PDA

View Full Version : Ac3



marcbryan
01-13-2014, 02:21 AM
I am replaying this game at the moment after having just finished Black Flag and although it suffers from it's shortcomings I do honestly think that what AC3 achieves is far better than the majority of the series.The pace of the story (prologue and Connor's early life especially), insight into the lives of the assassins, templars and sub characters, the interactive conversations, the subtle and not so subtle arching themes and the overall environment is so refreshing, beautiful and immersive to be in. I'm probably biased because I live in New England and love the forest, architecture and history. Haha.

It's a shame that they reverted back to how the older games were fashioned because I think that 3 did a great job at balancing gameplay and story development. From what I've gathered, being thrown right into the assassin's robes and into the action constituents a "great" game. Also, everyone seems to love terra-cotta roof tiles. Black Flag is still awesome though. I give a lot of credit to game developers. Must be a hard job.


Don't expect anyone to care about what I have to say. Just sort of showed up the forum and talked a bunch of nonsense. Would really like to get the developers attention though! Isn't that why we're here?

SixKeys
01-13-2014, 02:54 AM
I thought pacing was one of AC3's biggest problems. They made missions out of things that should have been handled as cut scenes ("walk 20 feet to checkpoint") and made cut scenes out of things that should have been missions (every major assassination). We spent the first 3 hours as Haytham doing a lot of mundane things that really didn't need that much time dedicated to them. Then we spent a lot of time with Connor as a teenager when he didn't have most of his weapons yet. When we finally get to play him as a full assassin starting from sequence 6, the game suddenly starts rushing events and speeding us from one linear event to the next. Entering New York for the first time and being lead on a leash only to be captured before we even get to explore the city, then whisked out of there back into Boston for the next sequence is one of the most mind-bogglingly stupid examples of game design I've ever witnessed.

Megas_Doux
01-13-2014, 03:19 AM
ACIII, for me:

Poor mission design and by that I mean, linear, UBER linear.....
Horrible pacing.
Awesome combat
My favorite story and characters.

If I had to compare AC IV and AC III I would say the first grips me out of its overall gameplay and the latter for its combat, story and characters.

James_100
01-13-2014, 04:29 AM
It's all subjective, really. I'm pretty mixed towards this game:

The good:

Haytham, one of the best characters in the franchise. Criminally underused though, the sequences with him are one of the games highlights.
Naval combat was a great addition, probably the other highlight.
The ambition of the game. I mean the sheer amount of content there is and the size.
I thought it handled the Revolution historically well. I give them credit for not making this game too pro-American/anti-British, had a nice balance.

The bad:

I couldn't get along with Connor at all, I was always disagreeing with his character, which just really took me out of the immersion.
Terrible pacing, like the chaps above me agree on.
Hit or miss gameplay, seemed a bit unresponsive at times, especially during combat.
The browns and darker browns of Boston and New York don't really do anything for me, and the Frontier got really boring pretty damn quickly as well.
That weird trading gameplay they had going on.
Linear level design, with stupid mission constraints.
Forgettable characters. Apart from Haytham, none of the characters really stood out as well developed characters. It didn't help that Washington was played by Robin Atkin Downes, AKA the guy that voices everyone and their mothers.
The ending. Needs no explanation.

It's not the worst game in the world, but neither is it the best the series has to other. Bare in mind this is my opinion, feel free to disagree or castrate me, depending on how strong you feel.

Shahkulu101
01-13-2014, 04:30 AM
I thought pacing was one of AC3's biggest problems. They made missions out of things that should have been handled as cut scenes ("walk 20 feet to checkpoint") and made cut scenes out of things that should have been missions (every major assassination). We spent the first 3 hours as Haytham doing a lot of mundane things that really didn't need that much time dedicated to them. Then we spent a lot of time with Connor as a teenager when he didn't have most of his weapons yet. When we finally get to play him as a full assassin starting from sequence 6, the game suddenly starts rushing events and speeding us from one linear event to the next. Entering New York for the first time and being lead on a leash only to be captured before we even get to explore the city, then whisked out of there back into Boston for the next sequence is one of the most mind-bogglingly stupid examples of game design I've ever witnessed.

