PDA

View Full Version : Can someone please explain why AC3 is often considered a disappointment?



JustPlainQuirky
06-23-2014, 07:31 PM
As many of you already know, AC:3 was my first AC game and I just got into the franchise late last year. Just recently, I played through every single assassin's creed game. (the major titles I mean. Aside from Freedom Cry because my computer sucks at running it) AC: Revelations and AC:3 being the ones I'm most fond of. Of course it is likely personal bias I like AC:3 since it was my first AC game, but I'm curious as to why many people disliked it. (aside from the obvious Connor complaints) I have the same question for Revelations. I really enjoyed Revelations. Yet these two games are almost always at the bottom of people's lists.

And then I keep hearing something about actual Revelations being in the DLC. can someone please explain that?

Anyway I'm replaying AC:3 right now (aiming for full synchronization) and I'm just loving the atmosphere and build up and haytham and....I'm curious to hear the complaints. Is it lack of gameplay innovation? I found the narrative interesting, as flawed as some scenes were. Hmm. Explain pls.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-23-2014, 07:37 PM
Wow, prepare to be bombarded with the answers O_O;;;

J/k

But, in a nutshell per se, people mostly complained it was bad because it delivered broken promises and expected something more of what they saw at E3 and such, but it looked like it turned out to be hype, hence the disappointments.

mikeyf1999
06-23-2014, 07:37 PM
As many of you already know, AC:3 was my first AC game and I just got into the franchise late last year. Just recently, I played through every single assassin's creed game. (the major titles I mean. Aside from Freedom Cry because my computer sucks at running it) AC: Revelations and AC:3 being the ones I'm most fond of. Of course it is likely personal bias I like AC:3 since it was my first AC game, but I'm curious as to why many people disliked it. (aside from the obvious Connor complaints) I have the same question for Revelations. I really enjoyed Revelations. Yet these two games are almost always at the bottom of people's lists.

And then I keep hearing something about actual Revelations being in the DLC. can someone please explain that?

Anyway I'm replaying AC:3 right now (aiming for full synchronization) and I'm just loving the atmosphere and build up and haytham and....I'm curious to hear the complaints. Is it lack of gameplay innovation? I found the narrative interesting, as flawed as some scenes were. Hmm. Explain pls.
A) they overhyped it (kept making it seem like this would be THE assassins creed game
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ImJckbkGmYg (this really explains why most consider it a disappointment)
B) tht revelation that they added to the dlc was that Lucy was actually a Templar you find out that the reason subject 16 couldn't escape was because, pretty much Lucy wouldn't let him and clay resolved that all he could do was kill himself and pass on that message to desmond (he refused initially but eventually resigned himself to it after seeing there was no other way out) the dlc also goes a lot more into clays life

pacmanate
06-23-2014, 07:38 PM
1. Took too long to become Connor
2. Connor gets half his game
3. Takes 6 sequences to become an Assassin
4. Pacing
5. Cutscenes everywhere
6. Mission Design
7. 100% sync constraints
8. Viewpoints not revealing whole map
9. The underground system
10. Empty spaces in Boston and New York taking a 3rd of the map
11. Not enough side quests to warrant exploring the whole map
12. Side quests are too simplistic
13. Some side quests are dumb, eg gathering items. Costs more to get them than the return you get for completing it
14. The stupidly wide search zone once you have broken line of sight
15. The crazy line of sight of guards
16. The bow, which is supposed to be stealthy, seemingly alerts guards still
17. The trading and crafting system being too complex/not explained well enough for some players
18. Gimped modern day segments that were too short when they were supposed to be equivalent of "5 sequences worth"
19. Voice acting of Connor
20. Throwing in parts of history just for the sake of it


That's all I can think of at the moment

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-23-2014, 07:40 PM
1. Took too long to become Connor
2. Connor gets half his game
3. Takes 6 sequences to become an Assassin
4. Pacing
5. Cutscenes everywhere
6. Mission Design
7. 100% sync constraints
8. Viewpoints not revealing whole map
9. The underground system
10. Empty spaces in Boston and New York taking a 3rd of the map
11. Not enough side quests to warrant exploring the whole map
12. Side quests are too simplistic
13. Some side quests are dumb, eg gathering items. Costs more to get them than the return you get for completing it
14. The stupidly wide search zone once you have broken line of sight
15. The crazy line of sight of guards
16. The bow, which is supposed to be stealthy, seemingly alerts guards still
17. The trading and crafting system being too complex/not explained well enough for some players
18. Gimped modern day segments that were too short when they were supposed to be equivalent of "5 sequences worth"


That's all I can think of at the moment

These are the problems I've heard of as well.

