PDA

View Full Version : So AC3 didn't win anything at the VGA... ( + personal opinion on the game



killzab
12-08-2012, 01:12 PM
I guess it is the ultimate proof of the disappointment it represents.

Now, I know a lot of people are gonna say " it's a great game, what are you talking about ? "

But I think it's gonna be remembered as a disappointment in the years to come.

I don't remember if Revelations won anything but seeing how much less ambitious it was, it's not a big deal.

But AC3 being the "biggest" AC to date, stakes were much higher and the fact it didn't get better reviews than ACR is troubling.

I don't get why the devs want to cram so many features in the game that are NOT part of the core experience of Assassin's Creed.

Some years ago, I read a very interesting article describing the production process of AC2 with Patrice Desilets explaining why he introduced these new features and how things got changed during production.

For example, after some playtests, the team discovered that the testers weren't using the roofs as part of their gameplay style. Patrice explained verticality was essential to AC and they tweaked the game ( made buildings more accessible, made better climbing paths) to incite people to climb up buildings. And now we can see that in AC3, you basically HAVE to stay at the street level because buildings don't connect and you always get stuck at some point whereas you could always find a path to your objective in AC2.

I'll try to post the article if I find it.

Patrice also explained AC was about three things : combat/ social stealth / verticality. These are the three features that should be in the core experience.

So I don't understand why they introduced so many...superfluous features.

Naval combat is GREAT, I LOVED it, it was well made overall.

But is it a needed adddition to the series ?

To me it's just an added bonus that feels disconnected from the rest of the game. Proof is I got to sequence 11 and thought " OMG I haven't done any naval missions !" And I did them all in a row because I knew I would get carried away by something else, seeing how external it is to the rest of the game.

I didn't care for hunting... there was no reward in doing it. If it unlocked a badass outfit, I would've done it ... but it isn't the case.

You also the urban legends missions, where you have to find the truth behind things such as the sasquatch, UFOs etc ..

But .... why ? it is nice but why ? How is it needed ? Why not devote ressources to polish the game or make the core experience better ? Or for example, improve the Desmond sequences and the ending ?

I would have traded naval missions, hunting and all the ... side quest stuff for a better and fulfilling Desmond part.

The homestead missions are a good example of an addition. The flesh out the characters dramatically, make use of the main gameplay elements of the series, are emotionally engaging and feel connected to the game ( they could have even been integrated to the main story IMO)

But what will the devs introduce next ? Convoy racing ? Expanding the economy system to a full Sim city like side quest ?

You're going to tell me "if you don't like these, don't do them, you don't have to " but I want to enjoy the entirety of the game and don't want to leave some features to the side. I didn't have to in the Ezio saga...

Dan Pen 97
12-08-2012, 01:13 PM
I guess it is the ultimate proof of the disappointment it represents.

Now, I know a lot of people are gonna say " it's a great game, what are you talking about ? "

But I think it's gonna be remembered as a disappointment in the years to come.

I don't remember if Revelations won anything but seeing how much less ambitious it was, it's not a big deal.

But AC3 being the "biggest" AC to date, stakes were much higher and the fact it didn't get better reviews than ACR is troubling.

I don't get why the devs want to cram so many features in the game that are NOT part of the core experience of Assassin's Creed.

Some years ago, I read a very interesting article describing the production process of AC2 with Patrice Desilets explaining why he introduced these new features and how things got changed during production.

For example, after some playtests, the team discovered that the testers weren't using the roofs as part of their gameplay style. Patrice explained verticality was essential to AC and they tweaked the game ( made buildings more accessible, made better climbing paths) to incite people to climb up buildings. And now we can see that in AC3, you basically HAVE to stay at the street level because buildings don't connect and you always get stuck at some point whereas you could always find a path to your objective in AC2.

I'll try to post the article if I find it.

Patrice also explained AC was about three things : combat/ social stealth / verticality. These are the three features that should be in the core experience.

So I don't understand why they introduced so many...superfluous features.

Naval combat is GREAT, I LOVED it, it was well made overall.

But is it a needed adddition to the series ?

To me it's just an added bonus that feels disconnected from the rest of the game. Proof is I got to sequence 11 and thought " OMG I haven't done any naval missions !" And I did them all in a row because I knew I would get carried away by something else, seeing how external it is to the rest of the game.

I didn't care for hunting... there was no reward in doing it. If it unlocked a badass outfit, I would've done it ... but it isn't the case.

You also the urban legends missions, where you have to find the truth behind things such as the sasquatch, UFOs etc ..

But .... why ? it is nice but why ? How is it needed ? Why not devote ressources to polish the game or make the core experience better ? Or for example, improve the Desmond sequences and the ending ?

I would have traded naval missions, hunting and all the ... side quest stuff for a better and fulfilling Desmond part.

The homestead missions are a good example of an addition. The flesh out the characters dramatically, make use of the main gameplay elements of the series, are emotionally engaging and feel connected to the game ( they could have even been integrated to the main story IMO)

But what will the devs introduce next ? Convoy racing ? Expanding the economy system to a full Sim city like side quest ?