Sometimes I just want to hug your posts.

STDlyMcStudpants
01-13-2014, 04:45 AM
I care and agree..
Most organic world in video game history.
I love when I can enjoy a game outside of its story.
The fronteir was so fun to explore, finding caves and ponds and the different animals that inhabited the areas

SixKeys
01-13-2014, 04:57 AM
I care and agree..
Most organic world in video game history.
I love when I can enjoy a game outside of its story.
The fronteir was so fun to explore, finding caves and ponds and the different animals that inhabited the areas

What exactly do you mean by organic? When I think of the word "organic" in game design, I think of being able to interact with its inhabitants and missions arising out of random encounters in the wild. AC3's world can only be described as organic if you mean it as a synonym to "natural". It didn't have random events or interaction on a deeper level with the NPCs. Red Dead Redemption and GTA are better examples of organic worlds where your actions have a notable effect on the environment.

phoenix-force411
01-13-2014, 05:29 AM
ACIII's worth playing and 100% syncing only once. I WILL NOT REPLAY ACIII! Too much work and too much annoyance!

Fatal-Feit
01-13-2014, 06:57 AM
I'm am replaying this game at the moment after having just finished Black Flag and although it suffers from it's shortcomings I do honestly think that what AC3 achieves is far better than the majority of the series.The pace of the story (prologue and Connor's early life especially), insight into the lives of the assassins, templars and sub characters, the interactive conversations, the subtle and not so subtle arching themes and the overall environment is so refreshing, beautiful and immersive to be in. I'm probably biased because I live in New England and love the forest, architecture and history. Haha.

It's a shame that they reverted back to how the older games were fashioned because I think that 3 did a great job at balancing gameplay and story development. From what I've gathered, being thrown right into the assassin's robes and into the action constituents a "great" game. Also, everyone seems to love terra-cotta roof tiles. Black Flag is still awesome though. I give a lot of credit to game developers. Must be a hard job.


Don't expect anyone to care about what I have to say. Just sort of showed up the forum and talked a bunch of nonsense. Would really like to get the developers attention though! Isn't that why we're here?

This is exactly how I feel! I hate how fans are always dismissing AC:3 for what it is. Black Flag was awesome, but it clearly wasn't influenced by AC:3's ups, which IMO, left it less of a satisfying game.

ex: Even though Haytham was in 3 sequences, I felt the entire Templar cast was more interesting and interactive than the entire crew in AC:IV. The interactive conversations added depth and were fascinating. The side discussions and bickering between the Templar cast in the main sequences were entertaining and added so much feels to these characters. By the climax, when Connor starts engaging them, you were able to sympathize with them and their motives as a person. They left Connor antagonized, and made players want to be a Templar.

In AC:IV, when the cast started depleting, I really didn't feel as much sorrow as I wanted. There was little to no scene with Edward sharing a drink with Adewale and his crew. A scarce amount of dialogues with Edward and the other pirates displaying their loyalty and friendship. I just didn't want to be a pirate or someone fighting for liberty and independence like in AC:3. They all felt like strangers no matter how many times I've replayed the game. (7+ times) :(

DinoSteve1
01-13-2014, 07:15 AM
ACIII, for me:

Poor mission design and by that I mean, linear, UBER linear.....
Horrible pacing.
Awesome combat
My favorite story and characters.

If I had to compare AC IV and AC III I would say the first grips me out of its overall gameplay and the latter for its combat, story and characters.

I agree with most of this, only I found the characters bar Haytham either boring and wooden, or clichéd, honestly of all the Assassins Creed games AC3 has the worst story and characters, there was nothing to make me care about anything in that game, I would also add the free running was terrible in AC3.