Xstantin
06-23-2014, 07:47 PM
To add to the list: Forrest Gump thing (Connor being present at almost every event), lack of ambient music, Homestead missions' voice acting, assassination contracts, brain damaged horses.

pacmanate
06-23-2014, 07:48 PM
Just added 2 more to my list, thats 20 points

Matknapers18
06-23-2014, 07:59 PM
In general, AC3 just couldn't live up to the hype that was given to it. I remember one Ubisoft Employee describing it as 'the best game ever made'. And although it isn't a bad game, everyone expected it to be incredible and it just wasn't. Thats pretty much the main reason. But other stuff does contribute aswell . Regardless of the hype, the game was pretty poor. Our main character was extremely un-likable and this 'living, breathing world' we expected was pretty empty. Everyone loves AC for their beautiful cities and the ability to run for hours along their roof tops. Instead we got New York and Boston which were both identical and flavourless locations. Literally, I cannot tell the difference, apart from that section of New York that was burned down. And with guards ALL OVER the roofs, most players just stuck to the streets. You know something is wrong, when you avoid having to climb buildings in an AC game. Everything we loved from the Ezio trilogy was gone. And for some, AC3 was the end of the era.

And with revelations, its not so bad. To be honest, I really liked Revelations. We had our likeable character, a beautiful city, and the ending connection with Ezio and Desmond was really touching. I think the hate is more related to gameplay. It just was just samey. Aside from the hookblade, the gameplay was exactly the same as Brotherhood really. For some, revelations was just a re-texture AC:B. Plus the story was pretty confusing. It was quite hard to follow.

Jexx21
06-23-2014, 08:01 PM
It didn't deliver on the promises they made at E3.

Or in one simple answer:

They didn't get enough time to develop the game.

mikeyf1999
06-23-2014, 08:02 PM
Just added 2 more to my list, thats 20 points

Don't forget when you use viewpoints you stand on top like an idiot I mean I know suspension of disbelief but COME ON standing on top I those crosses made no sense at least in other ac games it had the beam
How do you think ac3 would've been if it was haytham as the main playable character I mean desmond could go through his memories and he expects him to be a cold hearted SOB (because of seeing the borgias and other bad Templars) he's surprised to find how "good" haytham is without knowing he's a Templar until midway through ;that's when he expects him to be an sob) them he sees the other side to te Templars and sees that some Templars are good and not all are the same (maybe even see a bigger dark side to the assassins not the Borgia type but he questions both the assassins and the Templars goals)

JustPlainQuirky
06-23-2014, 08:04 PM
Ah I remember being annoyed with rooftop guards.

I loved the cutscenes tho and the 100% sync doesn't bother me.

And interesting thing about Revelations. I bought the special edition. Maybe I should redownload to check if I have the DLC.

edit: dang it now i have to re-install revelations

GunnerGalactico
06-23-2014, 08:08 PM
1. Took too long to become Connor
2. Connor gets half his game
3. Takes 6 sequences to become an Assassin
4. Pacing
5. Cutscenes everywhere
6. Mission Design
7. 100% sync constraints
8. Viewpoints not revealing whole map
9. The underground system
10. Empty spaces in Boston and New York taking a 3rd of the map
11. Not enough side quests to warrant exploring the whole map
12. Side quests are too simplistic
13. Some side quests are dumb, eg gathering items. Costs more to get them than the return you get for completing it
14. The stupidly wide search zone once you have broken line of sight
15. The crazy line of sight of guards
16. The bow, which is supposed to be stealthy, seemingly alerts guards still
17. The trading and crafting system being too complex/not explained well enough for some players
18. Gimped modern day segments that were too short when they were supposed to be equivalent of "5 sequences worth"
19. Voice acting of Connor
20. Throwing in parts of history just for the sake of it


That's all I can think of at the moment

I really disliked the economy system in AC3:

- you don't get to earn a lot of money in the game
- the items and upgrades are too expensive
- you're spending more than earning
- in AC2 to ACR you're in a position where you are earning too much money... it is the exact opposite in AC3 :(

Jexx21
06-23-2014, 08:11 PM
Don't forget when you use viewpoints you stand on top like an idiot I mean I know suspension of disbelief but COME ON standing on top I those crosses made no sense at least in other ac games it had the beam
How do you think ac3 would've been if it was haytham as the main playable character I mean desmond could go through his memories and he expects him to be a cold hearted SOB (because of seeing the borgias and other bad Templars) he's surprised to find how "good" haytham is without knowing he's a Templar until midway through ;that's when he expects him to be an sob) them he sees the other side to te Templars and sees that some Templars are good and not all are the same (maybe even see a bigger dark side to the assassins not the Borgia type but he questions both the assassins and the Templars goals)

I actually really liked the fact that you would stand on top, it felt a lot cooler. However, I think the best compromise if it would just be the character standing on a beam, e.g the AC1 trailer.

ACfan443
06-23-2014, 08:12 PM
Broken promises, over hyped to the point that people were almost expecting to receive God in the form of a video game, botched present day and ending which left a lot of the core fans disappointed and upset, and a heap of other reasons. Just refer to Pac's ginormous, ever growing list and you'll get the point.

JustPlainQuirky
06-23-2014, 08:14 PM
So it suffered from the hype akin to Watch_Dogs I take it?

Jexx21
06-23-2014, 08:17 PM
I'd argue worse than Watch Dogs.

JustPlainQuirky
06-23-2014, 08:19 PM
That's a lot of hype O-O

ACfan443
06-23-2014, 08:19 PM
So it suffered from the hype akin to Watch_Dogs I take it?

