on bright screens in the pitch black is a mystery to me. Recipe for headaches.

5. The scar is meaningless. Desmond also doesn't have a scar. The game never shows how Altair gets his but Ezio gets it in the game from a blade. Coincidence. You can kill civilians and domestic animals in the game. All you have to do is use the enhanced lock on and get close to them... or just shoot them using the "Left Trigger" on consoles. Connor can climb in trees... because he's a native who learned how to do it. Ezio and Altair couldn't even climb up to a branch which was silly anyway. Altair couldn't swim but I don't see you complaining they "changed too much" since Connor and Ezio can swim. Also many others agree that the series is still strong and the stories are still good. I agree, so some of us don't want it to just fall off and dies.

6. This is actually the hardest game combat wise. Still easy yes but it's harder. AC 1 you could counter kill ANYONE with the hidden blade. Sure you couldn't block with it but it made combat easy. AC 2 pretty similar to AC 1 except now your parry stance has a built in block feature, so again still easy. Then Brotherhood happened. You can still block while holding in your parry stance, but now you can chain combo. Then Revelations, all of the Ezio games apply here, and lets not forget Ezio had potions to heal mid battle. Connor has no potions, enemies do much more damage and 3 guns in a gun line can take out half of your health. You can't just chain combo everyone. Grenadiers and Jagers would smack you out of the combo, and enemies attack you way more during your chain kill in this then they did in Ezio games. Again it's not hard, but that's a complaint for the series not this game.

7. You only break a ship to pieces with one ramming action when you have the naval ram. But overall I agree that in general more freedom with the ships would be great. Like boarding any time.

8. The battle with Haythem could have been better. But the resolution and speech were fantastic. Connor and Haythem aren't ones for sympathy and they do not see eye to eye. So what makes you think they'd have a heartfelt father son moment? That's not how their dynamic was at all. Connor is soft spoken and distant, while Haythem is arrogant and thinks he knows better than everyone. Haythem calling Connor his son and saying he is proud of Connor were amazing moments given their history. Also Achilles death was handled very well. This was a community that knew him and respected him, his passing was sad and death like that should be emotional and have impact.

9. Whole new concept? The apple causes mind control, that's been established since AC 1, in fact it's one of the older concept. Desmond was pissed, and is obviously tired of all the Templar ********. So he just ends it to get his father back. If I were Desmond I'd hate Viddic so much that I wouldn't get my own hands dirty when I have the apple. Also from the emails in AC 1 we know Warren wasn't anything big in the order. Just the head of the Animus project, he worked for people who are way more mysterious. I actually feel good that they treated Warren with no respect, since no one liked him anyway.

10. I'm no huge fan of the endings so I won't defend them but yours are awful. ESPECIALLY 3 and 4. The hidden blade is not magical, Juno isn't a physical being so stealing her powers and killing her with a hidden blade is downright stupid. The fourth one is the most blatantly awful. They have stated MULTIPLE times that the Pieces of Eden have no effect on Those Who Came Before. Also I'm tired of poorly thought out inception plots. But my main point is your "better" endings are impossible.

So all in all I disagree.

SixKeys
12-21-2012, 02:54 AM
I see many people defending Connor's flat voice-acting with the excuse that native Americans just don't sound all that emotive. Then why is Connor's friend ten times more emotive and believable as a voice actor? I liked him and felt a connection to him almost more so than Connor simply because his acting was more convincing.

predatorpulse7
12-22-2012, 10:07 PM
3. This just shows your attitude. Connor has emotions, just subtle ones. When he is happy you can see it on his face with his small smile and way he holds himself. When he is sad he won't be crying, but his face show much pain it hurts. You say his voice is noble then call it flat, even though a noble voice implies arrogance and a self assured attitude. Connor grows quite a lot. I hate to bring this up over and over again but so many people don't seem to get this. Native Americans were raised in a different culture with different ideals. Connor was raised in his village learning that if you explain yourself fully then people will understand and listen. However this is not how Colonial America works. It's a bunch of lying and power plays. Connor was naive of this and thinks differently than others in the game. It's an easy enough concept to grasp once you realize the whole world isn't raised the same way and doesn't think alike. You not being able to relate to his story is you not being able to accept different lifestyles, and that is not a failure of the writing.



This seems like searching for things that aren't there. Connor isn't a dull character because Amerindian Culture is different, it's because Ubi had no idea what to do with him. I don't know if the writers for this game were different from the ones before but this guy has absolutely NO DIRECTION and has exactly 2 states: behaving like a emo ****** towards one of the few people that give a crap about him and saying nothing or moving at most a few facial muscles as the big boys tell him what errands he needs to do. He has almost no input in this story and his main job seems to be as a cameo in famous historical events from the American Revolutionary War.

He is THERE in person but he has little to no characterization so the players can't really identify with him. Altair and Ezio already had strong personalities(their archetypes being arrogant a-hole who must learn humility and the rogue'ish playboy type who is out for revenge after tragedy strikes) but they also had pretty strong secondary characters that let you see how our hero interacts with friends and enemies, to give you different facets of their character.

Connor is poorly written himself but his secondary cast is very weak themselves(even though I thought the VA was quite strong all around) all around. It's no coincidence that people(on different forums) love Haytham and Achilles, they are the only ones that seem to have a background and direction in life. You see their motivations, their character and you end up caring about them, even though Achilles is criminally underused. A game about Haytham would have been awesome.

I know what you are going to say, that Connor doesn't know what he is doing because he is naive, because he doesn't know which side is his in this war where he has too look out for his people and so on. I get that, but that shouldn't count as an excuse not to build up Connor's character, in fact it's the opposite. In times of great struggles, we should've seen more of Connor's inner motivations. I get that he wants to murder x to avenge his family but it's like I'm moving a brick from point A to point B without any real interest to what's happening to him in the story. There is no coincidence that the best sequences in the game are those when he is with his father because then we get to see a tiny bit of Connor's personality when dealing verbal blows with his father. But these are few and far between and you don't get the sense of Connor's place in this world of his whereas Altair and Ezio blended perfectly into theirs, along with their personality and motivations.

A character needs direction. You can't have him be an eternal fence sitter questioning the motivations of one side or the other. Connor sees the bad and the good in each side of the war but in the end he joins neither(or let's say he temporarily joins the revolutionaries), makes no long lasting friendships(his interactions with the people on the homestead are so incredibly wooden that they are painful to watch and his interaction with Achilles is limited to a couple of cutscenes), argues bitterly with his only benefactor for most of the game, ends up killing his best friend(when he could've disarmed him) for no reason, chases the man responsible for the death of his mother and kills him, buries Achilles and... well that's it actually. We don't know what happens to Connor afterwards. We barely get to see any facet of his personality throughout the game and when we are in danger of getting a look in, the game ends.

The reason why Connor won't be remembered as fondly as Altair or Ezio is because the character's main trait seems to be CONFUSION and I doubt that it's good thing.

FirestarLuva
12-22-2012, 10:22 PM
I see many people defending Connor's flat voice-acting with the excuse that native Americans just don't sound all that emotive. Then why is Connor's friend ten times more emotive and believable as a voice actor? I liked him and felt a connection to him almost more so than Connor simply because his acting was more convincing.

To be honest, Connor's friend's voice wasn't that great, just to say.
And we're not defending Connor's flat voice, we're defending it because it isn't flat. If you'd like to know more about Connor's voice actor, I'd suggest watching the podcast that came out some time ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4&hd=1
And to add one more thing; Ezio's voice wasn't that great either. He just had the accent to cover it. Try hearing Ezio without the accent you'd see it's quite monotone and terrible at some scenes. The reasons most people love his voice it's because it's an Italian accent. In general, people love everything about Italy.

predatorpulse7
12-22-2012, 11:14 PM
To be honest, Connor's friend's voice wasn't that great, just to say.
And we're not defending Connor's flat voice, we're defending it because it isn't flat. If you'd like to know more about Connor's voice actor, I'd suggest watching the podcast that came out some time ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4&hd=1
And to add one more thing; Ezio's voice wasn't that great either. He just had the accent to cover it. Try hearing Ezio without the accent you'd see it's quite monotone and terrible at some scenes. The reasons most people love his voice it's because it's an Italian accent. In general, people love everything about Italy.

It doesn't have anything to do with the accent but with the quality of the voice acting.

I don't know much about Noah Watts but Roger Craig Smith(Ezio's voice) is one of the best, if not the best, voice actors in the biz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Craig_Smith

That makes a huge difference and when coupled with decent writing it makes for a good and memorable character.

Connor is shafted from 2 directions: the voice acting for him is at most decent(as others have said it feels monotone and flat), whether intentional or not, and the writing for his character is suspect.

I really really wanted to like him because I knew Ezio's journey was over but he is bland, not just in comparison to Ezio or Altair, but even on his own. Haytham's character owns him in his own story and Haytham is a freaking villain.

Anyway, thanks for the podcast link

FirestarLuva
12-22-2012, 11:22 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with the accent but with the quality of the voice acting.

I don't know much about Noah Watts but Roger Craig Smith(Ezio's voice) is one of the best, if not the best, voice actors in the biz

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Craig_Smith

That makes a huge difference and when coupled with decent writing it makes for a good and memorable character.

Connor is shafted from 2 directions: the voice acting for him is at most decent(as others have said it feels monotone and flat), whether intentional or not, and the writing for his character is suspect.

I really really wanted to like him because I knew Ezio's journey was over but he is bland, not just in comparison to Ezio or Altair, but even on his own. Haytham's character owns him in his own story and Haytham is a freaking villain.