You're going to tell me "if you don't like these, don't do them, you don't have to " but I want to enjoy the entirety of the game and don't want to leave some features to the side. I didn't have to in the Ezio saga...

Why do you think that then?

FirestarLuva
12-08-2012, 01:17 PM
Just because AC3 didn't win anything at the VGA's doesn't mean it's a disappointment. AC2 and ACB only won Best Action/Adventure game and that's it. AC2 was nominated for many things on many different sites and it didn't win any of them.

Dan Pen 97
12-08-2012, 01:25 PM
AC3 is good as well oh there is nothing bad agenst it is there ?

pacmanate
12-08-2012, 01:26 PM
Just because AC3 didn't win anything at the VGA's doesn't mean it's a disappointment. AC2 and ACB only won Best Action/Adventure game and that's it. AC2 was nominated for many things on many different sites and it didn't win any of them.

Well no but it reflects on what the fans think. Obviously there were better games, and I heard The Walking Dead won GOTY? Which it should have anyway. I do think AC3 should have got at least best graphics... on PC anyway.

SixKeys
12-08-2012, 01:27 PM
I agree on many points. To be fair, the Ezio games also had a lot of fluff that wasn't necessary, like the thief races, collecting paintings etc. I don't mind having some "unnecessary" features in the game as long as they're fun. But I do enjoy it a lot more when they feel connected to the overall story. I had the same exact experience as the OP with naval missions. They were fun, but felt almost entirely removed from the rest of the game. Like the devs weren't sure people were going to enjoy them, so they made them optional (like Desmond's Journey in ACR). If you're going to spend so much time and and effort bringing something new into the franchise, you should encourage people to actually use the feature.

The Frontiersmen missions (UFO, Sasquatch etc.) were actually one of the more fun side quests in the game, if only because there was a little more effort put into them. I liked Connor being able to sit down at random camps, listening to ghost stories. It added atmosphere, and the AC series has always been big on debunking superstitions and myths, so it felt fitting for Connor to investigate these for the truth. The assassination contracts, by contrast, were very lazily done with no variety or background info on our targets. It's sad that assassinations in a game about an assassin actually feel the most superfluous.

ProdiGurl
12-08-2012, 01:27 PM
>>But .... why ? it is nice but why ? How is it needed ? Why not devote ressources to polish the game or make the core experience better ? Or for example, improve the Desmond sequences and the ending ?
I would have traded naval missions, hunting and all the ... side quest stuff for a better and fulfilling Desmond part. <<

:-0 I'll just say that I'm not in the minority who really aren't avid fans of the whole Desmond theme - or Desmond himself for that matter.
That's a purely subjective opinion there that I think has little to do w/ what ACIII may be suffering from.

Also, what Walking Dead game? Amazon said it releases Dec. 31st.

Dan Pen 97
12-08-2012, 01:28 PM
Well no but it reflects on what the fans think. Obviously there were better games, and I heard The Walking Dead won GOTY? Which it should have anyway. I do think AC3 should have got at least best graphics... on PC anyway.

I have not played it on PC what is it like?

FirestarLuva
12-08-2012, 01:35 PM
Well no but it reflects on what the fans think. Obviously there were better games, and I heard The Walking Dead won GOTY? Which it should have anyway. I do think AC3 should have got at least best graphics... on PC anyway.

I agree on that, and the majority of people love AC3 from what I've seen. IGN rated it 8.5 but the community gave it a 9.2.
Also the video game death match at g4tv.com 'Best video game of 2012' depends entirely on the fans' votes. AC3 is in the top four games and is only 10% behind Borderlands 2. The other two are Guild Wars and Dishonored. And let's say. not everyone watches Spike VGA's or actively follows the nominations for games on other sites. Most people just play the game, love it or hate it and are done with it.

pacmanate
12-08-2012, 01:37 PM
I have not played it on PC what is it like?

Look on youtube and type in AC3 ultra settings or something and you will see it looks amazing. Getting a gaming PC in June so I will no longer have to cry at my console :P

killzab
12-08-2012, 01:44 PM
>>But .... why ? it is nice but why ? How is it needed ? Why not devote ressources to polish the game or make the core experience better ? Or for example, improve the Desmond sequences and the ending ?
I would have traded naval missions, hunting and all the ... side quest stuff for a better and fulfilling Desmond part. <<

:-0 I'll just say that I'm not in the minority who really aren't avid fans of the whole Desmond theme - or Desmond himself for that matter.
That's a purely subjective opinion there that I think has little to do w/ what ACIII may be suffering from.

Also, what Walking Dead game? Amazon said it releases Dec. 31st.

I disagree, AC3 was supposed to be Desmond's final game ( and it is ) and all his character development was supposed to pay off, and the devs promised we would love playing as him this time....