AC3 was even more hyped than WD. AC3 remained consistently anticipated throughout its promotional campaign, whereas WD lost considerable momentum when downgradeton hit.

JustPlainQuirky
06-23-2014, 08:22 PM
Well at least Ubisoft knows how to Market, lol.

wvstolzing
06-23-2014, 08:23 PM
In addition to what's already been said:

- Cumbersome item selection screen with an opaque background; even more unwieldy on mouse&keyboard.
- Cities not too freerunning-friendly.
- White screen flashes inbetween ridiculously many cutscenes. (Yes, we had white flashes before; but cutscenes weren't as many.)
- Not only are the upgrades too expensive, but they're mostly pointless anyhow. The starting equipment is perfectly fine to finish the game.
- [Something that became apparent after BF] Misleadingly triumphant exit of Juno at the end, stepping over Desmond and such----whereas we later find out that she's faintly floating about in the internet.

Jexx21
06-23-2014, 08:24 PM
Both received record sales numbers as well.

I recognize that AC3 was disappointing and didn't live up to what they promised, but I personally really liked it. I have a fondness for Boston and New York and the underground tunnels and most of the things in the game. But there are definitely aspects that are unfinished and obviously pushed out before they were ready.

I'm hoping that Unity will do what AC3 promised to do, and that is revitalize the series.

Jexx21
06-23-2014, 08:27 PM
Cities not too freerunning-friendly.


I actually really have to argue against this point, because Assassin_M pretty much proved that Boston and New York are just as if not more "parkour-friendly" than previous games in the series.

I personally have no issue staying on the rooftops.

JustPlainQuirky
06-23-2014, 08:27 PM
I wonder... Since the combat is enhanced in AC: Unity and 1 v 1 fights will be more difficult, does this mean Arno will likely be one of the weakest assassins?

Compared to Connor and Edward who can take down literally thousands within 10 minutes (as seen in some kill streak videos)

Jexx21
06-23-2014, 08:31 PM
They're all equals.

But Amancio is calling him the deadliest Assassin yet, so...

GunnerGalactico
06-23-2014, 08:36 PM
Both received record sales numbers as well.

I recognize that AC3 was disappointing and didn't live up to what they promised, but I personally really liked it. I have a fondness for Boston and New York and the underground tunnels and most of the things in the game. But there are definitely aspects that are unfinished and obviously pushed out before they were ready.

I'm hoping that Unity will do what AC3 promised to do, and that is revitalize the series.

I completely agree with this

I also agree with most of the things in Pac's list except for the voice acting. I liked Noah Watts' voice for Connor, but there is room for improvement though.

Shahkulu101
06-23-2014, 08:48 PM
Same reason any title is disappointing. A myriad of problems - from poor mission design, bad story presentation, terrible ending - with a sprinkle of broken promises on top.

It was disappointing but I still enjoyed it. Connor is an awesome character who I love, Frontier was beautiful and immersive, great characters (the best Templars in the series)...

There are some pros, they're just outnumbered by well...the bad stuff. :/

marvelfannumber
06-23-2014, 08:50 PM
Well at least Ubisoft knows how to Market, lol.

You can't even give them that, because if they were good at marketing they would show what was actually in the game *cough*Kanoos,randomevents,crouchingetc.*cough* excuse me, don't know what that was about.

Hans684
06-23-2014, 09:03 PM
You can't even give them that, because if they were good at marketing they would show what was actually in the game *cough*Kanoos,randomevents,crouchingetc.*cough* excuse me, don't know what that was about.

There is always something that is cut from games, nothing new or special about it.

marvelfannumber
06-23-2014, 09:04 PM
There is always something that is cut from games, nothing new or special about it.

Oh of course, I'll agree on that, however when you market stuff that might get cut you give off unresonable expectations.

wvstolzing
06-23-2014, 09:06 PM
you give off unresonable expectations.

Doesn't doing that, and getting away with it, amount to the 'art of marketing'?

Hans684
06-23-2014, 09:10 PM
Oh of course, I'll agree on that, however when you market stuff that might get cut you give off unresonable expectations.

Random events I understand, it was shown in a demo. Same with crunching, it's understandable to get disappointed regarding those but there was never shown gameplay of the Kanoos. And with so little places to actually use them it makes sense for them to be cut.

twenty_glyphs
06-23-2014, 09:16 PM
AC3 was supposed to be the culmination of what was seemingly originally conceived as a trilogy, as well as the first time in 3 years that we had a new ancestor character and a completely new setting. Between expecting the franchise to take a leap forward, looking forward to a refreshing new character/setting, and looking forward to seeing Desmond's story conclude, there were a lot of expectations.

For me and many people, the present-day story was a major disappointment and a terrible way to conclude a story that had been running for 5 years. It really stunk of existing just to set up the ongoing future annualization of the series, and it's disappointing to think they strung us along for 5 years just to pull the rug out from under us. Story presentation in the past and present was pretty bad and the whole story felt clunky.