Anyway, thanks for the podcast link

No problem for the link. :)
I respect your opinion and the fact you really wanted to like Connor, I'd suggest giving him another chance. People shouldn't judge Connor too harshly. It's his first game. If there is another game coming out with him, you should give him a chance, and see if he becomes a good and memorable character in your eyes. :) You can give AC3 another try though, playing the main story and Homestead missions simultaneously, it gives a much bigger view of the story.

predatorpulse7
12-23-2012, 12:12 AM
No problem for the link. :)
I respect your opinion and the fact you really wanted to like Connor, I'd suggest giving him another chance. People shouldn't judge Connor too harshly. It's his first game. If there is another game coming out with him, you should give him a chance, and see if he becomes a good and memorable character in your eyes. :) You can give AC3 another try though, playing the main story and Homestead missions simultaneously, it gives a much bigger view of the story.

I finished AC3 not 2 weeks ago with 100% sync(I did all the Homestead missions) so my memory of Connor is pretty fresh. I don't think the fact that this is his first game counts as a sort of excuse. Altair sold us on the franchise after his first game and Ezio had the best game in the franchise(for most people at least)for his first game. I think the problem with Connor is in the writing. This is the first AC game where the protagonist is pretty much in the background, he seems more like an errand boy and cameo star in major historic events than a character with actual motivations so it's hard for people to care for him. He isn't helped by the fact that his main character seems to be confused about many many things, even towards the end of the game. Lack of direction is the main problem with Connor.

I know what we are saying is pretty much subjective but my disappointment with AC3 and it's main character can be best summed up like this:

When I finished AC1, I felt like I was in an amazing new world and had been on a long journey with Altair.
When I finished AC2, I witnessed Ezio's troubles and growth from a young brat to an assassin that was trying to avenge his family.
When I finished AC3, I felt like I spent a lot of hours doing stuff for people but I didn't feel particularly attached to anyone(except maybe Haytham/Achilles) by the end of the game.

To me, that's a big problem.

Kaschra
12-23-2012, 02:27 AM
To be honest, Connor's friend's voice wasn't that great, just to say.
And we're not defending Connor's flat voice, we're defending it because it isn't flat. If you'd like to know more about Connor's voice actor, I'd suggest watching the podcast that came out some time ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iU1KeUWEVa4&hd=1
And to add one more thing; Ezio's voice wasn't that great either. He just had the accent to cover it. Try hearing Ezio without the accent you'd see it's quite monotone and terrible at some scenes. The reasons most people love his voice it's because it's an Italian accent. In general, people love everything about Italy.

I simply love this "Ezio's voice only sounds better because he has an accent!" excuse. I love it because it's so ridiculous :)
For example, I don't think Desmond's voice sounds flat. Or Clay's, Lucy's, Rebecca's... yet they all don't have an accent either. It's just a stupid excuse for Connor.
Noah Watt's normal voice sounds even good, but his Connor voice... nope, don't like it that much.
And Roger Craig Smith's voice doesn't sound flat. I really love his voice and think it sounds great, with or without accent.





When I finished AC3, I felt like I spent a lot of hours doing stuff for people but I didn't feel particularly attached to anyone(except maybe Haytham/Achilles) by the end of the game.

To me, that's a big problem.

Yeah, I have to agree with that :/

VitaminsXYZ
12-23-2012, 02:59 AM
I simply love this "Ezio's voice only sounds better because he has an accent!" excuse. I love it because it's so ridiculous :)
For example, I don't think Desmond's voice sounds flat. Or Clay's, Lucy's, Rebecca's... yet they all don't have an accent either. It's just a stupid excuse for Connor.
Noah Watt's normal voice sounds even good, but his Connor voice... nope, don't like it that much.
And Roger Craig Smith's voice doesn't sound flat. I really love his voice and think it sounds great, with or without accent.




I think the thing here is that Desmond, Lucy, Rebecca, and all the rest speak English as their first language. Noah Watts himself said that because English is Connor's second language, he wanted it to sound more "direct," hence why he purposefully used a more robotic tone. I'm not saying that's great all the time, but I get what he was trying to do. Unfortunately many others won't, or at least won't agree with the direction he's taking. (Personally though, I was fine with his voice-acting.)

Kaschra
12-23-2012, 03:18 AM
I think the thing here is that Desmond, Lucy, Rebecca, and all the rest speak English as their first language. Noah Watts himself said that because English is Connor's second language, he wanted it to sound more "direct," hence why he purposefully used a more robotic tone. I'm not saying that's great all the time, but I get what he was trying to do. Unfortunately many others won't, or at least won't agree with the direction he's taking. (Personally though, I was fine with his voice-acting.)

I see... it still sounds weird in my ears (unless he's aggressive, that sounds all right).

Hm... English was Ziio's second language, too, wasn't it? I have no problem with her voice, no, the opposite, I like it a lot.
Maybe her voice actor didn't try to add that robotic tone and that's why I like it.

SixKeys
12-23-2012, 04:57 AM
This seems like searching for things that aren't there. Connor isn't a dull character because Amerindian Culture is different, it's because Ubi had no idea what to do with him. I don't know if the writers for this game were different from the ones before but this guy has absolutely NO DIRECTION and has exactly 2 states: behaving like a emo ****** towards one of the few people that give a crap about him and saying nothing or moving at most a few facial muscles as the big boys tell him what errands he needs to do. He has almost no input in this story and his main job seems to be as a cameo in famous historical events from the American Revolutionary War.

He is THERE in person but he has little to no characterization so the players can't really identify with him. Altair and Ezio already had strong personalities(their archetypes being arrogant a-hole who must learn humility and the rogue'ish playboy type who is out for revenge after tragedy strikes) but they also had pretty strong secondary characters that let you see how our hero interacts with friends and enemies, to give you different facets of their character.

Connor is poorly written himself but his secondary cast is very weak themselves(even though I thought the VA was quite strong all around) all around. It's no coincidence that people(on different forums) love Haytham and Achilles, they are the only ones that seem to have a background and direction in life. You see their motivations, their character and you end up caring about them, even though Achilles is criminally underused. A game about Haytham would have been awesome.

I know what you are going to say, that Connor doesn't know what he is doing because he is naive, because he doesn't know which side is his in this war where he has too look out for his people and so on. I get that, but that shouldn't count as an excuse not to build up Connor's character, in fact it's the opposite. In times of great struggles, we should've seen more of Connor's inner motivations. I get that he wants to murder x to avenge his family but it's like I'm moving a brick from point A to point B without any real interest to what's happening to him in the story. There is no coincidence that the best sequences in the game are those when he is with his father because then we get to see a tiny bit of Connor's personality when dealing verbal blows with his father. But these are few and far between and you don't get the sense of Connor's place in this world of his whereas Altair and Ezio blended perfectly into theirs, along with their personality and motivations.

A character needs direction. You can't have him be an eternal fence sitter questioning the motivations of one side or the other. Connor sees the bad and the good in each side of the war but in the end he joins neither(or let's say he temporarily joins the revolutionaries), makes no long lasting friendships(his interactions with the people on the homestead are so incredibly wooden that they are painful to watch and his interaction with Achilles is limited to a couple of cutscenes), argues bitterly with his only benefactor for most of the game, ends up killing his best friend(when he could've disarmed him) for no reason, chases the man responsible for the death of his mother and kills him, buries Achilles and... well that's it actually. We don't know what happens to Connor afterwards. We barely get to see any facet of his personality throughout the game and when we are in danger of getting a look in, the game ends.

The reason why Connor won't be remembered as fondly as Altair or Ezio is because the character's main trait seems to be CONFUSION and I doubt that it's good thing.

+1

Assassin_M
12-23-2012, 05:41 AM
I find some of the excuses to defend or prove a point hilarious xD

Genos99
12-23-2012, 07:44 AM
they tried to hang ezio in revelations ...now they r gonna kill me....desmond

http://i48.tinypic.com/s5usdh.jpg



it wont make sense if desmond dies.......cuz all the skills & knowledge which he learnt ,all will be waste , also he saved juno (jupiter said not to save her but he saved so if she turns in to a templar type.....then desmond is going to be fool for saving her)

also how come any other new character can step into such a strong character .....like desmond o_O?


so...desmond cant dieeeeeeeeeeeee

AjinkyaParuleka
12-23-2012, 09:15 AM
I just read the entire post from this usedtobeacfan i can make out he doesn't loves history and is a brit.In my opinion American War is the best history setting till now.This game wasn't for Americans,AC2 wasn't for italians..you sir are lame according to me.

predatorpulse7
12-23-2012, 10:10 AM
I just read the entire post from this usedtobeacfan i can make out he doesn't loves history and is a brit.In my opinion American War is the best history setting till now.This game wasn't for Americans,AC2 wasn't for italians..you sir are lame according to me.

It has nothing to do with the historical setting itself(besides, how can you HATE a time period? LOL) but how well it goes with the Assassins Creed world. When the announcement came out that the setting was gonna be colonial America quite a few people wondered "how the hell are they gonna make that work in an AC game?". And guess what, those people have pretty much been proven right.

There have been 4 major releases in the AC franchise and ALL of them had the main protagonist roam around the rooftops of certain civilizations, civilizations which had TALL BUILDINGS and interesting architecture. You could immerse yourself in the world just by diddling around on rooftops or even on foot if you liked. The music helped a lot as well.

In AC3, the cities are not only pretty small when compared to previous ones but most buildings are barely one story tall(not to mention that guards can easily spot you on the rooftops),the only semi-interesting buildings are churches and even those pale in comparison to the cathedrals of past games. They almost took the vertical component out of cities and instead we were encouraged to roam around on branches in the frontier. That was pretty fun for the first couple of hours until you remember that you are play an AC game which has always meant URBAN ASSASSINATIONS, not air assassinating animals in the freaking forest.

