PDA

View Full Version : Assassins Creed 3, not a bad game



Jack_19-89
03-03-2014, 05:03 AM
Ok so AC3 is not as bad as a lot people say. For me it is my 2nd favorite, AC2 being my favorite. I judge a game by how it opens and what I mean is like the part in ac2 where you race your brother up the tower and then your brother say it is a good life we lead and pans to over look the city and says ubisoft presents Assassins Creed 2. That feeling of what seemed to be limitless possibilities and that awe feeling that many ac fans felt, was almost duplicated in ac3 after the first time your on a ship as Hatham and you have to climb to the top of the mast to see land and it pans to see Boston and the new world frontier behind. The feeling of limitless potential was back and personally I was not disappointed with 2 major cities the frontier, and it's hunting dangerous game. And then the introductory to sailing and ship to ship battles And then the homestead where I couldn't help but feel like I was building a little town and community. I think people are too critical of AC3 when it was a good involving game with a good time setting and a hero in the truest sense of the word with wanting freedom for all and fought hard to that end

Assassin_M
03-03-2014, 05:07 AM
Hatham
Haymitch*

ihp7
03-03-2014, 05:14 AM
Ok so AC3 is not as bad as a lot people say. For me it is my 2nd favorite, AC2 being my favorite. I judge a game by how it opens and what I mean is like the part in ac2 where you race your brother up the tower and then your brother say it is a good life we lead and pans to over look the city and says ubisoft presents Assassins Creed 2. That feeling of what seemed to be limitless possibilities and that awe feeling that many ac fans felt, was almost duplicated in ac3 after the first time your on a ship as Hatham and you have to climb to the top of the mast to see land and it pans to see Boston and the new world frontier behind. The feeling of limitless potential was back and personally I was not disappointed with 2 major cities the frontier, and it's hunting dangerous game. And then the introductory to sailing and ship to ship battles And then the homestead where I couldn't help but feel like I was building a little town and community. I think people are too critical of AC3 when it was a good involving game with a good time setting and a hero in the truest sense of the word with wanting freedom for all and fought hard to that end

100% agree. I'm glad I'm not the only one

GunnerGalactico
03-03-2014, 06:55 AM
I also thought that AC3 was a good game. The only issue I had was with certain mission designs, cut dialogues and bugs and glitches.

It didn't feel like a full game but that's just my opinion... other then that I enjoyed the plot, the new game mechanics and the setting it was based on.

And also, Connor is one of my favourite assassins in the series.

LoyalACFan
03-03-2014, 08:02 AM
I'm one of AC3's detractors, and even I can't say it's a bad game. It was a solid 8/10 for me, and it actually had several really good things going for it (especially the animations, which are THE best and most naturalistic I've ever seen in a video game, period). It's just that it failed SO hard at living up to the hype. The buzz for that game was unbelievable, it was supposed to be the revolutionary (*chuckles*) title that pulled the AC franchise to its feet after the "dark age" of Brotherhood and Revelations-style spinoffs. But muddy storytelling, bad mission design, pointless features, glitches, and the flat-out painful Desmond missions held it back from being something truly amazing IMO, and shook my faith in AC4.

SpiritOfNevaeh
03-03-2014, 08:15 AM
I also thought that AC3 was a good game. The only issue I had was with certain mission designs, cut dialogues and bugs and glitches.

And also, Connor is one my favourite assassins in the series.

Agreed.

pirate1802
03-03-2014, 08:55 AM
I'm one of AC3's detractors, and even I can't say it's a bad game. It was a solid 8/10 for me, and it actually had several really good things going for it (especially the animations, which are THE best and most naturalistic I've ever seen in a video game, period). It's just that it failed SO hard at living up to the hype. The buzz for that game was unbelievable, it was supposed to be the revolutionary (*chuckles*) title that pulled the AC franchise to its feet after the "dark age" of Brotherhood and Revelations-style spinoffs. But muddy storytelling, bad mission design, pointless features, glitches, and the flat-out painful Desmond missions held it back from being something truly amazing IMO, and shook my faith in AC4.

This exactly. It wasn't a bad game, it was only bad compared to the unbelievable hype that was built up. On the other hand, I was expecting nothing spectacular from AC4 and was pleasantly surprised.