The game itself was pretty buggy and definitely not finished. Lots of systems didn't work well and weren't balanced. There was obviously a lot of animation work that wasn't completed. Making it even worse, the game had been in development for a long time and we expected a polished product. Especially because the creative director said in March before the game came out that it was mostly coming together and they hoped to spend the last 6 months polishing the game, shipping basically AC3.5. Instead, we got AC3 pre-release alpha version 0.1.

In all, the game just felt off. I can say it was good looking back on it with less emotion now, but it never clicked to become great. The setting felt under-utilized and I found it to be the most boring of the series, the ongoing story fell disappointingly flat, there were bugs, mission design and gameplay issues... It was just a way overambitious project that strayed too far from what a lot people had fallen in love with the series for.

Fatal-Feit
06-23-2014, 09:22 PM
I wonder... Since the combat is enhanced in AC: Unity and 1 v 1 fights will be more difficult, does this mean Arno will likely be one of the weakest assassins?

Compared to Connor and Edward who can take down literally thousands within 10 minutes (as seen in some kill streak videos)

As long as it makes the progression system more rewarding.

phoenix-force411
06-23-2014, 09:24 PM
ACIII was overhyped, and what was shown in videos were not in the final game.

Here are some of the problems(it's broad):
- Connor can no longer sheathe a musket.
- Connor's shooting animation was changed to a very simplistic animation with no taste at at all.
- Guards' line of sight were ridiculous, and they become alerted even when they do not witness a fight at all, especially on rooftops.
- Notoriety punishment was harsh, and guards become telepathic when notoriety is at level 2 and 3.
- Slow-mo animations were crappy at best, and weren't even as good as how the E3 demo showed it(ACIV demo was more deceiving).
- 100% Sync constraints were 100% too hard on certain missions, and the constraints became an annoyance rather than a challenge.
- Lakes don't freeze.
- No canoeing(besides Liberation, but still, swimming after ferry is stupid)
- Dynamic Weathering was not impressive, and the game would only have snow at one point and then POOF! It's gone.
- Main Story missions were boring at best, and historical battles were disappointing to the point where you wanted to vomit on the game and sell it.
- Connor didn't come in until the game reached its half point, let alone, sequence 6 was when you actually started playing Connor with the assassin robes. Haytham took 1/4 of the game.
- Side quests were buggy as hell! And most were unenjoyable.
- Homestead missions were funner than the actual game's story.
- Board Games were way too hard and it was a JOKE to make it required for a trophy and 100% Sync(Thief challenges).
- Naval Missions were hurt by the Sync constraints.
- Wreckage of historical battles weren't kept around.
- A lot of animations and kill animations were excluded in the final product.

There's more, but I can't think of them right now. But yeah, this is somewhat of it. ACIII was still good despite all of this, but its replay value is a joke! I had to replay the game 3 times, because of a simple bug that prevented me from 100% sync.

rprkjj
06-23-2014, 09:39 PM
I loved AC3. The first playthrough. The second time; however, was awful. I just wanted to play as the guy on the cover, but the game feels it needs to give me 5 hours of setup and tutorials.

Apart from that:

Boring and simple side quests.
Boring trading and crafting with terrible UI.
Unsatisfying ending.
Boring underground tunnels.
Rage inducing AI.
Rooftop guards.
Wide streets.
Empty frontier.
Boring hunting.
Glitches.
Final few sequences felt rushed.
Mapping same button to run and climb = bad design.
Annoying optional objectives.
Combat is a ridiculously easy clip-fest.
Assassin recruits were unnecessary.
Counter warnings not showing up all the time.

Thats all I could think of. For ACR:

Carriage sequences.
Modern day puzzles.
No assassination contracts.
Same combat.
Bombs were somewhat useless.
Underused Altair.
No new Assassin.
Unsatisfying Mediterranean Defense.
Same optional objectives.

Thats it.

Sesheenku
06-23-2014, 10:55 PM
1 -> Only half the game is about being an Assassin

2 -> Horrendous automation and simplification of everything especially combat and parkour

3 -> Money that's essentially worthless

4 -> Crafting that's essentially worthless

5 -> Two cities that might as well have been identical

6 -> Dull and pointless side activities except for the kidd and homestead missions, kidds were fun to play and homestead missions were very heart warming

7 -> Glitchy as hell, you could fall out of the map near most waterfalls in the frontier and your second pistol would be replaced with a crappy flintlock on every load.

8 -> Ridiculously broke guards

9 -> The fall of stealth in AC games

10 -> Held your hand too much and then quickly switched to not telling you **** like in sequence 12 when you chase Charles Lee, it's not clear where to go to keep up in the burning ship.

11 -> Ridiculously terrible fully sync requirements that forced you to do nonsensical crap that only served to be frustrating as all hell

12 -> Rooftops made useless

13 -> Less weapon diversity all around, combat was simpler and duller than ever

14 -> Stupid missions where you just play the equivalent of mini games. (Tell the patriots when to open fire on red coat groups for example.)

15 -> As a final **** you from Ubisoft themselves, they don't even let you stab Charles Lee yourself, it's all done in a cutscene...