I understand the need for innovation but you shouldn't fix what isn't broken. AC should stay on the rooftops, preferably tall ones at that. It's the signature of the series basically.

Assassin_M
12-23-2012, 10:18 AM
AC should stay on the rooftops, preferably tall ones at that. It's the signature of the series basically.
That`s not a fact....

Also, he`s right. OP has some very Idiotic points that everyone just agrees with them simply because they hate the game too...

predatorpulse7
12-23-2012, 11:21 AM
That`s not a fact....



Actually, it pretty much is.

This is just arguing for arguing's sake.

No one played Assassins Creed to stay on the ground, they wanted to scale the grand buildings and run around rooftops, the parkour moves as it were. Unless you think parkour is jumping over fences a la Assassin's Creed 3. You need to jump gaps, scale tall buildings etc.

Moving around is easily half of AC's appeal and Ubi pretty much removed all interest in the vertical component of this game by putting the game in a time period when they didn't have enough tall buildings(making rooftops highways nearly non-existent unlike in previous games) and making you incredibly easy to spot(and shoot) even on those that you would climb. You are encouraged instead to take to the branches and air assassinate animals in the forest because we know that's what Assassin's Creed is all about.

Assassin_M
12-23-2012, 11:28 AM
Actually, it pretty much is.


Nope...

All I see is YOUR perception of what AC is about....Yours alone...speak of it as such and you`ll get no argument from me..

SharbelHSalfiti
12-27-2012, 12:20 PM
if there ever was a big wtf moment it must be assassin creed 3 ending .
how stupid was that desmond died but you can still play as connor, there is no future but you can still play in the past :0 stupidddddddddd
assassin's creed 3 is the worst ending since god of war 3.

Assassin_M
12-27-2012, 12:29 PM
if there ever was a big wtf moment it must be assassin creed 3 ending .
how stupid was that desmond died but you can still play as connor, there is no future but you can still play in the past :0 stupidddddddddd
assassin's creed 3 is the worst ending since god of war 3.
The world was saved what the hell are you talking about ????? And Connor has HUNDREDS of Descendants...Not just Desmond -__-

AdrianJacek
12-27-2012, 05:00 PM
That`s not a fact....

Also, he`s right. OP has some very Idiotic points that everyone just agrees with them simply because they hate the game too...
People act like tree free running is not fun. Let me quote Piri Reis: "Ha! What a load of horse p*ss."
Also - I haven't even noticed I didn't use rooftops all that much on my first playthrough. Had too much FUN. And on my second I discovered that using them is still FUN. You know, if someone bothers to climb a house. Just need you open your eyes and look for pathways.

HazemYossri
12-27-2012, 09:05 PM
That was pretty fun for the first couple of hours until you remember that you are play an AC game which has always meant URBAN ASSASSINATIONS, not air assassinating animals in the freaking forest.

You got it and you got it extremely right my friend, roaming around the frontier was good for awhile then you discover that you are supposed to be playing AC not Far Cry! You want to make a game and you feel the need to make it in the woods? that's fine by me but go and do this in FC. and DO NOT mess with Assassin's Creed under the name of innovation and trying something new!

And to clarify this, " tree free running " may be fun, but my problem here that it's not for AC. Tell me for God's sake, after roaming the frontier for 5 hours assassinating "animals"! and doing all this hunting stuff, now what's the FUN?!

This is not "Wild life and bad*** Hunters' Creed" It's Assassin's Creed!

Maybe if the setting was handled well , I wouldn't pay much attention to the dullness of the main protagonist (in my opinion) but with dull protagonist and crappy setting this game made me go and replay the whole franchise form scratch again( which I did 3 or 4 times BTW) to recapture the universe and magic of Assassin's Creed which I nearly lost after playing this bizarre game!

Assassin_M
12-27-2012, 09:53 PM
You got it and you got it extremely right my friend, roaming around the frontier was good for awhile then you discover that you are supposed to be playing AC not Far Cry! You want to make a game and you feel the need to make it in the woods? that's fine by me but go and do this in FC. and DO NOT mess with Assassin's Creed under the name of innovation and trying something new!

And to clarify this, " tree free running " may be fun, but my problem here that it's not for AC. Tell me for God's sake, after roaming the frontier for 5 hours assassinating "animals"! and doing all this hunting stuff, now what's the FUN?!

This is not "Wild life and bad*** Hunters' Creed" It's Assassin's Creed!

Maybe if the setting was handled well , I wouldn't pay much attention to the dullness of the main protagonist (in my opinion) but with dull protagonist and crappy setting this game made me go and replay the whole franchise form scratch again( which I did 3 or 4 times BTW) to recapture the universe and magic of Assassin's Creed which I nearly lost after playing this bizarre game!
Then I guess Grand Theft Auto should not be about anything but stealing cars and lets throw away going bowling, eating, drinking, darts, dancing, girlfriends, assassinations, Drug deals, helicopters, planes...etc

Yeah...lets throw away all the meat and leave the bones. the thing is that the ASSASSINS in Assassins Creed is STILL there. It`s not like they removed Assassination and stealth and replaced them with Hunting. You can still Assassinate and use stealth, BUT you can also hunt...What`s the problem ??? I seriously have no freaking Idea...Why ask for an ADDITION to be freaking removed ????

TrueAssassin77
12-28-2012, 12:59 AM
Then I guess Grand Theft Auto should not be about anything but stealing cars and lets throw away going bowling, eating, drinking, darts, dancing, girlfriends, assassinations, Drug deals, helicopters, planes...etc

Yeah...lets throw away all the meat and leave the bones. the thing is that the ASSASSINS in Assassins Creed is STILL there. It`s not like they removed Assassination and stealth and replaced them with Hunting. You can still Assassinate and use stealth, BUT you can also hunt...What`s the problem ??? I seriously have no freaking Idea...Why ask for an ADDITION to be freaking removed ????
selfishness and stupidity is why

HazemYossri
12-28-2012, 02:06 AM
Then I guess Grand Theft Auto should not be about anything but stealing cars and lets throw away going bowling, eating, drinking, darts, dancing, girlfriends, assassinations, Drug deals, helicopters, planes...etc

Yeah...lets throw away all the meat and leave the bones. the thing is that the ASSASSINS in Assassins Creed is STILL there. It`s not like they removed Assassination and stealth and replaced them with Hunting. You can still Assassinate and use stealth, BUT you can also hunt...What`s the problem ??? I seriously have no freaking Idea...Why ask for an ADDITION to be freaking removed ????



Oh well, Assassination and stealth ?! when do we exactly do this fancy things ?! for a game about assassinations and stealth AC III was a huge let down!

and let us refresh our memories.. Do we assassinate Lee?! Answer is No we Do Not! We kill him after a silly chase and a dump cut scene!!

Do we assassinate Haythem?! Oh, don't get me start on that!

The main villain and maybe the most interesting character in the whole game and how do you take him out?

By hitting him against crates and tables?! KIDDING me, right?!!!

And we reach the " Assassination Contracts" oh yeah.. finally some assassinations in this game.. what?!! wait!!

there is no assassination in the Assassination Contracts! and when you get some, it tells you to kill a random guy walking in front of you. who is this guy? why bother killing him?
No details on any thing!

And the Stealth! the only missions we may say it have the concept of stealth are the Forts' missions! and even when you compare those to the War machines of Leonardo ones in Brotherhood, you will came to an end that AC III failed even in stealth!

Yet, despite this anger and disappointment it remains one of the most enjoyable games of 2012. and if this game had been an independent title away from AC I might have enjoyed it and considered it a masterpiece or whatever!

the problem here (over and over again) is THIS IS ASSASSIN'S CREED!!

Assassin_M
12-28-2012, 02:13 AM
Oh well, Assassination and stealth ?! when do we exactly do this fancy things ?! for a game about assassinations and stealth AC III was a huge let down!

and let us refresh our memories.. Do we assassinate Lee?! Answer is No we Do Not! We kill him after a silly chase and a dump cut scene!!

Do we assassinate Haythem?! Oh, don't get me start on that!

The main villain and maybe the most interesting character in the whole game and how do you take him out?

By hitting him against crates and tables?! KIDDING me, right?!!!

And we reach the " Assassination Contracts" oh yeah.. finally some assassinations in this game.. what?!! wait!!

there is no assassination in the Assassination Contracts! and when you get some, it tells you to kill a random guy walking in front of you. who is this guy? why bother killing him?
No details on any thing!

And the Stealth! the only missions we may say it have the concept of stealth are the Forts' missions! and even when you compare those to the War machines of Leonardo ones in Brotherhood, you will came to an end that AC III failed even in stealth!

Yet, despite this anger and disappointment it remains one of the most enjoyable games of 2012. and if this game had been an independent title away from AC I might have enjoyed it and considered it a masterpiece or whatever!

the problem here (over and over again) is THIS IS ASSASSIN'S CREED!!
What about Robert and Al mualim in AC I ??? Rodrigo Borgia in AC II ?? and hell we don't even get to kill him. Cesare in Brotherhood ?? I didn't see you complain about those...But just because AC III has HUNTING..Then it`s OH GOD It`s AZZAZZINZ CREED NOT HUNTERZ CREED..right ?? Oh and there`s stealth..

Assassinating Pitcarin, Assassinating Johnson, Forts and various tailing missions...just because a couple of missions do not have stealth, does not mean the whole game has no stealth..

HazemYossri
12-28-2012, 02:17 AM
Why ask for an ADDITION to be freaking removed ????

Because somehow it became "The Frontier is 1.5 times larger than Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood's Rome, making it the largest map in the Assassin's Creed series to date"

This is not an addition my friend! it's a game on its own! and you said an addition, right ?! this requires the presence of the original thing to add to it! they even blew this with the setting and scenery by giving us cities with no architectural work and dwarf houses!