Megas_Doux
03-03-2014, 04:40 PM
AC III, for me:

1 Connor was a risky bet, for which I am sure that he was not a easy character to develop, something that I thank Ubi for. His story was GREAT my very favorite one. I love Haytham and Achilles also.
2 Pretty fun combat, from Haytham´s elegant expertise to Connor´s brutality. I just cant stop slaughtering soldiers :P
3 BAAAAD mission design and broken AI, along other misses such as NO background music.
4 The fresh although "non assassinsh" and yet welcome naval gameplay.

In the end, I like AC III, however It did not meet some of the uber high expectations in terms of gameplay.

Gibbo2g_83
03-03-2014, 04:52 PM
I think AC3 does have some good points even though I consider it my least favourite AC game out of them all. Connor completely divides me he was the best out them all for combat but I found his personality dull and boring. As for the missions I found it a real slog to get through there's far to many walking around missions and the 1st hour or so of the game nearly put me in a coma. Having said that though I enjoyed the game a lot for messing around on starting fights,exploring and hunting Redcoats in the frontier so it still gave me hours and hours of fun.

dbzk1999
03-03-2014, 05:45 PM
Is it a bad game? No
Is it a great game? No
It's stuck right in between
Maybe if they didn't overhype it
The reception would be better

Assassin_M
03-03-2014, 05:56 PM
For me, AC III represents the best and the worst of the series. I agree with most people here. I think it has the best story, best cast of characters, best combat and some of the best side content. meanwhile, I think it has some of the worst side content, worst designed missions and worst creative decisions.

While I do think that another "chase against time for key to open door" plot to be rather repetitive and thus contrived, I really enjoyed Connor's journey. despite what many think, I thought it was a well told story and perhaps before I disliked Connor's uneasy alliance with the Patriots, I understand now why that was done. I think it was necessary for the later betrayal and revelation to have more impact. GW's involvement with the burning of his village and the later sacking of his people's lands. i thought it was a pretty solid narrative all in all. Add to that the ambiguity of the story, an amazing antagonist in Haytham, awesome script and great chemistry between characters and I have my favorite story in the series so far.

The cast of characters was pretty cool, from the colorful Homestead residents to the main cast to the band of Assassins to the Templars.

The revamped combat was a nice change from AC's at time slow and unprogressive combat, it still needs work, but it was going in the right direction imo.

The game was full with side content. from the fresh Naval to the immersive captain kidd missions. Naval was just a different game on its own, really. The homestead, although short on stabby stabby action, was nice to watch as progression to a community and Connor. Hunting side missions, Brawling and Liberation were pretty awesome too.

Now for the worst...

Assassination contracts, Couriers and Deliveries were some of the most half-assed missions i'v seen in my life. No story, no context, heck no game design. They just seemed like a start of something and were only left there because they ran out of time to remove them.

Now, AC's core elements demand a good amount of brainstorming to execute fun game design. A mission does not need to utilize ALL the elements, but it should make the most out of what it chooses to utilize. a combination of stealth and combat, stealth and parkour, parkour and combat or parkour and stealth. AC III clearly had a different approach and priority...a Linear Cinematic experience. The game has 10 historical portion Assassination targets. 7 of them are linear sequences that are either "push X to kill" or a cinematic. Nothing wrong with the odd 2 or even 3 linear missions in an open world game that had freedom as a pillar of its game design. AC I had its share of linearity, so did AC II, ACB and ACR, but 7....from 10...it's too much.
Add to that missions like the Battle of Concord, the midnight ride and the Battle of Monmouth....Why does an Assassin sit on a horse and go back and forth saying fire? why does an Assassin ride a horse going from cutscene to cutscene? why does an Assassin command cannon fires? why make the focus of 2 of these terrible missions another terrible mechanic? the horse. add to that the extreme hand-holdiness in so many unnecessary cases like starting a mission with Haytham at the back of the fort, aiming his gun at the highlighted soldier...I can go to the back of the fort, bypass the guards, hide AND shoot by myself..It was just confusing and frustrating, because there were also some really good game design like in the forts and in some missions like Pitcairn and Johnson's Assassinations.