But at least the combat was good.

poptartz20
01-13-2014, 07:53 AM
This is exactly how I feel! I hate how fans are always dismissing AC:3 for what it is. Black Flag was awesome, but it clearly wasn't influenced by AC:3's ups, which IMO, left it less of a satisfying game.

ex: Even though Haytham was in 3 sequences, I felt the entire Templar cast was more interesting and interactive than the entire crew in AC:IV. The interactive conversations added depth and were fascinating. The side discussions and bickering between the Templar cast in the main sequences were entertaining and added so much feels to these characters. By the climax, when Connor starts engaging them, you were able to sympathize with them and their motives as a person. They left Connor antagonized, and made players want to be a Templar.

In AC:IV, when the cast started depleting, I really didn't feel as much sorrow as I wanted. There was little to no scene with Edward sharing a drink with Adewale and his crew. A scarce amount of dialogues with Edward and the other pirates displaying their loyalty and friendship. I just didn't want to be a pirate or someone fighting for liberty and independence like in AC:3. They all felt like strangers no matter how many times I've replayed the game. (7+ times) :(

This.

You speak to my heart! lol.

As much as I wanted to sympathize with Edward I found it hard to do so. because of those reasons. also because It felt like a situation again where even though we saw both sides of the story literately it kinda went back to it's typical Templars=bad guys again phase. Instead of I'm not sure who I would honestly side with because the lines have blurred. Don't get me wrong.. it doesn't take ways from how fun AC4 is and what I enjoyed. I'm actually about to read the book here soon... but still

annnd... YOU ALREADY PLAYED AC4 7 TIMES??

marcbryan
01-13-2014, 01:41 PM
This is exactly how I feel! I hate how fans are always dismissing AC:3 for what it is. Black Flag was awesome, but it clearly wasn't influenced by AC:3's ups, which IMO, left it less of a satisfying game.

ex: Even though Haytham was in 3 sequences, I felt the entire Templar cast was more interesting and interactive than the entire crew in AC:IV. The interactive conversations added depth and were fascinating. The side discussions and bickering between the Templar cast in the main sequences were entertaining and added so much feels to these characters. By the climax, when Connor starts engaging them, you were able to sympathize with them and their motives as a person. They left Connor antagonized, and made players want to be a Templar.

In AC:IV, when the cast started depleting, I really didn't feel as much sorrow as I wanted. There was little to no scene with Edward sharing a drink with Adewale and his crew. A scarce amount of dialogues with Edward and the other pirates displaying their loyalty and friendship. I just didn't want to be a pirate or someone fighting for liberty and independence like in AC:3. They all felt like strangers no matter how many times I've replayed the game. (7+ times) :(

Agreed! That's how I felt while playing, although, I've only gone through it 2 times so far. I'd love to see the series bring back the interactive conversations and an even more organic open world to immerse yourself in.

What does everyone mean by "linear" mission design? Every mission in the AC series has an end goal so they are always destined to end the same way for each player. Are we speaking in regard to how to carry out those missions? Other than scaling and sneaking into large buildings the missions in 3 are similar to the other games. Ex. Go to location x and do something.

And pacing is a matter of perception for sure. I guess I don't mind sitting through cutscenes as long as they were integral to the story. ACIII did have some superfluous moments however. Particularly everything that happened after getting out of prison between Connor and Haytham. A lot the dialogue was just childish bickering.

I did think that walking 10 meters to the "hill" to find Kaniehtiio was a bit unnecessary but it didn't ruin the moment for me though. I'd almost prefer to play those unnecessary actions than skip right to the point.

In regard to Connor's personality, how charismatic would you be if a group of strangers burned down your village, started fighting between each other over land they have no claim over, and used you as a pawn to fulfill their own goals? No one was a true "friend", maybe with the exception of the homesteaders, because they all still regarded him and his people as less than they.

They definitely should not have added the bocci playing sequence with Washington though.

Fatal-Feit
01-13-2014, 02:04 PM
Agreed! That's how I felt while playing, although, I've only gone through it 2 times so far. I'd love to see the series bring back the interactive conversations and an even more organic open world to immerse yourself in.