You took what I enjoyed the most off the game and replaced it with "addition" and you expect no complaints?!

Keep your "addition" and bring back my original thing! I think this is a fair deal.

Assassin_M
12-28-2012, 02:21 AM
Keep your "addition" and bring back my original thing! I think this is a fair deal.
That`s not what you were asking for initially...You wanted all this hunting and useless crap to be removed, because it`s "Assassins Creed" not "Hunters Creed"

And your post is just reminiscent of a very flawed view. Your Opinion..sure...I think it`s flawed AT BEST.

I hope no one listens to you...

HazemYossri
12-28-2012, 02:25 AM
What about Robert and Al mualim in AC I ??? Rodrigo Borgia in AC II ?? and hell we don't even get to kill him. Cesare in Brotherhood ?? I didn't see you complain about those...But just because AC III has HUNTING..Then it`s OH GOD It`s AZZAZZINZ CREED NOT HUNTERZ CREED..right ?? Oh and there`s stealth..

Assassinating Pitcarin, Assassinating Johnson, Forts and various tailing missions...just because a couple of missions do not have stealth, does not mean the whole game has no stealth..

All these fights you mentioned were worth playing.. After a game full of assassinations you become satisfied with a long fight against the main villain of the game!

And the stealth?! you compare these missions to the stealth in any other previous AC game?! And I believe it's " just because a couple of missions have stealth, does not mean the whole game has stealth!"

HazemYossri
12-28-2012, 02:33 AM
That`s not what you were asking for initially...You wanted all this hunting and useless crap to be removed, because it`s "Assassins Creed" not "Hunters Creed"

And your post is just reminiscent of a very flawed view. Your Opinion..sure...I think it`s flawed AT BEST.

I hope no one listens to you...

This is funny!

I do not give a **** about this hunting and useless crap and I wish it would be thrown away and burn in hell! but I'm not the only human on the planet playing the game!

You, for example, enjoyed this hunting thing so I tried to get a deal where you keep what you enjoyed and I keep what I loved!

If this makes my opinion "flawed" so I'm sorry I tried to find a solution where we both enjoy the game!

Assassin_M
12-28-2012, 02:44 AM
If this makes my opinion "flawed" so I'm sorry I tried to find a solution where we both enjoy the game!
Like I said, That was not what you said in the first post. You never said "Oh yeah I want both, but I prefer the Assassins in Assassins creed" in your FIRST post. What you said was basically this "Hunting can burn in hell it`s stupid I dont want it ARARARARARARARAR this is assassins creed not hunters creed ARARARARARARARA"

That was my point of your flaw in views....

Assassin_M
12-28-2012, 02:50 AM
All these fights you mentioned were worth playing.. After a game full of assassinations you become satisfied with a long fight against the main villain of the game!

And the stealth?! you compare these missions to the stealth in any other previous AC game?! And I believe it's " just because a couple of missions have stealth, does not mean the whole game has stealth!"
Like I said...flawed logic...You give excuses for the same things you hated in AC III and I never said the whole game has stealth...

HazemYossri
12-28-2012, 03:17 AM
Like I said...flawed logic...You give excuses for the same things you hated in AC III and I never said the whole game has stealth...

I began to get the feeling that we both are replying to two different threads! I Do not need to give excuses. Like I said I was trying to put what each of us loves in one combination to have a game that we both find enjoyable. But if this is so hard to be comprehended so be it!

I hope the devs cut this s***y things off and let them burn in hell.

So what I hated about the game now is history and I kept what I loved, What a bargain!

For the record, It's sad to see AC community turning into ME and Bioware one.

Assassin_M
12-28-2012, 03:22 AM
I began to get the feeling that we both are replying to two different threads! I Do not need to give excuses. Like I said I was trying to put what each of us loves in one combination to have a game that we both find enjoyable. But if this is so hard to be comprehended so be it!

I hope the devs cut this s***y things off and let them burn in hell.

So what I hated about the game now is history and I kept what I loved, What a bargain!

For the record, It's sad to see AC community turning into ME and Bioware one.
I`m done. I explained my position and actually I`m the one who proposed having the "useless crap" AND exciting assassination. Not you....

Read your first post again...I`m done here

HazemYossri
12-28-2012, 10:23 AM
I`m done. I explained my position and actually I`m the one who proposed having the "useless crap" AND exciting assassination. Not you....

Read your first post again...I`m done here


I'm done from the second comment BTW, from that moment I lost you and honestly I don't know what exactly you were arguing about.

Anyway there is one thing that I know for sure that both of us love Assassin's Creed and this is fair enough :cool:

BTW, It seems that the controversy over AC III would last until the next AC as the two sides ( lovers and haters) are repeating their arguements over and over and over again! :p

abdullah226
12-28-2012, 10:44 AM
well ending sucked bad no doubt not clear at all left a teaser as usual and its not good ://

mashroot
12-28-2012, 02:49 PM
well ending sucked bad no doubt not clear at all left a teaser as usual and its not good ://

I don't think the ending sucked. It was non-conclusive (I think and I hope that Desmond is still alive, because I want him to become the ultimate assassin) and the teaser makes me want more. I don't see a problem with a more modern story, the Desmond levels were really good in my opinion. I can't wait to find out what happens next, the suspense is driving me crazy!

AjinkyaParuleka
12-28-2012, 02:56 PM
Even if Shaun or Rebecca didn't said anything they did LOOK back at Desmond,thus they care for him.

HazemYossri
12-28-2012, 03:56 PM
I don't think the ending sucked. It was non-conclusive (I think and I hope that Desmond is still alive, because I want him to become the ultimate assassin) and the teaser makes me want more. I don't see a problem with a more modern story, the Desmond levels were really good in my opinion. I can't wait to find out what happens next, the suspense is driving me crazy!

this is what I think too, Actually this is what I hope because if not this ending will be honored as one of the top 5 most ridiculous endings in the history of gaming! and this is such an honor I don't want my favorite franchise to claim!


Even if Shaun or Rebecca didn't said anything they did LOOK back at Desmond,thus they care for him.


At this moment it felt like

" Desmond : okay guys I'm gonna die for now I'll catch up with you later.
Shaun: ............
Williams: Okay son see you in the afterlife.
Rebecca: ................

and claiming that they looked back at him is just ridiculous!

In brotherhood ending you shout WTF but this is because the end was shocking, really shocking but yet, amazing!

In AC III you shout:

http://dailypicksandflicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/WTF-Picard-meme.jpg

predatorpulse7
12-28-2012, 06:47 PM
Regardless of who likes what I think that the AC community should drop the word STEALTH when it comes to AC singleplayer.

AC was never about stealth and on the few missions where you had forced stealth, it was poorly implemented. The only AC game which had some stealth elements was AC1 but that was only because your arsenal was so limited and countering was a bit tougher than in games that came after it so you needed a more cautious approach. While you could go around killing everybody then dealing with your main target, the optimal route was almost always to sneak into the area(bleding along the way), killing the target and running like hell.

In AC2,Brohood and Revelations Ezio is a freaking tank that can dispatch almost anyone at will so the sneak route is not encouraged, except in a couple of missions and even then it can become really annoying. AC3 gave us wall hugging(which can in itself be problematic at times because of the controls) and whistling to attract a guard and dispatch him so that's a tiny improvement but overall AC series sucks in stealth because you don't know how visible you are(no shadows to hide in or other hiding places except bales of hay,bushes), you don't have some kind of visual or audio aid to know how close guards(or at least something like a vision cone, anyone who has played commandos knows what I am talking about) so it's more pray it goes well instead of a layed out plan beforehand like in most stealth games.

Try capturing a fort stealthily in AC3. See how that works out for ya.

It's plain that these games are made for COMBAT. The kill animations in AC3(latest iteration) are stunning and the combat flows well while the stealth is incredibly cumbersome.

Assassin_M
12-29-2012, 06:57 AM
Try capturing a fort stealthily in AC3. See how that works out for ya.

Fairly Ignorant...

What about those guys ??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1mcHmZGUB0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjnEhBnpYCY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vjz2hm4klI
They must`v been playing another game Uhhhh ?? Wait...wait....Something amazing is about to happen....You`re coming up with another crap excuse...

When you say AC is not about stealth then you`re completely in the bliss....and I mean completely....as in...you`re not even born yet

VitaminsXYZ
12-29-2012, 09:00 AM
Fairly Ignorant...

What about those guys ??

They must`v been playing another game Uhhhh ?? Wait...wait....Something amazing is about to happen....You`re coming up with another crap excuse...

When you say AC is not about stealth then you`re completely in the bliss....and I mean completely....as in...you`re not even born yet

Aww, come on now. It's not really necessary to call him ignorant or his 'excuses' crap.

And I kind of agree with predatorpulse actually. I love the combat in AC, especially AC3, but I definitely felt that the series in general isn't as stealth-oriented. Personally I don't think that's always a bad thing. The AC games have always been in the "action-adventure" vein anyways, so I don't think they ever intended it to be a full-out assassin type game like Hitman. However, it's understandable if you actually want to feel like an assassin, like in the title of the game, and your videos prove that it's still definitely possible to play the AC games in a more stealthy manner.

Assassin_M
12-29-2012, 09:07 AM
Aww, come on now. It's not really necessary to call him ignorant or his 'excuses' crap.