Will_Lucky
06-24-2014, 12:11 AM
I still maintain that engine was never designed for the 360 or PS3 in mind, which alongside all the other issues above annoyed me senseless as I found the framerate to be all over the place. Especially in combat that game just seemed to slow down.

LoyalACFan
06-24-2014, 12:50 AM
There are a ton of nitpicky things that can be complained about concerning AC3, but any game has those and many of them (especially the complaints aimed directly at Connor himself) are a matter of opinion, so it's not really worth talking about them. But AC3 had several major aspects that were objectively bad. I'm talking about big, core problems that wouldn't have been fixed even if the game had been given another six months of development. The horrendous pacing, numerous glitches, stupid mission design, broken economy, hive-mind AI, archaic aiming system, pointless crafting, repetitive fetch quests, and complete and utter lack of stealth were unforgivable. The game offers plenty of things to enjoy as well, so I guess each person is different in whether or not they can get past the issues I just listed and have fun with it. Personally, I was so disappointed with it that it almost physically hurt.

As for Revelations, I think it was just that the formula felt stale to some people by that point. I actually really liked it, as I wasn't a fan of Brotherhood and I think ACR was a kind of redemption (cooler city, better writing, Ezio actually feeling like a Mentor, etc). It had a lot of stupid cheesy gimmicks, but overall I think its curse was that mechanically it just felt like ACB with a fresh coat of paint, which is understandable considering it was made in under nine months. The only thing that I really think Revelations butchered was The Lost Archive DLC, which contained THE revelation we were hoping for in the main game. That was some major BS.

jmk1999
06-24-2014, 12:56 AM
for me it came down to 2 main issues. first being that i thought connor was an absolute bore. he was too aloof and soft spoken, nice to everyone for no matter what reason (unless they were a templar), and had really no personality. the second being that the frontier should have had quick travel options. it was too large and too much stuff to go through. it became very tedious.

but... yeah, mostly, for me it was because connor was boring. if the whole game was about haytham, i might have enjoyed it more. he was pretty cool for a templar.

Mi6_007_
06-24-2014, 01:25 AM
One problem I had with AC3 was that I liked the Haytham Kenway character a lot more then Connor

Dostoe
06-24-2014, 01:50 AM
For me personally, I really really enjoyed AC3. In my personal list, I would rank it slightly below AC2. It seems to me that many of the criticisms leveled against AC3 can be made against several other AC games as well.

I guess my opinions are in direct contrast to many others, as I absolutely hated AC BF. ACBF was by far my least favorite out of all of the AC games.

JustPlainQuirky
06-24-2014, 02:03 AM
REALLY? Some people thought the AI were too harsh when it came to spotting?

I thought the guys were too hilariously stupid and never noticed me.

Philliesfan377
06-24-2014, 02:10 AM
The most disappointing thing for me had to be the lack of ambient music. There was much potential. Something like this would've been great.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1k2JrpfPJc

Sesheenku
06-24-2014, 02:19 AM
REALLY? Some people thought the AI were too harsh when it came to spotting?

I thought the guys were too hilariously stupid and never noticed me.

Any fan who started in AC3 or 4 would say that since compared to other games the AI are pretty stupid in general. If you had started with AC1 though the AI were fairly good there BUT we could easily run up and stab roof guards before they attacked, we could easily kill a roof guard and not have the entire city on our *** somehow, we could do a lot more then 3 just comes and makes them by comparison the ****ing terminator, seeing through walls and calculating your exact position at all times.

STDlyMcStudpants
06-24-2014, 02:20 AM
Because the protagonist is an introvert and they hate america.

JustPlainQuirky
06-24-2014, 02:22 AM
@sesh

I thought the AI in AC 1 were much tougher.

Ac3 sure it was easy to be spotted, but fighting a thousand of those troops is easy :p

Xstantin
06-24-2014, 02:38 AM
REALLY? Some people thought the AI were too harsh when it came to spotting?

I thought the guys were too hilariously stupid and never noticed me.

Run around climbing Boston rooftops and you'll get yelled at constantly.

Sesheenku
06-24-2014, 02:42 AM
@sesh

I thought the AI in AC 1 were much tougher.

Ac3 sure it was easy to be spotted, but fighting a thousand of those troops is easy :p

That's the problem... nobody wants to just play action in AC we USED to enjoy stealth that wasn't broken. Then AC3 came along and said NOPE now you don't even have the option! Kill them all and do not spare the women!

AC1 was tougher, the toughest AC ever made combat wise.

Xstantin
06-24-2014, 02:48 AM
To be fair stealth worked pretty well when it came to forts, the rest of the game just needed better guard placement imo, and maybe a few other ways to traverse the cities (they kinda fixed it in AC4 with more branches and ropes). If only Boston or New York worked the same way as Kingston or Havana.

LatinaC09
06-24-2014, 02:52 AM
Ok....as far as AC3 being the most hyped game....seriously?!?! EVERY AC game is hyped! Of course they were gonna say that it's the greatest game ever. They do it with every AC game. So right there I'm not sure why that's a reason to be disappointed.