Actually Desmond's part of AC3 was one of my most expected things... seeing how the stakes were much higher than in Connor's story, with already established characters such as Vidic and Cross...

ze_topazio
12-08-2012, 01:45 PM
You guys disregard every single critic made by credible videogame journalists and long time fans but now are taking seriously the VGA? a cerimony most videogame fans despise and only watch for the new trailers.

killzab
12-08-2012, 01:48 PM
You guys disregard every single critic made by credible videogame journalists and long time fans but now are taking seriously the VGA? a cerimony most videogame fans despise and only watch for the new trailers.

Nope, i don't disregard the reviews personally... and I acknowledge IGN's critics ...

ProdiGurl
12-08-2012, 01:51 PM
I disagree, AC3 was supposed to be Desmond's final game ( and it is ) and all his character development was supposed to pay off, and the devs promised we would love playing as him this time....

Actually Desmond's part of AC3 was one of my most expected things... seeing how the stakes were much higher than in Connor's story, with already established characters such as Vidic and Cross...

But like I said, this is only based on your preference. I'll be honest, if there was no Desmond or Desmond parts, I wouldn't mind it at all. - that's kind of my point. It only matters to people who are really into that aspect of AC. To date, I have not played 1 Desmond segment from ACR yet and don't miss it. That's just me tho. But alot of people are fine if they left it behind.
I'm still in Seq. 9 so I don't know what happens,but the Desmond thing I did play so far was good and I enjoyed it.

Dan Pen 97
12-08-2012, 02:00 PM
But like I said, this is only based on your preference. I'll be honest, if there was no Desmond or Desmond parts, I wouldn't mind it at all. - that's kind of my point. It only matters to people who are really into that aspect of AC. To date, I have not played 1 Desmond segment from ACR yet and don't miss it. That's just me tho. But alot of people are fine if they left it behind.
I'm still in Seq. 9 so I don't know what happens,but the Desmond thing I did play so far was good and I enjoyed it.

Good point.

Rugterwyper32
12-08-2012, 02:11 PM
But like I said, this is only based on your preference. I'll be honest, if there was no Desmond or Desmond parts, I wouldn't mind it at all. - that's kind of my point. It only matters to people who are really into that aspect of AC. To date, I have not played 1 Desmond segment from ACR yet and don't miss it. That's just me tho. But alot of people are fine if they left it behind.
I'm still in Seq. 9 so I don't know what happens,but the Desmond thing I did play so far was good and I enjoyed it.

I personally started the series with AC1, and the only point at which I actually paid attention to Desmond's story was during Brotherhood (admittedly, it helped that the locations he was in you had been in with Ezio before, so that feeling was cool) and his segments in this game. Personally, I was happy during the Ezio trilogy that I wasn't constantly getting interrupted by Desmond. In fact, the only reason that I bothered checking mails and doing conversations on replays was all the conspiracy theories related to history rather than Desmond himself. And that one achievement for getting every conversation with Lucy in AC1.
I honestly wasn't bothered with Desmond's ending. It closed off stuff, I found his missions fun to play, and that was that. I actually was worried I'd keep getting interrupted by his parts. I've always been about the history part first and foremost, and the modern day shenanigans come in last.

FrankieSatt
12-08-2012, 02:53 PM
I think it does reflect on the game. The way it was hyped one would think that it should have won at least one award. It's a decent game but not worthy of any awards and not worthy of even beating out ACII, Brotherhood or Revelations for anything.

This is what happens when you drag a series out too long, it gets stale and no one really enjoys it as much. There it a time for everything to end, UbiSoft obviously doesn't know when to stop.

EscoBlades
12-08-2012, 02:55 PM
The VGAs don't reflect what fans think as they are voted on by a panel of games journos and editors. Only viewer voted categories truly represent fan reaction.

And even the highly respected panel of VGA judges don't speak on behalf of the whole industry.

Just saying.

[PS: Read what i've written carefully, as i know there will be some knee jerk reactions to the comment. Thanks] :D

ProdiGurl
12-08-2012, 03:32 PM
I think it does reflect on the game. The way it was hyped one would think that it should have won at least one award. It's a decent game but not worthy of any awards and not worthy of even beating out ACII, Brotherhood or Revelations for anything.

This is what happens when you drag a series out too long, it gets stale and no one really enjoys it as much. There it a time for everything to end, UbiSoft obviously doesn't know when to stop.

O.o WHAT? Now they need to put AC down to rest? wow. Just do yourself favor and stop playing it then.

One other thing about hype - if you're the one creating it, you are pretty hyped up about it yourself! You're excited about everything you put into it and expect fans will love and praise it for......
Why shouldn't they hype a game from their perspective? If they *can't* hype it, we should be worried lol

silvermercy
12-08-2012, 06:15 PM
To be honest I couldn't care less about Desmond. That's personal preference. I don't know many people who would prefer to see more scenes with him than those we've got. (I WOULD have liked to see more Connor scenes though!). Also, not beating Revelations? Are you kidding me? LOL
I think AC3 lost some points mostly because of the extended glitches (new engine and all) and the lack of more scenes for Connor (for some more character development).