What does everyone mean by "linear" mission design? Everyone mission in the AC series has a end goal so they are always destined to end the same way for each player. Are we speaking in regard to how to carry out those missions?

And pacing is a matter of perception for sure. I guess I don't mind sitting through cutscenes as long as they were integral to the story. ACIII did have some superfluous moments however. Particularly everything that happened after getting out of prison between Connor and Haytham. A lot the dialogue was just childish bickering.

I did think that walking 10 meters to the "hill" to find Kaniehtiio was a bit unnecessary but it didn't ruin the moment for me though. I'd almost prefer to play those unnecessary actions than skip right to the point.

Interactive conversations damn important to the story. I think people skipped a lot of it and rushed through the game, which is why they thought that AC:3's pacing was ''off''.

ex: Kanen'tó:kon's betrayal and the Kanien'kehá:ka's involvement and abandonment was never something ''out of the blue''. There were plenty of side-conversations that had you anticipate it.

AC:IV was just begging for it with its cast. They were initially more interesting and the game tried its best to make every character relevant and apparent in the main sequences, but there was only so much 12 parts could do. I would have enjoyed gathering collectibles in Havana and then stopping to speak to Bonnet to see their ''friendship'' develope before he disappears for most of the game. Or halfway in the story, whenever you stopped by Nassau, Edward could interact with Anne and Rackham. I mean seriously, Anne and Rackham couldn't be anymore of an undeveloped stranger if the game tried. Heck, during sequence 6, after Blackbeard and Hornigold stopped arguing, it would have been nice to speak each and hear their side of the predicament since they're still on the map.


annnd... YOU ALREADY PLAYED AC4 7 TIMES??

Yeah! I have a couple save files on consoles and I also play on PC. AC:IV is arguably the most fun AC to play.

ConanTheLeader
01-13-2014, 02:24 PM
The game was much more enjoyable my second time around, which was last October. When the game launched I nearly fell asleep playing it, this led me to think the game was boring but it was actually fatigue of the series.

Playing it again after nearly a year felt refreshing, there is so much attention to detail and so much to do. The setting is very enjoyable also and it's a shame we won't have another game with Connor as recently reported on the web.

SixKeys
01-13-2014, 04:33 PM
Interactive conversations damn important to the story. I think people skipped a lot of it and rushed through the game, which is why they thought that AC:3's pacing was ''off''.

ex: Kanen'tó:kon's betrayal and the Kanien'kehá:ka's involvement and abandonment was never something ''out of the blue''. There were plenty of side-conversations that had you anticipate it.

I never skip any side content on my first playthrough. I did every single interactive conversation and I still think the pacing was off. The Kanen'to:kon ones were okay, but the George Washington ones were pointless. Talking to him didn't make me any more sympathetic towards him or make me understand why Connor kept insisting on working for him. After the betrayal they just go and play bowls together like two best friends? WTF?

STDlyMcStudpants
01-13-2014, 08:30 PM
What exactly do you mean by organic? When I think of the word "organic" in game design, I think of being able to interact with its inhabitants and missions arising out of random encounters in the wild. AC3's world can only be described as organic if you mean it as a synonym to "natural". It didn't have random events or interaction on a deeper level with the NPCs. Red Dead Redemption and GTA are better examples of organic worlds where your actions have a notable effect on the environment.
I meeant interacting with the world..such as being able to climb trees and rocks..name another game that can do that..even edward couldnt rock climb 8)
I do miss being able to stab the innocent though.....

LoyalACFan
01-13-2014, 11:49 PM
Interactive conversations damn important to the story. I think people skipped a lot of it and rushed through the game, which is why they thought that AC:3's pacing was ''off''.

ex: Kanen'tó:kon's betrayal and the Kanien'kehá:ka's involvement and abandonment was never something ''out of the blue''. There were plenty of side-conversations that had you anticipate it.

This isn't an excuse. The optional conversations would have been cool if they were just extra stuff that fleshed out the characters' backgrounds, but there was some pretty critical info in those conversations. Like you said, the build-up to Kanen'tó:kon's decision to throw in with Lee, as well as Lafayette's introduction and a few other things, were stuff that should have been in the main story. I didn't even know Kanen'tó:kon's conversations existed on my first playthrough, and by no means did I "rush" through the story (took me 70+ hours just to get to Sequence 12).