I think AC3 was considered a disappointment (not by me) was because it was a different era and protagonist and people weren't ready for the change. Ubisoft made the mistake of tacking two more games with Ezio, people got attached and I guarantee you that THAT is the main reason. I loved Ezio (AC2 is my #1 favorite game) but in my opinion it started to get dragged out and by Revelations I was done. Then Ubisoft made a drastic change from scenery and character and I guess it was too much for people. I never really had an issue with the glitchyness that people complained about in AC3, never thought that the story line dragged...Haytham was such an interesting character and it was nice to see Connor grow from a young boy into an assassin.

I could on but I just get irritated when people constantly complain about this game. Connor is an extremely interesting character and I hope we at least get to see or hear from him in Unity.

LoyalACFan
06-24-2014, 03:16 AM
@sesh

I thought the AI in AC 1 were much tougher.

Ac3 sure it was easy to be spotted, but fighting a thousand of those troops is easy :p

Getting spotted wasn't the issue. It was that, after BEING spotted on a rooftop, every soldier within like a three-block radius knew exactly where you were and swarmed to your location. Yeah it was easy as hell to fight them off, but that's beside the point (and also a problem in and of itself since I didn't really want to get into massive fights in an AC game). If you get spotted by a guard on a rooftop three seconds before you ram a knife into his jugular, that shouldn't magically alert every guard in the freaking city.

TheDanteEX
06-24-2014, 03:16 AM
It definitely wasn't people being attached to Ezio. I feel like most people were ready to move on. America felt fresh. The 1700s felt fresh. For me the game was just disappointing. I remember how bored I was playing through the intro. The boat sequence made me tired. And this was a game I was following for months on end, just hoping to play it. When I finally stepped into Boston and I saw the frame drop I felt bad immediately. Frame rate was something I never noticed before, but when I started walking around Boston, it bothered me. Then the Haytham plot dragged on and I wish I could say I cared but I didn't. I like Haytham now, but then I just didn't understand why I was playing as him. It didn't help that after cutscenes they would just teleport you in front of your next mission, not letting you explore to know WHERE you were. The sad thing is, the missions were best during Haytham's segment, but the story I didn't feel.

When I finally played as Connor, the most fun I had was when the Frontier opened up once Connor left his village. Something about starting us up on that mountain was a great feeling. They let us play around with the rock climbing and that was fun. I think they made that segment summer, though, and summer was way too foggy. Once Connor reached the Homestead, it was cool to see those two travelers have a conversation that you didn't need to stick around and listen to. I hoped the whole game would have been that way, but it's not, of course. Once I reached Achilles, the plot just dragged on again. Why did we have to keep walking back to the stable to sleep? All that could have been wrapped up quicker. They wanted it to play out like a movie, but it feels too slow. I liked sailing for the first time, but when I discovered it wasn't as open as I assumed, which I will take blame for, It made me sad to see the Vineyard in the distant but not able to explore it.

Once the Assassin part of the game began (sequence 6), it was fun for a while and ended with a decent assassination missions against Johnson. I was having fun doing this alongside the Homestead missions which gave heart to the game. I felt the development of Connor there and Achilles' story wrapping up just in time before the final missions. Most missions from sequence 7 onwards were just lame. I didn't like Connor leading the platoon on the bridge. Why was he even in charge of so many men when one of those generals clearly didn't like him? I started avoiding the main missions for a little while so I could do the Kidd missions and the "mystery" missions, which I enjoyed. But the story and mission design made me sad. I didn't really want to admit I was a little mad that I wasn't enjoying the game that much.

I'm cutting it here because I could go on all day, and this is just mostly my personal story reasons. The gameplay reasons have all been mentioned at least once in this thread already.

travilanche
06-24-2014, 03:49 AM
I also wanna say that the unlockable outfit sucked. In AC 2-AC R I always look forward to unlocking the extra outfit. But ac3's outfit looks almost exactly like the one you wear through the rest of the game.

LoyalACFan
06-24-2014, 04:28 AM
I also wanna say that the unlockable outfit sucked. In AC 2-AC R I always look forward to unlocking the extra outfit. But ac3's outfit looks almost exactly like the one you wear through the rest of the game.

The Achilles one? That one was the only cool alternate costume in the game :(

travilanche
06-24-2014, 05:11 AM
The Achilles one? That one was the only cool alternate costume in the game :(


I preferred the captain Kidd outfit. But they were all boring.

JustPlainQuirky
06-24-2014, 05:27 AM
I liked the Aquila alternate costume...:eek:

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-24-2014, 05:29 AM
I love that Achilles outfit tied with the original Connor robes. Second favorite is Captain Kidd's.

Jexx21
06-24-2014, 05:32 AM
Run around climbing Boston rooftops and you'll get yelled at constantly.

Any you can also run right past most of them without getting into a chase, at least in my experience..

Sesheenku
06-24-2014, 07:13 AM
Any you can also run right past most of them without getting into a chase, at least in my experience..

Couldn't do that till after the patch, back then if you did that they'd alert the entire city before you got out of range.

Xstantin
06-24-2014, 07:31 AM
Any you can also run right past most of them without getting into a chase, at least in my experience..