And I kind of agree with predatorpulse actually. I love the combat in AC, especially AC3, but I definitely felt that the series in general isn't as stealth-oriented. Personally I don't think that's always a bad thing. The AC games have always been in the "action-adventure" vein anyways, so I don't think they ever intended it to be a full-out assassin type game like Hitman. However, it's understandable if you actually want to feel like an assassin, like in the title of the game, and your videos prove that it's still definitely possible to play the AC games in a more stealthy manner.
I apologize for calling him Ignorant, BUT....his excuses are crap..If he does not agree with something, he`ll come up with some ridiculous reason why what i`m saying is mute....I know.

indigeek
01-20-2013, 09:07 PM
Disappointing indeed...and more so because of all the hype and missed opportunities. IMO, this is what didn't work:

Connor's character: Dull, confused and clueless. Especially in contrast to Haytham. Haytham was everything I expected in the main character (a smooth talking cool badass with strong convictions). Haytham saying "Well, we'll have to do something about that, won't we?" felt more menacing than Connor brandishing the tomahawk. By the end, I couldn't care less what happened to Connor and his village (which he was trying to save...but couldn't...loser).

The frontier: Oh look, a bunny! Nuff said.

The missions: Follow, eavesdrop, chase, fight. That was about the only diversity there was. Sneaking and stealth were non-existent. No need to scale structures (there weren't many anyway), no need to plan. There was pretty much only one way to do most missions, the game handheld me through it and I sleepwalked through. Meh..

It's 10 pm, do you know where Charles Lee is?: That is what the storyline was, with a lot of menial tasks thrown in so that it wouldn't end so soon. If I try to remember, each sequence felt like: Do menial task some person gave you -> go back to said person -> ask where Charles Lee is (or maybe Pitcairn).

Lying flat on my back, trying to kill you: Way to go, game devs! Nothing feels more badass than lying flat on your back, wait for your target to hover over you and then pressing the X button when prompted. In fact for Charles, there is even no need to press the X button, the cut scene takes care of it (I even expected an achievement like "Are you happy to see me or is that a gun in your pocket?"). What a ****** way to kill someone!

Side quests: Earlier we had Leonardo missions and Assassin Tombs. AC3 had walking through tunnels following rats and lighting lamps. Squeee!

Sure, the naval warfare and improved combat were good but not enough to redeem the many pitfalls. Bye bye Ubisoft.

Kraschman2010
01-21-2013, 07:37 AM
You complain about the game's setting, but was 14th Century Italy meant just for Italian gamers? Was Assassin's Creed only meant for Middle Eastern gamers? They felt it was a good idea, and they are a FRENCH company, they don't give a **** about just americans.

So far I enjoy the game, and maybe it's just me.

^ this.

I must admit that I haven't completed it yet, but I'm LOVING this. I suspect the OP's comments stem far more from his own anti-American feelings (or at least extreme indifference but I doubt it) than any effort on the developer's part. I'm not American but I find their take on the American Revolution interesting.

I'm also curious about something. He says he won't buy the game, rent it, borrow it, or even download it from a torrent. So exactly from what is he/she basing their opinion?

As for Eurostar's comments: No emotion? Connor's village burnt, his mother burning to death while he's helpless to save her? Forced to kill his own best friend? Losing his mentor even? Tons of emotion there from what I see... And I don't quite get the contradiction part.

predatorpulse7
01-22-2013, 02:32 PM
I apologize for calling him Ignorant, BUT....his excuses are crap..If he does not agree with something, he`ll come up with some ridiculous reason why what i`m saying is mute....I know.

I find it funny that you called me fanboy in our past discussions yet you defend this game at every turn with the exact rabid fanboyism you accuse me of, even actually having the stones to say that this game has good stealth so you can defend it some more. If I would say on gaming forums that AC had at any point in its existence GOOD STEALTH or good stealth mechanics I would be laughed off the face of the earth but since we are on the Ubi forums I guess we can atribute to the series all manner of things it doesn't have, including good stealth.

You my friend, have probably never played a game that requires ACTUAL STEALTH and encourages it through its mechanics and reward systems.
Try games like the whole Thief Series, Dishonored partially(which is basically Thief lite if you go the silent route), Commandos series and so on. They encourage stealth because the protagonist(s) is usually very weak and any amount of combat will usually involve his death. Altair/Ezio/Connor can take on whole armies without even breaking a sweat. Do these overpowered characters suggest a game that encourages you to be stealthy?

AC3 has either forced stealth(don't let them spot you or you die, something which was before in the series as well and not exactly the most popular of missions with most people) or optional stealth. But the game mechanics are really bad for a stealth game, that's why most players skip it and go for the combat route. A good stealth game lets you know about the visibility of the player(see Thief's light gem for best example), some will have mechanics like vision cone for the enemies, a sort of auditory cone if you throw something to distract the guards(to know which guard will be affected so you can plan a strategy), pretty big maps with many entry/exit points(instead of the tiny "map" represented by a fort), you usually have to dump/hide the bodies in these kind of games and so on.

AC3 has hiding in bushes with incredibly wonky mechanics(you go in cover automatically if you are near them and can accidentally slip out of cover if you are near the edge, there is no crouch as far as I can remember) + wall hugging and whistling to attract guards but you don't know which guard you will attract(usually the nearest) or if more than one will come. Seeing as Connor tends to "stick" to different surfaces depending on the profile in which you are in(and again, the controls can be fussy, I'm not the first to bring up this issue) and that the whole silent fort capture requires precision, the whole "stealth" thing tends to blow up in your face more often than not.

Digging up 2-3 vids showing silent fort captures isn't exactly a strong argument here, even moreso considering some of the comments in these vids say something like "thank God someone is actually doing stealth in fort takeover" indicating that most gamers avoid Ubi's wonky stealth mechanics and go for the combat version. I'd wager most playing this game would rather be silent assassins than Rambo clones but they soon realize that the stealth mechanics are so broken and the rewards few to none that it simply isn't worth the hassle. I did one silent fort takeover after countless tries and the satisfaction has hardly there after I finished, because I spent more time frustrated by the bad stealth mechanics than by the positioning of my enemies or the near sentient AI like in an actual stealth game. It was more masochism than fun and this is coming from a guy that grew up playing stealth games(including the macdaddy of them all, Thief) so I'm not the instant gratification type of gamer that wants everything on a platter.

But the biggest argument that this series doesn't really like or focus on stealth is that there is no actual reward for being stealthy, other than the "cool" factor and no penalty if you get discovered. You can string someone up via rope dart in a tree or use the same rope dart from behind to silently take out an enemy but again, what's the incentive to do so? You could silently stalk from bushes and lure countless guards to the same spot to stab them but you could get exactly the same results by simply hacking them to death in 30 secs, with cooler kill animations to boot and with near invulnerability on your side since the guy you are controlling is a death dealing machine with uber chunks of health.

To conclude, this is why AC is not a stealth game and the "stealthing" is merely pretense:

-it has the most basic of game mechanics present in a stealth game and I mean really BASIC. AC3 has really barebones stealth mechanics and the games before it had it even worse.

-the protagonist is OVERPOWERED whereas the usual protagonist in most stealth based game is UNDERPOWERED and dies in most open combat situations regardless of player skill level.

-there is no reward for being stealthy,you don't get more xp, more money, more anything the only benefit is one of the 100% sync conditions for missions x is not to be spotted but otherwise, in open world scenarios(like the fort capture) there is no actual in-game incentive to play stealthy.

-there is no penalty for not being stealthy/failing stealth - say you try to be stealthy but are discovered. In most stealth games, this means certain DEATH unless you can throw some kind of device to distract guards(like a flash bomb in Thief) so that your character can run away and save his sorry ***. In AC3(and all AC games really) being discovered means that you have more baddies that line up for counter mashing + awesome kill animations that the player can watch. Actual stealth games rely on fear that you will be discovered, the dredd of near discovery when guards are nearby, knowing that they can easily take you on. In AC3 you don't have this fear because you can kick anyone's butt ten times over so discovery means absolutely nothing unless it's one of those insta-fail if seen missions.

You want a game series that does both combat and sneaking right, try the DEUS EX series.

Assassin_M
01-22-2013, 06:53 PM
I find it funny that you called me fanboy in our past discussions yet you defend this game at every turn with the exact rabid fanboyism you accuse me of, even actually having the stones to say that this game has good stealth so you can defend it some more. If I would say on gaming forums that AC had at any point in its existence GOOD STEALTH or good stealth mechanics I would be laughed off the face of the earth but since we are on the Ubi forums I guess we can atribute to the series all manner of things it doesn't have, including good stealth.

You my friend, have probably never played a game that requires ACTUAL STEALTH and encourages it through its mechanics and reward systems.
Try games like the whole Thief Series, Dishonored partially(which is basically Thief lite if you go the silent route), Commandos series and so on. They encourage stealth because the protagonist(s) is usually very weak and any amount of combat will usually involve his death. Altair/Ezio/Connor can take on whole armies without even breaking a sweat. Do these overpowered characters suggest a game that encourages you to be stealthy?

AC3 has either forced stealth(don't let them spot you or you die, something which was before in the series as well and not exactly the most popular of missions with most people) or optional stealth. But the game mechanics are really bad for a stealth game, that's why most players skip it and go for the combat route. A good stealth game lets you know about the visibility of the player(see Thief's light gem for best example), some will have mechanics like vision cone for the enemies, a sort of auditory cone if you throw something to distract the guards(to know which guard will be affected so you can plan a strategy), pretty big maps with many entry/exit points(instead of the tiny "map" represented by a fort), you usually have to dump/hide the bodies in these kind of games and so on.

AC3 has hiding in bushes with incredibly wonky mechanics(you go in cover automatically if you are near them and can accidentally slip out of cover if you are near the edge, there is no crouch as far as I can remember) + wall hugging and whistling to attract guards but you don't know which guard you will attract(usually the nearest) or if more than one will come. Seeing as Connor tends to "stick" to different surfaces depending on the profile in which you are in(and again, the controls can be fussy, I'm not the first to bring up this issue) and that the whole silent fort capture requires precision, the whole "stealth" thing tends to blow up in your face more often than not.