Other really annoying things include lack of Ambient music and psychic guard AI

Other really good things include hunting, seasons, Animations (god, those animations), Tree running and improved NPC AI.

It remains my second favorite after AC IV

I-Like-Pie45
03-03-2014, 06:00 PM
Personally i wouldve removed Midnight ride and replaced it with the crossing of the Delaware/battle of Trenton bc at least that would've given C + GW more screentime to dev. Their rel as allies so the bet couldve hadm ore impact

poptartz20
03-03-2014, 06:02 PM
AC3 really isn't a bad game in my opinion! It was my favorite.

which I can't lie and say it wasn't flawed in many ways. It represents the best and worst that the series has had to offer.

Also. I find it odd that so many people talk about the hype. Was there a lot of it on the forums? or are we just talking about commercials. (I saw AC3 first debuted on E3 of 2012) and read up on it very little until I saw commercials and other things like about who connor was and his weapons debut.

because honestly every game has "hype" what made this so different?

Fatal-Feit
03-03-2014, 06:06 PM
Also. I find it odd that so many people talk about the hype. Was there a lot of it on the forums? or are we just talking about commercials. (I saw AC3 first debuted on E3 of 2012) and read up on it very little until I saw commercials and other things about i like who connor was and his weapons debut.

because honestly every game has "hype" what made this so different?

I know right? I'm on the same boat as you are. I was really excited for AC:3, watched all the trailers many times (like I normally do with any AC title), but I never got the sensation that this game was suppose to be bigger than what people are claiming it was marketed to be.

The final product still surprised me and gave me a damn good experience.

SpiritOfNevaeh
03-03-2014, 06:14 PM
I know right? I'm on the same boat as you are. I was really excited for AC:3, watched all the trailers many times (like I normally do with any AC title), but I never got the sensation that this game was suppose to be bigger than what people are claiming it was marketed to be.

The final product still surprised me and gave me a damn good experience.

Same.

Shahkulu101
03-03-2014, 06:15 PM
It was the first numbered title for years, no more Ezio - a new protagonist, a new setting - finally! They had worked on it for 3 years, surely they would have had time to make it perfect? Yes, they will. No more disappointment, this title will be full throtle. No more spin-off's!

What's that? Frozen lakes? Random events? Open-ended missions? Hell yes! Oh wait a minute....

Maybe they are going to revamp the core mechanics? Stealth has some cool new mechanics, I wonder how we can manipulate the A - oh damn their psychic....

I could go on and on and on...

There were so many disappointments, and with Ubisoft's marketing campaign and showcasing of false gameplay - we deserved better.

tjbyrum1
03-03-2014, 06:19 PM
AC3 is probably the second best AC game. Not sure where I'd rank it on my 'favorite games' list (see signature), but it is the second best AC game by far.

AC2 and AC3 were well-made and very innovative to the series, while Brotherhood, Revelations, and IV:BF were... copy and pasted, and somehow detracted from the series.

GrubbierSnow85
03-03-2014, 06:22 PM
ACIII was only good for introducing naval warfare.

The characters were hokey and one-dimensional. Connor was an idiot. The horse he rode had more charisma.

All Desmond missions sucked, without exception.

Midnight ride? (say no more)

Underground tunnels were a waste of time, and had no real use.

BloodHerritage
03-03-2014, 06:44 PM
The game is far from bad, but is also far from great.

My favourite AC game is the first one, but it doesn't mean it's the best game on the series.

The best game of the franchise was Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Everything on the game was polished, everything had it's relevance to the story, even the side missions.
The 2nd best was obviously Ac2 (witch most would say was the best, but in an objective point of view it lacked some of the polishment and harmony across all its features that AcB had).

Now i think Ac3 had the potential to be the best game of the franchise if only it weren't rushed.
The main story leaves too much plot holes because it was going to be longer. This month the lead animator from Ac3 made a great "blog" about what it was like to work on Ac3 and there was one video about one discussion between some1 that wasn't on the game (who was very important by the look of the converstation) witih Benjamin Church (the guy you kill after Haytham beats him up on his own Ship - not a boat if you know what i mean :P), that cut-scene is the perfect example of how Ubisoft rushed the game so much that they left many stuff aside.