Get into fight and climb onto rooftop, they'll get telepathic and at least one is likely to spot Connor.

RinoTheBouncer
06-24-2014, 08:50 AM
I personally loved every part of ACIII. I loved the story, the setting, the protagonist, the modern day missions and everything that was introduced. It was probably the last AC game that got me really excited during the waiting period before it. The only part that disappointed me was the terribly directed ending. Each AC game had a more perfect, well-scripted and beautiful directed ending than the one before it, except for this one. It feels like the game took it’s time in development and was original and innovative but the ending feels like it was made by an entirely different team. It has nothing to do with being a happy or a sad ending. It was just badly made.

There are so many game and movie endings where the protagonist dies in the end, yet you actually feel effected, moved and inspired by the way it happens. With ACIII, it wasn’t a WTF moment, it wasn’t an “Oh my God.. No! Desmond... *cries*” moment. It was more of an “Is that it?” moment. It did not feel fulfilling, it did not feel like a cliffhanger, it did not deliver the amount of emotions that all it’s predecessors did. AC:R for example was just epic. The way Ezio says “Desmond?” in the end, the music, the cutscene as a whole, it makes me cry. ACII ending, it was a big holy-sh*t moment that got me crazy for the next game and same goes for AC:B and even ACI made me excited that this new game that I’m starting to love is gonna become a franchise and we’ll know more about the mysteries and conspiracies.

But I can’t say the same for ACIII ending. It’s like someone baked a really delicious cake but they left it too long in the oven that part of it got burned and now whenever you taste the cake, you enjoy the favor but there’s always this slight bitterness of the burning in it that distorts the whole thing for you. But I definitely love ACIII more than ACIV, at least something was happening ACIII in modern day and the historical story.

shobhit7777777
06-24-2014, 09:41 AM
Hi, I'm the resident AC3 hater

AC3 cops a lot of hate - from me - not just because of it not meeting expectations or failing to live up to the hype (Personally, I felt that WD didn't meet expectations...but I didn't hate it)...but because it is a bad game.

Its a poorly designed and executed concept. It insults my intellect and wastes my time.

Mission design is the biggest reason..but there are hundreds of other equally important reasons why AC3 just plain sucked (IMO). If I can...I'll post my AC3 review...which goes into the details...but I can't be bothered to spell them out here

Dev_Anj
06-24-2014, 11:19 AM
Its a poorly designed and executed concept. It insults my intellect and wastes my time.



To be fair, all Assassin's Creed games are a textbook example of bad design except for Assassin's Creed 4. Assassin's Creed 4 suffered from poor core mechanics inspite of its good design.

Aphex_Tim
06-24-2014, 11:26 AM
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ImJckbkGmYg (this really explains why most consider it a disappointment)


Hahah, thanks for sharing that ;)

SpiritMuse
06-24-2014, 01:34 PM
I liked the game well enough. I didn't think Connor was boring at all. He's an introvert who doesn't telegraph his emotions all over the place, so following him takes a little more empathy and imagination, but I would hardly characterise him as boring. He's a lot like me, actually, so it wasn't that hard for me to identify with him, even though he's a man and I'm a woman.

There were things that bothered me about it though. Like the bugs, for instance the correct outfit colours not showing up in cutscenes, that kind of stuff really breaks immersion if you're not wearing the standard colours, or the dual pistols having one constantly turning into a basic flintlock if you're wearing anything but the standard robe. And the ending was definitely disappointing, it just felt badly directed, rushed and devoid of emotion. Desmond deserved better.

Also I get the issue when a game is hyped as "the best game ever", people are actually going to expect that. The problem is of course that everyone has their own definition of "the best game ever" and no game can be everything to everyone, so some are bound to be disappointed. Knowing that, I usually take claims like that with a grain of salt, so I'm not often disappointed by a game because of hype.

zkorejo
06-24-2014, 03:13 PM
Things I was excited about before release and how they turned out to be:

New combat system I felt they just simplified it even more. The only good addition was the Rope Dart.

Parkour/Climbing trees Climbing trees was good but small buildings and the whole parkour thing was underwhelming. It also was simplified with "keep pressing R2 for Magic".

Animal Hunting This was the biggest disappointment. I was really looking forward to playing as a bad-*** native american hunting dangerous animals with his bare hands. All it had was QTE's. That was just........... stupid.

Story Average at best. Apart from the Haytham twist, it had nothing good. They were trying way too hard to make you feel bad/emotional for Connor. The ending sucked too, IDK what they were thinking when Connor and Charles Lee started drinking together after a long chase. WTFwasthatallabout? It was weird.

Protagonist Good guy but plain and boring with daddy issues, who made bad decisions, shaved his head and painted his face by the end of the game.

Modern Day/Desmond Story It was actually what I expected it to be, it was cool until the last part with Minerva heel turn and all. Worse part is, It was not as explosive or awesome as it could have been.

ACfan443
06-24-2014, 03:27 PM
The most disappointing thing for me had to be the lack of ambient music. There was much potential. Something like this would've been great.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1k2JrpfPJc

Beautiful piece of music, just listening to this makes me want to go back and explore Boston and New York all over again, which is strange because I hated them both. Removing the ambient tracks was a horrendously fatuous creative choice and one that I'll never quite understand, it's like ripping the soul out of AC.