Digging up 2-3 vids showing silent fort captures isn't exactly a strong argument here, even moreso considering some of the comments in these vids say something like "thank God someone is actually doing stealth in fort takeover" indicating that most gamers avoid Ubi's wonky stealth mechanics and go for the combat version. I'd wager most playing this game would rather be silent assassins than Rambo clones but they soon realize that the stealth mechanics are so broken and the rewards few to none that it simply isn't worth the hassle. I did one silent fort takeover after countless tries and the satisfaction has hardly there after I finished, because I spent more time frustrated by the bad stealth mechanics than by the positioning of my enemies or the near sentient AI like in an actual stealth game. It was more masochism than fun and this is coming from a guy that grew up playing stealth games(including the macdaddy of them all, Thief) so I'm not the instant gratification type of gamer that wants everything on a platter.

But the biggest argument that this series doesn't really like or focus on stealth is that there is no actual reward for being stealthy, other than the "cool" factor and no penalty if you get discovered. You can string someone up via rope dart in a tree or use the same rope dart from behind to silently take out an enemy but again, what's the incentive to do so? You could silently stalk from bushes and lure countless guards to the same spot to stab them but you could get exactly the same results by simply hacking them to death in 30 secs, with cooler kill animations to boot and with near invulnerability on your side since the guy you are controlling is a death dealing machine with uber chunks of health.

To conclude, this is why AC is not a stealth game and the "stealthing" is merely pretense:

-it has the most basic of game mechanics present in a stealth game and I mean really BASIC. AC3 has really barebones stealth mechanics and the games before it had it even worse.

-the protagonist is OVERPOWERED whereas the usual protagonist in most stealth based game is UNDERPOWERED and dies in most open combat situations regardless of player skill level.

-there is no reward for being stealthy,you don't get more xp, more money, more anything the only benefit is one of the 100% sync conditions for missions x is not to be spotted but otherwise, in open world scenarios(like the fort capture) there is no actual in-game incentive to play stealthy.

-there is no penalty for not being stealthy/failing stealth - say you try to be stealthy but are discovered. In most stealth games, this means certain DEATH unless you can throw some kind of device to distract guards(like a flash bomb in Thief) so that your character can run away and save his sorry ***. In AC3(and all AC games really) being discovered means that you have more baddies that line up for counter mashing + awesome kill animations that the player can watch. Actual stealth games rely on fear that you will be discovered, the dredd of near discovery when guards are nearby, knowing that they can easily take you on. In AC3 you don't have this fear because you can kick anyone's butt ten times over so discovery means absolutely nothing unless it's one of those insta-fail if seen missions.

You want a game series that does both combat and sneaking right, try the DEUS EX series.
You wrote all of that. Congratulations, mate good for you, but it`s useless, because no where did I say that AC has good stealth...hell, I`m bashing a lot of the things in AC III in other threads xD especially stealth...open you eyes a BIT bro before you go out of your way saying things that are not true

Also, you`re a month late.....I kinda feel sorry for you

predatorpulse7
01-22-2013, 07:56 PM
You wrote all of that. Congratulations, mate good for you, but it`s useless, because no where did I say that AC has good stealth...hell, I`m bashing a lot of the things in AC III in other threads xD especially stealth...open you eyes a BIT bro before you go out of your way saying things that are not true

Also, you`re a month late.....I kinda feel sorry for you

Not outright but you are implying it by showing me clips of silent fort takeover. If I say that, because of bad mechanics(not the outright diffculty), silent fort takeovers are pretty hard to do(and not worth the trouble tbh since you get no reward for being stealthy) and you show me a couple of clips of said takeover then it's only natural to assume that your message to me is "the stealth ain't so bad, look, other people did it". Well so did I eventually but that doesn't make my point any less true.

And in my original post I didn't say that silently taking over a fort was IMPOSSIBLE(since you tried to prove me wrong by showing me clips), just very hard to do because of cumbersome stealth mechanics and not encouraged in-game because there is no reward system for it. As I said before, those clips are actually proving my point since the comments praise the uploader for actually using stealth in that situation, thus giving credence to the fact that stealth is rarely used in fort takeovers by gamers. I wonder why... :rolleyes:

I stand by my original point, that the word STEALTH should be in no way used in conjencture with AC3 or the AC series in general. AC3 has the most "stealth" options out of every AC game and even it is barebones in mechanics when it comes to other stealth games and since you have no rewards/penalty for stealthing/failing stealth it shows that the "silent" elements were an afterthough for the makers of this game. Heck, just play something like Dishonored or Mark of the Ninja, 2012 releases, and you'll see what I mean when I am talking about real stealth mechanics. They have stealth mechanics and they have most of the hallmarks of a true sneak'em'up. AC does not. AC is a game series where your protagonist is an overpowered guy and every game favored flashy combat moves over stealth takedown or silent approaches. It's absolutely embarassing to attach the word stealth to a series that has their main guys do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyyntq6j7eM

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLOdWPKSQE

on a regular freaking basis.

There is only one noteworthy game series about a silent assassin type IMO and that is Hitman series. The Assassins we know and love have more to do with the name of their fictional Order than their silent killing historical counterparts. Personally, I think that the only reason people buy into AC being a "stealth" game is because the game has the word ASSASSIN in the title.

As for the late reply, what can I say, I don't live on the Ubisoft forums, you may have noticed that I don't even have 50 posts yet even though I have about 2 months since I joined and most of those posts were made here right after finishing the game.

Assassin_M
01-22-2013, 09:19 PM
Not outright but you are implying it by showing me clips of silent fort takeover. If I say that, because of bad mechanics(not the outright diffculty), silent fort takeovers are pretty hard to do(and not worth the trouble tbh since you get no reward for being stealthy) and you show me a couple of clips of said takeover then it's only natural to assume that your message to me is "the stealth ain't so bad, look, other people did it". Well so did I eventually but that doesn't make my point any less true.

And in my original post I didn't say that silently taking over a fort was IMPOSSIBLE(since you tried to prove me wrong by showing me clips), just very hard to do because of cumbersome stealth mechanics and not encouraged in-game because there is no reward system for it. As I said before, those clips are actually proving my point since the comments praise the uploader for actually using stealth in that situation, thus giving credence to the fact that stealth is rarely used in fort takeovers by gamers. I wonder why... :rolleyes:

I stand by my original point, that the word STEALTH should be in no way used in conjencture with AC3 or the AC series in general. AC3 has the most "stealth" options out of every AC game and even it is barebones in mechanics when it comes to other stealth games and since you have no rewards/penalty for stealthing/failing stealth it shows that the "silent" elements were an afterthough for the makers of this game. Heck, just play something like Dishonored or Mark of the Ninja, 2012 releases, and you'll see what I mean when I am talking about real stealth mechanics. They have stealth mechanics and they have most of the hallmarks of a true sneak'em'up. AC does not. AC is a game series where your protagonist is an overpowered guy and every game favored flashy combat moves over stealth takedown or silent approaches. It's absolutely embarassing to attach the word stealth to a series that has their main guys do this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyyntq6j7eM

and this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnLOdWPKSQE

on a regular freaking basis.

There is only one noteworthy game series about a silent assassin type IMO and that is Hitman series. The Assassins we know and love have more to do with the name of their fictional Order than their silent killing historical counterparts. Personally, I think that the only reason people buy into AC being a "stealth" game is because the game has the word ASSASSIN in the title.

As for the late reply, what can I say, I don't live on the Ubisoft forums, you may have noticed that I don't even have 50 posts yet even though I have about 2 months since I joined and most of those posts were made here right after finishing the game.

Again with the long post ? Bro...I`m sorry, but it`s all wrong.

I never implied anything. You said "Try taking a fort stealthily" and I showed vids of people who do. Who proved who wrong again ??

as for the rest of that gibberish......Your point does not stand because it is false. argue that all you want...it is false.:) AC HAS stealth. Hard ?? For you perhaps...but hard does not make it clunky...I know the flaws of the stealth system and I acknowledge them, but ha ha it`s not hard. the game does not encourage stealth NOR combat. It actually gives you freedom to choose. It does not, to an extent, force a style on you...it holds stealth and combat in equal measure and that`s the thing...you`re not supposed to play stealthy or rambo. It should not reward you for being stealthy. because that implies that stealth is better. you actually want MORE limits ?? Hell freedom in the game is ****ed as it is..you can choose to take a fort how you like and it works...hard or not...it`s not a matter of it working....it`s a matter of skill and you sucking at the game or not..

P.S try not to make another long post

predatorpulse7
01-22-2013, 11:37 PM
Again with the long post ? Bro...I`m sorry, but it`s all wrong.

I never implied anything. You said "Try taking a fort stealthily" and I showed vids of people who do. Who proved who wrong again ??

as for the rest of that gibberish......Your point does not stand because it is false. argue that all you want...it is false.:) AC HAS stealth. Hard ?? For you perhaps...but hard does not make it clunky...I know the flaws of the stealth system and I acknowledge them, but ha ha it`s not hard. the game does not encourage stealth NOR combat. It actually gives you freedom to choose. It does not, to an extent, force a style on you...it holds stealth and combat in equal measure and that`s the thing...you`re not supposed to play stealthy or rambo. It should not reward you for being stealthy. because that implies that stealth is better. you actually want MORE limits ?? Hell freedom in the game is ****ed as it is..you can choose to take a fort how you like and it works...hard or not...it`s not a matter of it working....it`s a matter of skill and you sucking at the game or not..