Just as i remember reading some1 from the dev team saying the Frontier was going to be MUCH bigger but when they were approaching release date they had to dump most of it.

I just imagine the craft system and the side missions suffered from the same evil and that's why the whole game feels so disjointed (aka the complete opposite of AcB).

So yeah, Ac3 was one of my favourite games in a long time even tho i know it could have been better and that it's not a great game per see.

pd: i didnt include Ac4 on this analisis.

pirate1802
03-03-2014, 06:45 PM
I know right? I'm on the same boat as you are. I was really excited for AC:3, watched all the trailers many times (like I normally do with any AC title), but I never got the sensation that this game was suppose to be bigger than what people are claiming it was marketed to be.

You should have seen these forums the day AC3 was revealed. I stayed up all night to watch the website gradually shift from dark background to snowy, and then finally seeing the reveal trailer. The hype and expectation was through the roof. Why? Because as Shahkulu says, we saw a steady decline of AC before that. From multiple cities and 13-14 sequences to a single city and 3-4 sequence worth story. See for yourself, the shift from AC1-2 to Brotherhood-Revelations. In this scenario, out comes an AC game with a numbered title, a protagonist who is not Ezio, and an exotic new setting and multiple cities! That **** didn't happen since 2009. So yeah fans were rightfully extremely excited about AC3 because in our eyes it was to be AC's redemption, a return to old and glorious days before the advent of Ezio-centric expansions that got passed off as "sequels".

Sushiglutton
03-03-2014, 08:24 PM
The most disapointing game I'ver ever played. Is it the worst? Nah, not really. But there were so many poor creative decisions made for the game that it still hurts to think about it. Let's hope the next reboot has the right basic ideas!

SixKeys
03-03-2014, 11:46 PM
I wish I could say it wasn't a bad game, that it just didn't live up to all the hype but that underneath there was a solid gameplay experience. But I just can't.

AC3 was a bad game.

Story complaints aside, almost nothing worked the way it should:

-AI was broken
-Enemies don't always show up on the minimap
-Sometimes collectibles show up on the map where there are none or you've already collected them
-Checkpoint icons will sometimes duplicate themselves, so you have two green markers (to be fair, this problem has shown up in other titles)
-Wanted posters and printers showing up even when you're incognito
-Wanted posters and printers showing up when you're notorious, but unable to lower your notoriety
-Sooo many times having to restart the mission because the next checkpoint disappears from the map, your contact person is stuck inside a building, the next step fails to start, etc.
-People in cut scenes walking through your character like you're a ghost
-Sometimes tutorials gave out pure misinformation (like Sam Adams saying "no" when Connor suggests using the rooftops to get to the tunnels, yet using the rooftops was the only way to complete the mission)
-Handholding in parts that don't need it ("walk 20 meters from checkpoint A to checkpoint B") and zero instructions on things that should have been explained better (starting riots, for example)
-The horses were terrible (before anyone says "but they were always terrible in AC", I disagree. I never had anywhere near as many frustrations with horses as in AC3)
-Freerunning was less precise, making me actually want to avoid climbing. That should never happen in an AC title.
-Tree viewpoints in the Frontier often made it impossible to see the ground below, so you had to literally take a leap of faith and simply guess where the haybale might be
-The UI and menus were confusing and needlessly complicated
-Weapon wheel kept randomly switching my weapons without my input
-More bugs and glitches than any previous title

I was a huge AC fan before the game and I actually had trouble forcing myself to finish it. I kept pressing on because of Desmond's story, which ultimately ended up disappointing in so many ways. When I am more frustrated than entertained by a game, "bad" is the only way I can describe it.

Farlander1991
03-04-2014, 08:22 AM
-The horses were terrible (before anyone says "but they were always terrible in AC", I disagree. I never had anywhere near as many frustrations with horses as in AC3)

The horses were always terrible in AC :p Though I know what you mean, the difference is that the horses in previous AC games were used for traversal of open areas (with the exception of ACB where you could clumsily go around the streets of Rome in them), so it wasn't as noticeable, while the area in AC3 where horses are the most needed, i.e. Frontier, is a dense environment with lots of objects which horses would always jump on or clash with or wouldn't want to go through etc.