AssassinVenice
12-08-2012, 06:18 PM
ACIII not winning anything should teach a lesson to the developers, so that they don't hype the game up before they are sure that the game is polished, well thought out and that it is enjoyable.
I expected so much more from ACIII, and I think that I'm not alone here...

pacmanate
12-08-2012, 06:23 PM
ACIII not winning anything should teach a lesson to the developers, so that they don't hype the game up before they are sure that the game is polished, well thought out and that it is enjoyable.
I expected so much more from ACIII, and I think that I'm not alone here...

This a million times. Whilst playing the game now it seems like they worked more on mechanics and left the story til last :S. Obviously thats not what they did, but it sure feels that way. I hope they learn from this too.

pirate1802
12-08-2012, 06:31 PM
I was not aware these awards were decided by fans O.o

Sushiglutton
12-08-2012, 06:49 PM
I agree with some of the criticism. Mainly that they were trying to do more than they were able to do at a high enough quality. I also agree that many of the story missions were too restricted and that there should have been a greater emphasis on assassinations. Finally the modern day story was disapointing. All this said I was happy with the game overall. There were plenty of new additions, both small and big, that were great.

EscoBlades
12-08-2012, 08:53 PM
I was not aware these awards were decided by fans O.o

Exactly my point above, they aren't. Only the viewer voted awards are.

Baked_Cookies
12-08-2012, 09:35 PM
Just because it did not win an award at the VGA's has nothing to do with it being a disappointment. The game overall was very great. But the problem is all that you read about is negativity so its going to make it seem like its a worse game than it actually is. When in all reality its a bunch of butt hurt gamers that are mad because they cant get exactly what they want. Well to all of them I say create and release your own game and lets see what kind of press it gets. Im sure it wouldnt even make it on TV for a commercial let alone make it on the shelves.

zerocooll21
12-08-2012, 10:48 PM
or Desmond himself for that matter.
.


IIRC you've said you jumped into the series early-midway right? I think a lot of the Desmond Factor comes from people who played AC:1 from the beginning. I don't think people who started after AC:1 received the same experience as those of us who played it before AC:2. Because of that the Desmond parts may not interest you as much, but it was a HUGE part of me getting into the seriers. Discovering this awesome new gameplay and ending with S16's blood everywhere / just scratching the surface of a intriguing plot idea blew my mind. (hope that makes sense :p)

Its a shame that games get too big, get steered by what is considered best for most, just toss aside what made the game what it is, and the fans that helped bring it to that status. I enjoyed the game but was disappointed in certain things. I would say my Undying LOVE for this franchise has fizzled to just like. I'll still play the next one, just a crappy feeling now. Its like dating someone for 5 years and over the course of recent times they change into a different person.

Rugterwyper32
12-08-2012, 10:59 PM
IIRC you've said you jumped into the series early-midway right? I think a lot of the Desmond Factor comes from people who played AC:1 from the beginning. I don't think people who started after AC:1 received the same experience as those of us who played it before AC:2. Because of that the Desmond parts may not interest you as much, but it was a HUGE part of me getting into the seriers. Discovering this awesome new gameplay and ending with S16's blood everywhere / just scratching the surface of a intriguing plot idea blew my mind. (hope that makes sense :p)

Its a shame that games get too big, get steered by what is considered best for most, just toss aside what made the game what it is, and the fans that helped bring it to that status. I enjoyed the game but was disappointed in certain things. I would say my Undying LOVE for this franchise has fizzled to just like. I'll still play the next one, just a crappy feeling now. Its like dating someone for 5 years and over the course of recent times they change into a different person.

I actually started with Assassin's Creed 1, and to be honest, Desmond's part was one I mostly ignored. It bothered me to an extent because I went in expecting a full-on game in the Crusades and I felt that Desmond parts kept interrupting what I was interested in. Personally, I was interested in the Desmond segments only in Brotherhood and this game, and in the case of Brotherhood it had a lot to do with the fact that it was cool to see locations you visited as Ezio in the future, and the bleeding effect made it interesting. I feel this game has some noticeable issues (lack of ambient music, not being able to replay homestead and assassin recruit missions, assassination contracts feeling too "meh") but I enjoyed it as much as Brotherhood and more than the rest of the games in the series.

ZephyrStrife
12-08-2012, 11:10 PM
If I had to critisize this game, it has to be more on Ubisoft's tendency to be drawn back into the AC1 formula. A majority of missions are follow a guy, chase a guy down, eavesdropping, and repeats them over and over again. People found those repetitive activities boring in AC1 and did away with them in AC2....but now they're back in AC3 at full force. I don't mind them once in awhile, but they happened so often that it was painfully obvious.