P.S try not to make another long post

http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg

The game series that gives you about a gazzilion ways of dispatching your adversaries, most of them not exactly low profile, tens of violent kill animations, streak kills, holds stealth and combat in equal measure. And you say that I should open my eyes. Jesus Christ. The long posts were to show you actual concepts between actual stealth games and games that claim to have stealth but that really fail at the concept. Just one example: wall hugging(for cover if nothing else), this is a BASIC tennant of most stealth games(especially 3rd person ones) yet the AC series, which you claim "has stealth" didn't implement this feature until the FIFTH GAME OF THE SERIES. And after five games still no goddam crouch key. You are right that the sneaking is not hard in itself, it is simply frustrating because of the mechanics behind it. If you played sneak'em-ups you would actuallu know what I am talking about. I've played games where I've sat hours on end trying to get past a certain hallway or guards but it was because of the layout of the map and guard position/patrols not because of messed up mechanics.

You seem to misunderstand the reward system in games. Stealth(that you say exists in AC) can only really be succesful in a game if the mechanics of it are solid and if reward(say bigger xp for ghosting a mission succesfully but it could be anything really) or penalty(discovery meaning certain death or something along these lines). And make no mistake, when developers make a game, they usually try to bait players with rewards on both ends, if they are being smart about it. If you are adept at sneaking you are granted this and that. If you like to blow stuff up, we will boost xp, stats, whatever, depends on the game at hand. That's why in a game like Deus Ex you can take either the stealth route(in a story mission no less, not open world BS of little to no consequence like taking a fort) or the combat route and get different perks after all is said and done. How many missions in the AC universe did we jave freedom of choice, where we could sneak in undetected to check off an objective or just go in and murder everyone, with different results(cutscenes) at the end? If you took out the forced stealth missions from AC series(which are pretty much the only things that still give it the semblance of stealth) , then the actual stealthing(in open world map) would drop to near zero for most players.

From your posts I take it you haven't played many true stealth games in your life if you think AC is anywhere near the concept of stealth.

I thought this pre AC3 musings on AC series stealth was pretty good:
http://www.velocitygamer.com/friday-night-rants-the-stealth-in-assassins-creed-sucks-and-heres-why/

Assassin_M
01-23-2013, 02:48 AM
http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/9/9e/HA_HA_HA,_OH_WOW.jpg

The game series that gives you about a gazzilion ways of dispatching your adversaries, most of them not exactly low profile, tens of violent kill animations, streak kills, holds stealth and combat in equal measure. And you say that I should open my eyes. Jesus Christ. The long posts were to show you actual concepts between actual stealth games and games that claim to have stealth but that really fail at the concept. Just one example: wall hugging(for cover if nothing else), this is a BASIC tennant of most stealth games(especially 3rd person ones) yet the AC series, which you claim "has stealth" didn't implement this feature until the FIFTH GAME OF THE SERIES. And after five games still no goddam crouch key. You are right that the sneaking is not hard in itself, it is simply frustrating because of the mechanics behind it. If you played sneak'em-ups you would actuallu know what I am talking about. I've played games where I've sat hours on end trying to get past a certain hallway or guards but it was because of the layout of the map and guard position/patrols not because of messed up mechanics.

You seem to misunderstand the reward system in games. Stealth(that you say exists in AC) can only really be succesful in a game if the mechanics of it are solid and if reward(say bigger xp for ghosting a mission succesfully but it could be anything really) or penalty(discovery meaning certain death or something along these lines). And make no mistake, when developers make a game, they usually try to bait players with rewards on both ends, if they are being smart about it. If you are adept at sneaking you are granted this and that. If you like to blow stuff up, we will boost xp, stats, whatever, depends on the game at hand. That's why in a game like Deus Ex you can take either the stealth route(in a story mission no less, not open world BS of little to no consequence like taking a fort) or the combat route and get different perks after all is said and done. How many missions in the AC universe did we jave freedom of choice, where we could sneak in undetected to check off an objective or just go in and murder everyone, with different results(cutscenes) at the end? If you took out the forced stealth missions from AC series(which are pretty much the only things that still give it the semblance of stealth) , then the actual stealthing(in open world map) would drop to near zero for most players.

From your posts I take it you haven't played many true stealth games in your life if you think AC is anywhere near the concept of stealth.

I thought this pre AC3 musings on AC series stealth was pretty good:
http://www.velocitygamer.com/friday-night-rants-the-stealth-in-assassins-creed-sucks-and-heres-why/
Again ? Oh man. Do you know that I read those ?? Anyways, its the same false crap in your last couple of posts and, tip, mate...

Try variety. ending your posts with "deductions" about what I do and what I don't do in life, what I have, what games I play is not going to get you anywhere, because more than likely....you don't know ****...and thus, fail again:)

Congratulations...

Now, please....find something else to laugh about..Because I never said AC actually has good stealth. Good lord, do you even read properly ?? xD if you cannot read properly, see my posts in the stealth improvement thread...mate, Stealth sucks in AC...hear that ?? STEALTH SUCKS....Is that enough to get through to you ?? how about this...

YES STEALTH SUCKS IN AC

Clear enough ?? OH I BLOODY HOPE SO

dalailam3r
04-30-2013, 06:23 AM
When I played Assassinís Creed 3, I wasnít disappointed. I was expecting a great, exciting game, and that is what I got. Assassinís Creed 3 is a game worth buying. But now that I look back at it, I realize that itís actually pretty disappointing. Is it because of my unrealistically high expectations? I donít know. Probably. Assassinís Creed 2 and Brotherhood rank amongst my all time favourite games, and Iím a big fan of the first one and Revelations too. So obviously, there was a part of me that wanted so much more from Assassinís Creed 3.
Now, before someone misconstrues my words and goes on a curse-spree, let me make something very clear- I think Assassinís Creed 3 is a great game. I think itís worth buying and playing through, regardless of your history with the franchise, or even if you donít have a history with the franchise. When I say Assassinís Creed 3 is disappointing, I donít mean itís a bad game. I just mean it isnít half as good as I thought it would be, and it has plenty of issues. But it still is, and always will be, a great game. Hell, GamingBoltís own review gave it a 9/10.
So what exactly was it that makes Assassinís Creed 3 disappointing? Letís break it down, point-by-point.

1. The characters arenít very interesting

Take a moment and think back to the Ezio trilogy. Think about Leonardo Da Vinci. Think about Machiavelli. Think about Bartolomeo. Think about Mario Auditore. Or even think about Revelationsí Yusuf Tazim. Those were characters that were interesting to watch, that had an emotional attachment with the player, characters that we all cared about. But somehow, I couldnít bring myself to care about anyone from the Assassinís Creed 3 cast.
Achilles was a criminally underused character. He was really interesting to watch during the little screentime he had. His father-son relationship with Connor had glimpses of brillance, and there was some real potential there. But the game left him and his relationship with Connor underdeveloped. We needed to see way more of Achilles. We needed to see just how his relationship with Connor developed. Those time jumps just didnít work for me- I wanted to see him training Connor, I wanted to see the foundations of their relationship, because I just wasnít buying his fatherly attitude towards him. Sure, it was interesting to see at times, but it rang hollow.

There were others too- Connorís friend Zio was largely a nonentity. The game had a real shot at creating and showing a meaningful relationship of their friendship here and developing a bond between the players and at least one of the characters, but Zio appeared briefly for only a few scenes, and always as nothing more than a messenger who triggered an angry, impulsive reaction from Connor.
Even other characters like George Washington were underutilized. The game often hinted as his shortcomings as a leader and as a human being, and yet never cared enough to explore those and delve deeper into his character. Maybe it was because of a fear of backash by the American community, but whatever the reason was, it resulted in something that frustrated me, at the very least.
Even the negative characters of the game werenít as well developed as those in the Ezio trilogy. Thomas Hickey and Charles Lee were forgettable antagonists. They were practically mannequins, robotically carrying out so-called evil tasks. They will never reach the evil heights of Lucrezia Borgia or Cesare Borgia.

But I have to say, Haytham was absolutely excellent. He was the standout point in the entire game, and one of the best developed characters in the entire franchise. I wish to see him more in future games, maybe in a game showing how and why he became a Templar.
But Charles Lee just wasnít convincing enough, he wasnít formidable as an enemy. We rarely saw him all throughout the game, and we didnít know what drove him to do what he did do. He was a mechanical, forgettable villain, and we all know Assassinís Creed can do way better than that.

2. Connor isnít very interesting

Assassinís Creed games have always had strong protagonists. Excluding Desmond- who, ironically, is the main protagonist of the franchise (or was, till now)- we have been treated to some really interesting characters so far. Altair wasnít exactly well developed- he didnít have much of a backstory or emotional depth to himself. He was just sort ofÖ there. But he fascinated us, because of how coolly efficient and badass he was.
Ezio was that and more. Thereís just too much to be said about him- he is possibly the best character of this generation. Sure, he came across as a whiny idiot during the first half of Assassinís Creed 2, but once youíve played all three of his games, you see what a memorable, charming and exciting character he is. Saying goodbye to him was the hardest thing you will do in years as a gamer, and playing as someone else in AC3 other than the Italian ladies-man just felt off.
Connor- well, heís a good character. Heís brutal and very efficient, like Altair, and he has depth to himself like Ezio, but somehow, he never achieves the heights those two did. His efficiency is never really shown properly, and you never feel like the badass Assassin you usually feel like while playing AC games. And you just never feel as attached to him as you did to Ezio. He really isnít that much of a character- thereís very little intimate moments to give you insight into who he is, and very little development of his bitterness towards everything that has happened to him, so much so that sometimes, his motivation feels amiss.