It's a moot point anyway, though. The info in the optional conversations was largely irrelevant to the pacing issues. The bulk of the problems were caused by half the game being a prologue of almost equal length to the main game. I still feel like AC3 should have been at least 15 sequences if they weren't going to trim down the Haytham/young Connor stuff.

Fatal-Feit
01-14-2014, 12:25 AM
I never skip any side content on my first playthrough. I did every single interactive conversation and I still think the pacing was off. The Kanen'to:kon ones were okay, but the George Washington ones were pointless. Talking to him didn't make me any more sympathetic towards him or make me understand why Connor kept insisting on working for him. After the betrayal they just go and play bowls together like two best friends? WTF?

It's apparent enough that Connor is not a selfish man. Ending George Washington over revenge would be to end the entire war and what he and everyone else stood up for. It's a development in character that shows that the series have matured over AC:2 and AC:B. For Connor to throw down the axe and call it quits would just be silly. He swore a duty to the protect people from men who threatens their freedom, blue coats or not. And as typical Connor, he will never stop. He will never give up simply by reasons of betrayals.

Hell-- If I could sit through Achilles's lectures and argues back, I wouldn't be surprised of myself either, naive or not.

As for being able to play Bocce with George, I'm more than certain that never happened in the real story. Connor most likely walked away like a pimp after he lectured George. The developers were probably having fun and decided to add a little amusement for the fans.

Fatal-Feit
01-14-2014, 12:31 AM
This isn't an excuse. The optional conversations would have been cool if they were just extra stuff that fleshed out the characters' backgrounds, but there was some pretty critical info in those conversations. Like you said, the build-up to Kanen'tó:kon's decision to throw in with Lee, as well as Lafayette's introduction and a few other things, were stuff that should have been in the main story. I didn't even know Kanen'tó:kon's conversations existed on my first playthrough, and by no means did I "rush" through the story (took me 70+ hours just to get to Sequence 12).

It's a moot point anyway, though. The info in the optional conversations was largely irrelevant to the pacing issues. The bulk of the problems were caused by half the game being a prologue of almost equal length to the main game. I still feel like AC3 should have been at least 15 sequences if they weren't going to trim down the Haytham/young Connor stuff.

I really don't have any pacing issues in the main sequences like you all have. It's really weird! Probably could be because I can swallow the long tutorial. I'm a story driven guy, so if it's gameplay they want to sacrifice, I'm all for it.

I actually wanted more Haytham and young Connor sequences too! :p

LoyalACFan
01-14-2014, 12:41 AM
I really don't have any pacing issues in the main sequences like you all have. It's really weird! Probably could be because I can swallow the long tutorial. I'm a story driven guy, so if it's gameplay they want to sacrifice, I'm all for it.

I actually wanted more Haytham and young Connor sequences too! :p

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed every minute of Sequence 1-5, but there wasn't enough after it. I mean, there were only 7 sequences of adult Connor; that's less than ACR. The first five sequences were like a casual stroll through Haytham's introduction and Connor's childhood, but then it felt we were blasted through his adulthood at warp speed.

Fatal-Feit
01-14-2014, 12:57 AM
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed every minute of Sequence 1-5, but there wasn't enough after it. I mean, there were only 7 sequences of adult Connor; that's less than ACR. The first five sequences were like a casual stroll through Haytham's introduction and Connor's childhood, but then it felt we were blasted through his adulthood at warp speed.

True enough, but I normally tend to take my time with the last 7 sequences, having nearly everything unlocked now. A few naval missions, a few hunting requests, a few civilian quests, some Homestead missions, there are so much things to do by that point in the story. The developers proabbly intended for the players to take their time before completing each sequence. If the players were spending 3-4 hours doing side-quests and then had little to no impacting story in the main sequence, they would be disappointed.