But anyway, its a learning experience for Ubisoft.

zerocooll21
12-08-2012, 11:16 PM
I actually started with Assassin's Creed 1, and to be honest, Desmond's part was one I mostly ignored. It bothered me to an extent because I went in expecting a full-on game in the Crusades and I felt that Desmond parts kept interrupting what I was interested in. Personally, I was interested in the Desmond segments only in Brotherhood and this game, and in the case of Brotherhood it had a lot to do with the fact that it was cool to see locations you visited as Ezio in the future, and the bleeding effect made it interesting. I feel this game has some noticeable issues (lack of ambient music, not being able to replay homestead and assassin recruit missions, assassination contracts feeling too "meh") but I enjoyed it as much as Brotherhood and more than the rest of the games in the series.

Without Desmond/animus the story just isn't as appealing. Its a huge part of the story and ties it all together.

FrankieSatt
12-08-2012, 11:25 PM
O.o WHAT? Now they need to put AC down to rest? wow. Just do yourself favor and stop playing it then.

One other thing about hype - if you're the one creating it, you are pretty hyped up about it yourself! You're excited about everything you put into it and expect fans will love and praise it for......
Why shouldn't they hype a game from their perspective? If they *can't* hype it, we should be worried lol

I don't want the series watered down and ruined because UbiSoft doesn't know when to stop. It's because I'm a fan of the series that I care about it and just putting out more games that don't make the series better does just that.

ACIII is not the best of the series, it's actually the worst. I'm not the only one with that opinion. That is why I have my opinion of wanting AC to end now.

Dan Pen 97
12-08-2012, 11:40 PM
They might not have one it was not a continual story and at the end it did not let you skip it that might be another thing why it might have not one ...

CalgaryJay
12-08-2012, 11:41 PM
I didn't care for hunting... there was no reward in doing it. If it unlocked a badass outfit, I would've done it ... but it isn't the case.

Hunting helped you aquire large sums of money which helped you upgrade your ship for the naval missions you (and myself...and everyone) enjoyed so much. Aside from all the QTE's, I thought hunting was great.


You also the urban legends missions, where you have to find the truth behind things such as the sasquatch, UFOs etc ..

I disagree. With a rural area that large, those stories helped breathe life into it, something which was needed more. (hopefully the DLC put more stuff in that beautiful area to do). I enjoyed those missions.


You're going to tell me "if you don't like these, don't do them, you don't have to " but I want to enjoy the entirety of the game and don't want to leave some features to the side. I didn't have to in the Ezio saga...

Explain to me how upgrading Monteriggioni in AC2 served any real purpose to beating the game. I spent way too much time/florins upgrading that city, and was surprised at the end when there was no real payoff. Aside from producing more income anyway, which you could do just as well by opening shops & acquiring items in other cities.

CalgaryJay
12-08-2012, 11:48 PM
Last thing I wanted to mention was the comment about having to spend most of your time on the ground, because rooftops weren't very accessible. I've heard this many times on these boards, and I don't really get it. True, the width of the streets made it tougher than its been in previous games. But I still didn't find navigation that difficult being up there, especially with the placement of trees between buildings. I spent the majority of my free-roaming in AC3 on the rooftops, I don't really get how others didn't.

This last bit isn't directed at OP, but I've heard in other threads people saying they also hated rooftops because of the increased amount of guards up there. If anything, that made it funner. And c'mon, its not like there were 50 guards up there after you. Those lookout posts would have 2-4 tops. Some people can't handle that?? C'mon man, get some skills. Plus, with how much narrower/pointier the roofs were, it made it much easier to hide from pursuing guards' line of sight up there.

luckyto
12-09-2012, 02:21 AM
There's not too much in the game. It just wasn't finished.

I think that's the single biggest disappointment, because AC3 is a great game --- but it has GOTY potential. It's really spectacular and ambitious and everything you would want in an AC game; if only the many little side missions were flushed out, and the maps filled, and bugs (oh the bugs) corrected with other technical issues and just all that final work that is needed put into making it the Game of the Year. It needed six more months, or at least, there should have been no ACR - and the core development team released to work on this game much sooner.

I love the game, I do, but it just falls short in too many places .... courier missions, letter delivery, assassination missions and many other short pointless activities that simply need just a LITTLE EXTRA. Some cut scenes that needed a final revision. Etc.

When the game does stuff right, I think it's fantastic. It's just not always living up to the bar that GOTY sets, or even that it sets for itself.

----

PS The roofs being hard -- HA! Half the complaints about this game are ridiculous. Not all, but some. That's one right there.

Rugterwyper32
12-09-2012, 02:57 AM
There's not too much in the game. It just wasn't finished.

I think that's the single biggest disappointment, because AC3 is a great game --- but it has GOTY potential. It's really spectacular and ambitious and everything you would want in an AC game; if only the many little side missions were flushed out, and the maps filled, and bugs (oh the bugs) corrected with other technical issues and just all that final work that is needed put into making it the Game of the Year. It needed six more months, or at least, there should have been no ACR - and the core development team released to work on this game much sooner.

I love the game, I do, but it just falls short in too many places .... courier missions, letter delivery, assassination missions and many other short pointless activities that simply need just a LITTLE EXTRA. Some cut scenes that needed a final revision. Etc.