He just isnít as interesting as Ezio was, or even Altair. Hell, I thought Haytham was by far the best character of the game. I was actually rooting for him at some points, and the parts where him and Connor teamed up were easily the highlights of the game. I just know that if Ubisoft were to make a new game in this Assassinís Creed sub-universe, Iíd want it to focus on Haytham, not Connor.
3. Free-running in cities is no fun

Remember why we all fell in love with Assassinís Creed in the first place, back in 2007? Well, there were lots of reasons. But one of them was how much fun it was to scale the buildings of the perfectly recreated cities. Jumping from rooftop to rooftop and climbing up tall skyscrapers without even once touching the ground was a thrill and a joy in the original AssCreed, and has since become a hallmark of Assassinís Creedís gameplay.
And sure, Assassinís Creed 3 sports that as well. Free-running in the Frontier is an absolute joy- running from tree to tree, springing from branches and looking for footholes in the surrounding foliage is still a thrilling ordeal, but what Assassinís Creed III lacks in is the verticality of cities that impressed us all so much as AC1, 2, Brotherhood and Revelations.

The cities are still immaculately created, perfectly giving off a late 17th century rural America vibe, dripping with atmosphere- we expect no less of Assassinís Creed. But you just canít string together impressive, gravity defying jumps in Boston or New York the way you could in Venice or Constantinople or Damascus. Free-running feels a bit off in the cities- thereís not enough height to them. Theyíre huge and sprawling, Iíll grant them that, but the buildings are shorter than the shortest building you would come across in Rome proper in Brotherhood.
Sure, itís historically accurate, but one of the most core aspects of Assassinís Creed has been taken away from us. I know, you can still run around like crazy and pull of impossible, death-challenging parkour stuff in the huge, expansive forest regions on the east coast of Colonial America, but the joy and rush of jumping across narrow, tight streets is no more something Assassinís Creed can boast of- not with AssCreed 3.

4. For a game thatís based around the concept of being discrete, thereís not enough stealth

Assassinís Creed- the original one from í07- has to be one of the best stealth games ever. It was probably the only true stealth game in the entire franchise. It focused solely on stealth and punished you if you were detected- yes, it sounds a little restrictive and linear, but it was actually very true to the game and what it stood for. It stood for the assassins- an order that is centered around the idea of getting in, doing your thing and getting out (in bed *immature giggle*). One of the most important tenets of the Creed that assassins lived by was to always be quiet and discrete.

This feeling of being a quiet, discrete badass who does his job efficiently and never lets anyone even notice his presence gave a real edge to AC1, and made Altair feel like the awesome character most of us think he was. While Connor was modeled a bit like Altair, what with his righteous and stoic nature, he wasnít as quiet or deadly efficient. While Altair was all ďHi. Youíre dead. Okay, see ya,Ē and Ezio was ďYouíre evil and you deserve to die, Iím going to stab you in the throat,Ē Connor was more like ďMother****er, take this, axe in your face, canon in your ********, boom boom, die mother****ers!Ē
We wanted a Jason Bourne in the 1700s, instead we got a Marcus Fenix in the Revolutionary War. Itís a good thing the combat in Assassinís Creed 3 was excellent, because thatís all it was centered around. There was practically no stealth, and the little there was was poorly implemented, and completely unneeded. The game encouraged going all out and slicing Templarsí faces with your tomahawk.
Seriously, Ubisoft should have called the game Badass Soldierís Creed instead of Assassinís Creed. If you were always punching dudes in the face and kicking them in their groins instead of attacking them from the shadows like a real ninja, Batman: Arkham Asylum would be called The Incredible Hulk: Arkham Asylum. I want stealth with my stealth games. Youíre giving me a game about assassins? Make me feel like an assassin, goddammit!

5. The ending sucks ***

You knew this was coming.

Okay, so weíve had some pretty bad endings this year. Well, thereís been only one, but it was enough to make everyone go nuts, and not in a good way- Mass Effect 3. An excellent game all throughout with a horrible ending. Thatís basically what itís like with Assassinís Creed 3, except for the fact that the game itself isnít ďexcellentĒ. Itís really good, but not good enough to be called ďexcellentĒ.
The ending really sucked in Assassinís Creed III. Because it didnít end. It just stopped. Assassinís Creed 3 is like a bullet train, running at a solid 300 miles per hour, going at an excellent speed- well, after the lengthy prologue which I have no qualms about- when suddenly, the driver pulls the breaks. It doesnít take a few minutes for the train to come to a dead stop, not even a few seconds. It suddenly just stops moving. And thereís not even any recoil or jerks or anything. One moment, itís moving like crazy, the other moment, it just stops moving- itís just standing there, motionless, and the people inside are confused and angry.
Halo 2 fans know how frustrating that is.
Letís not even talk about Connorís ending. Letís leave it be, because it isnít all that important or memorable anyway. It is a little sad, though, but whatever. Connorís a little sad.
The worst part of the ending was Desmond doing what he did- when the game showed Desmond facing a dilemma at the end- should he let the world be ravaged, or should he hand over all control to Juno?- I got excited. I thought I would get to make this choice, that everything Iíve done would come to a conclusion spectacularly. And what does Desmond do? He decides what he wants to do all by himself, ignoring me like that girl in High School. The worst part? He picks the worst ****ing option available. He decides to override the free-will engines and gives all control to Juno. Being a Mass Effect fan, I have to say this- Juno ďassumes direct controlĒ. Sorry.

Anyway, that basically just blows the entire philosophy of the Assassin order to pieces. Free will is what they fight for, itís what weíve all been fighting for for five games now. And Desmond decides to make everyone meat puppets of an evil goddess. So have we been idiots this entire time? Were the Templars right? Did we just waste five games doing what we did for no reason at all? We probably did. And why the hell is Juno even evil? Why exactly does she want whatever the hell it is she does want?
But letís forget about that too, because Iím in a weirdly forgiving mood toda- NO, IíM ****ING NOT. Why was there no aftermath at all? Fine, Desmond is an idiot who doesnít care about free will. But still- donít we deserve to see what happens after that? No scenes showing the somewhat partial destruction of Earth, no scenes showing Juno and her supposedly evil deeds, no scenes showing what became of Rebecca, Shaun and William, no scenes showing what Abstergo is up to next. I mean, for a game that was supposed to end this story arc, it left a bucketload of threads to tie off.
In before ďendings donít make a game badĒ- I know that. Hell, I say that fiercely when someone bashes Mass Effect 3. I donít want to come across as a hypocrite. I think Assassinís Creed 3 is a great game, despite the finale, or the lack of it. I just think the last 5 minutes of the game suck more than a New York City prostitute.

6. Loads of technical issues

This isnít really a huge issue, but itís enough to take away from the immersion. We all knew Assassinís Creed 3 would have glitches, and even before it was released, we were forewarned that it has many of them. So we all knew what we were getting into. And seriously, being as huge as it is, you canít blame AssCreed 3 for being a glitchy game. Itís an occupational hazard, shall we say, of being an open world title with tons of stuff to do.
But I donít like it when my horse gets stuck in a haystack and starts having a seizure. I mean, what the hell? Itís either a maniacal horse, or a guy who can fly and fall without hurting a single bone, or swords that are invisible, or people who bump into walls repeatedly, or dogs that appear in front of you out of nowehere and start barking to scare the **** out of you. Once, I threw my tomahawk in a guyís face, and when I went to get it back, it was buried beneath bodies that the game wouldnít let me pick up. Needless to say, I played the rest of the game without my favourite weapon. Thankfully, I was on the second last sequence when that happened.
Itís not just that- the facial animations are a bit dodgy. Especially the lip syncing. Sometimes, characters speak with each other telepathically. Their lips donít move at all. And sometimes, their lips move so much, it looks like theyíre having a passionate make out session with some invisible person. And sometimes, the characters donít say their lines at all. Their mouths just move and no sound comes out. The first time George Washington did that, I freaked out and thought Thomas Hickey had succeeded in his plan to kill Washington, who I thought was having a stroke. Iím not kidding. Then I read the subtitles for the dialogue that hadnít been spoken and realized it was a glitch.

The visuals themselves arenít too impressive either. Thereís rough edges everywhere, and sometimes you wonder if that fog is there for a visual effect or to cover up the not so impressive draw distances. I mean, sure, the game looks great when you look at it as a whole, from a macro point of view. But up close, itís full of issues. A bit like Skyrim, but not as extreme.

7. Something just doesnít click

You know that feeling you get when you play a really good game? When you play any Assassinís Creed game? The feeling that makes you want to keep going back to the game, the feeling that makes you realize that this game is something special- that X factor. Assassinís Creed 3 just doesnít have that. It has some great ideas, but those ideas never come together properly to deliver a proper experience. Itís like the English football team. Full of great players, yet never gelling together all that well- but still a good team.
The fact that so many great features have been removed doesnít help. For starters, no throwing blades. That flat out sucks. Throwing blades were the best weapon in the entire series, and AC3 just removed them. But thatís very minor. Other important stuff also didnít make it into AC3- the entire RPG feel you get when you level up your armour, the ability to deeply customize your equipment and weapons, the focus on buying new equipment and weapons. Thereís just so much missing here that we loved in the previous games.

I donít know whether itís because weíve all gotten just too used to Ezio and his universe, or maybe if the game actually is all over the place, but Assassinís Creed 3 isnít the addictive game that its predecessors were. Somethingís missing. That spark. It was that spark that made Assassinís Creed games so special, and Assassinís Creed 3 lacks that spark.
So is it even worth buying?

Of course it is! Assassinís Creed 3 is, despite all its flaws, a great game. Itís not an amazing game, not an excellent game. But itís really good. Itís just that itís not on the same level as Assassinís Creed 2 or Brotherhood- or in some areas, even AC1- were. Itís a great game thatís, in the end, disappointing for a hardcore Assassinís Creed fan who has loved the series ever since he took his first step into Masyaf.

That of course are my 2 cents.