When the game does stuff right, I think it's fantastic. It's just not always living up to the bar that GOTY sets, or even that it sets for itself.

----

PS The roofs being hard -- HA! Half the complaints about this game are ridiculous. Not all, but some. That's one right there.

I can agree with this. While I can imagine that the game wouldn't have needed more time if AC:R hadn't taken up those resources, I feel that they needed those hands there. I love the hunting missions and the frontiersman challenges because there's, you know, some background to them. The brawlers were fun, too. And I imagined delivery requests working in a similar way, as well as assassination missions. But for some reason, those fell short. You know, with the hunting society quests, I saw them more or less like the assassination missions of the frontier. That was cool. I feel assassination missions should have been left to cities and they should have worked like those other sidequests. And instead of delivery requests, how about stuff for the thieves club? You know, still delivering stuff in some way, but make it more interesting with stealth and thievery to help people who need those items.
And I love the frontier, but honestly, I feel there should have been more stuff to motivate you to explore a few areas. You rarely have a good reason to go out of your way to Packanack, Diamond Basin or Black Creek, and there's pretty little to do in those areas in my experience. Specially Packanack. The game's probably my favorite this year, and my current run without using the HUD has had me lost witnessing how beautiful the frontier is, and I realize many times you miss those beautiful locations because there's no motivation to head to some of those areas. It's an amazing game and my personal game of the year, but some things could have been handled better.

And I agree about people complaining about the lack of rooftop running. I specially enjoyed east New York. New York kinda gave me the Rome vibes, in fact. A countryside area, a bustling city area and the equivalent of the poor area which in this case is the burned down area.

Jexx21
12-09-2012, 03:02 AM
There's not too much in the game. It just wasn't finished.

I think that's the single biggest disappointment, because AC3 is a great game --- but it has GOTY potential. It's really spectacular and ambitious and everything you would want in an AC game; if only the many little side missions were flushed out, and the maps filled, and bugs (oh the bugs) corrected with other technical issues and just all that final work that is needed put into making it the Game of the Year. It needed six more months, or at least, there should have been no ACR - and the core development team released to work on this game much sooner.

I love the game, I do, but it just falls short in too many places .... courier missions, letter delivery, assassination missions and many other short pointless activities that simply need just a LITTLE EXTRA. Some cut scenes that needed a final revision. Etc.

When the game does stuff right, I think it's fantastic. It's just not always living up to the bar that GOTY sets, or even that it sets for itself.

----

PS The roofs being hard -- HA! Half the complaints about this game are ridiculous. Not all, but some. That's one right there.

Problem is, they had a time constraint- they wanted to release the game before December 21st 2012.

Iskander_Estel
12-09-2012, 03:17 AM
They spended time and resourses making Brotherhood and Revelations, and there was nothing new..
.whe knew about the temples and the end of the world since the AC2 ending. but they made two more games
to repeat the same information, AC3 would have been a great game if brotherhood an revelations were not
part of the main story.
We could have Lucy's death, 16's revelation (wich was just a DLC), Desmond's fighting Abstergo while looking for the temple(s)
but instead we were left with a story that felt uncomplete. because they had already told everything in the past two games.

Rugterwyper32
12-09-2012, 03:31 AM
While I believe Brotherhood worked very well and it did advance the story, that should have been it. That one was at least more planned out, since they felt Rome should have had its own game and AC3 could have carried the momentum of the last few minutes of Brotherhood and rather than have the beginning we had in AC3, Desmond in a coma could have relieved Haytham and gotten 16s revelation right there too. That would have really helped the game, IMO. Revelations was the part I feel was unnecessary. It didn't progress much at all.

Iskander_Estel
12-09-2012, 03:46 AM
While I believe Brotherhood worked very well and it did advance the story, that should have been it. That one was at least more planned out, since they felt Rome should have had its own game and AC3 could have carried the momentum of the last few minutes of Brotherhood and rather than have the beginning we had in AC3, Desmond in a coma could have relieved Haytham and gotten 16s revelation right there too. That would have really helped the game, IMO. Revelations was the part I feel was unnecessary. It didn't progress much at all.

For me Brotherhood ruined the story of the series, and Revelations was made to retcon the thing with Altair's and Ezio's POEs
Everything was perfect until Brotherhood came out and changed things extending unnecessarily the story just to make more money out of AC2 reputation.

CalgaryJay
12-09-2012, 04:16 AM
There's not too much in the game. It just wasn't finished.

I think that's the single biggest disappointment, because AC3 is a great game --- but it has GOTY potential. It's really spectacular and ambitious and everything you would want in an AC game; if only the many little side missions were flushed out, and the maps filled, and bugs (oh the bugs) corrected with other technical issues and just all that final work that is needed put into making it the Game of the Year. It needed six more months, or at least, there should have been no ACR - and the core development team released to work on this game much sooner.

When the game does stuff right, I think it's fantastic. It's just not always living up to the bar that GOTY sets, or even that it sets for itself.

I think that's a fair comment, I get the same vibe from it. If they would've had 6 more months (and had the foresight to put ambient music in cities) to polish things up, & fill up the Frontier more, I think this could've been GOTY. You can definitely see the potential. I just started my 2nd playthrough today, I had forgotten how awesome that whole opening sequence with the opera house & later on the ship is, and also how much I enjoyed Haytham. It's reminded me how much I liked this game.




And I agree about people complaining about the lack of rooftop running. I specially enjoyed east New York. New York kinda gave me the Rome vibes, in fact. A countryside area, a bustling city area and the equivalent of the poor area which in this case is the burned down area.

I agree, New York had some very cool spots, Wall Street & Broad Street especially looked great. I wish markers for landmarks appeared multiple times, instead of just your first visit. Sometimes they can be tough to locate, or when you do, to remember what you're looking at.

I think the cities are actually quite underrated in this game. Ya I know, they're not the ancient sprawling metropolises of previous AC games, with tons of history & towers everywhere to climb. But they're still very beautiful in their own right. When running on Boston rooftops & looking around at all the trees & white houses, I totally got that vibe of a quaint, New England town, I think Ubi nailed it here. Not to mention the detail in the buildings, holy cow! Still impresses me when I look around.

I think one of the main reasons they're under-appreciated is due to what I said earlier, about no ambient music. Just sucks the life out of the cities, and slows down the experience. I still maintain Boston/NY would've been regarded as much more enjoyable had they just added this simple but crucial (to this series) element.

Rugterwyper32
12-09-2012, 04:43 AM
I agree, New York had some very cool spots, Wall Street & Broad Street especially looked great. I wish markers for landmarks appeared multiple times, instead of just your first visit. Sometimes they can be tough to locate, or when you do, to remember what you're looking at.

I think the cities are actually quite underrated in this game. Ya I know, they're not the ancient sprawling metropolises of previous AC games, with tons of history & towers everywhere to climb. But they're still very beautiful in their own right. When running on Boston rooftops & looking around at all the trees & white houses, I totally got that vibe of a quaint, New England town, I think Ubi nailed it here. Not to mention the detail in the buildings, holy cow! Still impresses me when I look around.

I think one of the main reasons they're under-appreciated is due to what I said earlier, about no ambient music. Just sucks the life out of the cities, and slows down the experience. I still maintain Boston/NY would've been regarded as much more enjoyable had they just added this simple but crucial (to this series) element.

Agreed about the lack of ambient music. New York quickly became one of my favorite cities in the series, but the lack of ambient music made it fall behind Rome and Venice for me. Given ambient music, I can imagine I'd have liked it even more. What bothers me is that there is ambient music, it's just not used. Heck, I once imagined that they could use the tavern music when exploring and as you got closer to taverns the music would become more noticeable. I feel that such a thing would have worked perfectly well and it would have made the taverns work as good landmarks to guide yourself around the cities. Just my two cents.

ProdiGurl
12-09-2012, 12:01 PM
I don't want the series watered down and ruined because UbiSoft doesn't know when to stop. It's because I'm a fan of the series that I care about it and just putting out more games that don't make the series better does just that.

ACIII is not the best of the series, it's actually the worst. I'm not the only one with that opinion. That is why I have my opinion of wanting AC to end now.

Fine, then don't buy or rent anymore. It amazes me how people can selfishly decide something has to end based entirely on their personal opinion and their desire without taking anyone else into consideration who might actually love it and think it's BETTER than some previous games in some ways.
I quit buying Halo after the 2nd game came out - I was done with the series but I sure didn't tell them to end the series becuz I was done with it for my personal reasons.
Alot of people enjoy these games - it's a big world out there.
:nonchalance:

>> Agreed about the lack of ambient music. New York quickly became one of my favorite cities in the series, but the lack of ambient music made it fall behind Rome and Venice for me. Given ambient music, I can imagine I'd have liked it even more. What bothers me is that there is ambient music, it's just not used. Heck, I once imagined that they could use the tavern music when exploring and as you got closer to taverns the music would become more noticeable. I feel that such a thing would have worked perfectly well and it would have made the taverns work as good landmarks to guide yourself around the cities. Just my two cents. <<


My sentiments exactly and NY is my favorite city too. LOVE it. In winter season it looked like a Christmas card. I will always believe that lack of music (namely in cities) put a negative [empty] tone onto the game for most fans. I love this game but it suffers from that and it probably the biggest issue outside bugs..

>> For me Brotherhood ruined the story of the series, and Revelations was made to retcon the thing with Altair's and Ezio's POEs
Everything was perfect until Brotherhood came out and changed things extending unnecessarily the story just to make more money out of AC2 reputation. <<

First, I strongly disagree. Second, I really wish people would quit attaching speculative motives to Ubi/Devs for everything negative they have an issue with. :mad:

AdrianJacek
12-09-2012, 12:49 PM
>> For me Brotherhood ruined the story of the series, and Revelations was made to retcon the thing with Altair's and Ezio's POEs
Everything was perfect until Brotherhood came out and changed things extending unnecessarily the story just to make more money out of AC2 reputation. <<


Ugh, this again? They FIXED a retcon, not created one. And they fixed it very well, I might add.

True_Assassin92
12-09-2012, 01:37 PM
Problem is, they had a time constraint- they wanted to release the game before December 21st 2012.

Exactly, now that they don't have any time constraint, it's time for them to take an example at Bioshock: Infinite. At least they dare to stall the game to improve and polish it up. AC3 was a bit rushed if you consider all the bugs...

HisSpiritLives
12-09-2012, 01:47 PM
I have not played it on PC what is it like?

I can tell you from first hand that it is amazing!

CalgaryJay
12-10-2012, 06:29 PM
Exactly, now that they don't have any time constraint, it's time for them to take an example at Bioshock: Infinite. At least they dare to stall the game to improve and polish it up. AC3 was a bit rushed if you consider all the bugs...

Ya, I'm a big GTA fan and was beyond frustrated with how long they've dragged out this wait since the 1st trailer over a year ago. But after playing AC3, I'm a lot more forgiving about it now. I didn't experience the visual bugs many did, but you just can't help but get the feeling that it wasn't quite finished in places.

As mentioned, that hard date of having to get it released before Dec 2012 was probably a huge reason, so at least they don't have to worry about that anymore.

twenty_glyphs
12-10-2012, 07:05 PM
Ya, I'm a big GTA fan and was beyond frustrated with how long they've dragged out this wait since the 1st trailer over a year ago. But after playing AC3, I'm a lot more forgiving about it now. I didn't experience the visual bugs many did, but you just can't help but get the feeling that it wasn't quite finished in places.

As mentioned, that hard date of having to get it released before Dec 2012 was probably a huge reason, so at least they don't have to worry about that anymore.

There will still be pressure to have an AC game out by Thanksgiving every year. The hard and fast date came from wanting to have an AC game out in time for Christmas shopping season, and also on a date before Call of Duty and other blockbuster franchises hit. I seriously doubt the 12/21/2012 date played any significant role in deciding when to release AC3. You don't HAVE to tell a story about that date before it arrives in real life. The way they handled the story throughout the game, I felt so disconnected from the 12/21/2012 aspect anyway.

But Ubisoft will still want a game out every year in time for Christmas, and that will continue to drive hard and fast ship dates that can't be moved. Knowing that's the reality, they should plan the games accordingly and not try to build the biggest, most complicated game ever and have no time to adequately test and finish it.

Turul.
12-10-2012, 08:08 PM
AC3 accomplished so much.

i'm not worried about the next release, everything ac3 did, the next will do better.

Firenze-Paladin
12-10-2012, 08:10 PM
Well unlike the author I've played this game to 100% sync (& like many other gamers I suspect it I am now waiting for dlc - I already got the Captain Kidd missions in my preorder so i fell a touch ripped by the first instalment of the season pass). While knowledgable it seems a bit lame to comment so extensively without having completed the game.
I feel this game did try to emulate Red Dead Redemption in many aspects - while some modifications were good others fell short. Namely the cash reward for the quality of the skin was a good feature but kill methods for more dangerous animals was lame - I long for the extinction of these stupid button sequence plays. Also the final sequences with Hatham & Charles Lee were poorly done - why not an extensive hand-to-hand combat especially with Hatham (a former assassin). The end with Desmond - wtf?
I could go go on but who wants to see yet another forum rant - this was not a game of the year and Ubisoft clearly need to take AC to a new level and test more extensively - such a glitchy game. So while I would get the next AC - I think it's the end of preorders for me as I get the bonuses further down the track.

luckyto
12-11-2012, 10:53 PM
Ambient music.... yes! I do love the cities. I really do. But ambient music would be nice.


There will still be pressure to have an AC game out by Thanksgiving every year. The hard and fast date came from wanting to have an AC game out in time for Christmas shopping season, and also on a date before Call of Duty and other blockbuster franchises hit. I seriously doubt the 12/21/2012 date played any significant role in deciding when to release AC3. You don't HAVE to tell a story about that date before it arrives in real life. The way they handled the story throughout the game, I felt so disconnected from the 12/21/2012 aspect anyway.

But Ubisoft will still want a game out every year in time for Christmas, and that will continue to drive hard and fast ship dates that can't be moved. Knowing that's the reality, they should plan the games accordingly and not try to build the biggest, most complicated game ever and have no time to adequately test and finish it.

That **** yearly release schedule. That's what is destroying the franchise. It really burned them here.

I'm glad I got a big game, that had unfinished side missions. But I have a feeling, I will get smaller games with polished side missions like Brotherhood now... which will suck. But really, I want a game like AC3 ... I just want them to finish it first. At this point, I'll settle for DLC which would fill it.

Deadlysyns666
12-11-2012, 10:54 PM
VGA's mean something... this is news