AssassinHMS
06-24-2014, 03:56 PM
Hi, I'm the resident AC3 hater

AC3 cops a lot of hate - from me - not just because of it not meeting expectations or failing to live up to the hype (Personally, I felt that WD didn't meet expectations...but I didn't hate it)...but because it is a bad game.

Its a poorly designed and executed concept. It insults my intellect and wastes my time.

Mission design is the biggest reason..but there are hundreds of other equally important reasons why AC3 just plain sucked (IMO). If I can...I'll post my AC3 review...which goes into the details...but I can't be bothered to spell them out here

Exactly. AC3 is a bad game and a monument to everything that is wrong with the franchise (quantity before quality; rotten core hidden behind a huge amount of mediocre mechanics and naval; the Assassin simulator replaced by a crappy Uncharted imitation).

rob.davies2014
06-24-2014, 04:11 PM
I liked how in the AC3 demo video, the AC3 target video AND the 2 demos for AC Unity, the protagonist starts off on a roof/off the ground.

I'd like them to have this in the game, it would feel more Assassin-y to start above the ground, ready to stalk your prey!

Megas_Doux
06-24-2014, 04:18 PM
Bad pacing, I love the core of the story though.
NO background music.
Hunting!!!! I expected RDR but I got easy QTE´s.
And the WORST mission design to date.

I like the game, but I kinda hate it for what it could have been.......

GunnerGalactico
06-24-2014, 05:09 PM
Protagonist Good guy but plain and boring with daddy issues, who made bad decisions, shaved his head and painted his face by the end of the game.


I respectfully disagree. Not trying to incite an argument here, I just don't buy into the daddy issues thing. Connor was initially angry with Haytham for abandoning his mother when in fact she was the one that told Haytham to leave in the first place, which of course Connor could not have known because she burned to death before he became an adolescent. Connor was also angry because he felt that his father was shielding Charles Lee. Fast forward- the short time Connor spent with Haytham when they were helping each other, Connor had gotten to know him a little better. The more time he spent with Haytham, the more reluctant Connor felt to kill him. It was especially present when he and Achilles were having conversations at the Homestead. Achilles would say: "You have to kill your father", "Especially your father". Haytham and Connor have different ideologies about how the concept of peace can be achieved, which sometimes lead to disagreements and clashing opinions, which is natural because Connor is an Assassin, and Haytham is a Templar. That eventually gave Connor an idea that Assassins and Templars could peacefully co-exist and work together because they share a common goal, but unfortunately... it wasn't meant to be. Connor may have made some bad decisions like killing John Pitcairn and not heeding what Achilles had told him, those were the only major mistakes in my opinion.

SpiritOfNevaeh
06-24-2014, 05:18 PM
I respectfully disagree. Not trying to incite an argument here, I just don't buy into the daddy issues thing. Connor was initially angry with Haytham for abandoning his mother when in fact she was the one that told Haytham to leave in the first place, which of course Connor could not have known because she burned to death before he became an adolescent. Connor was also angry because he felt that his father was shielding Charles Lee. Fast forward- the short time Connor spent with Haytham when they were helping each other, Connor had gotten to know him a little better. The more time he spent with Haytham, the more reluctant Connor felt to kill him. It was especially present when he and Achilles were having conversations at the Homestead. Achilles would say: "You have to kill your father", "Especially your father". Haytham and Connor have different ideologies about how the concept of peace can be achieved, which sometimes lead to disagreements and clashing opinions, which is natural because Connor is an Assassin, and Haytham is a Templar. That eventually gave Connor an idea that Assassins and Templars could peacefully co-exist and work together because they share a common goal, but unfortunately... it wasn't meant to be. Connor may have made some bad decisions like killing John Pitcairn and not heeding what Achilles had told him, those were the only major mistakes in my opinion.

Agreed. Very well said!

shobhit7777777
06-24-2014, 07:33 PM
To be fair, all Assassin's Creed games are a textbook example of bad design except for Assassin's Creed 4. Assassin's Creed 4 suffered from poor core mechanics inspite of its good design.

I disagree. The Ezio games were fairly strong....not all of it was my cup of tea...but the design was strong.....AC3 on the other hand was breathtakingly horrid. It simply was not upto the standard...a standard expected from a major game dev/publisher.

Xstantin
06-24-2014, 07:39 PM
Protagonist Good guy but plain and boring with daddy issues, who made bad decisions, shaved his head and painted his face by the end of the game.



What's wrong with a shaved head and face paint?

pacmanate
06-24-2014, 08:10 PM
I disagree. The Ezio games were fairly strong....not all of it was my cup of tea...but the design was strong.....AC3 on the other hand was breathtakingly horrid. It simply was not upto the standard...a standard expected from a major game dev/publisher.

I agree with this too. Every Ezio game was good in terms of Story, mission design etc. Sure there were some niggles but that happens in every AC game

Jexx21
06-24-2014, 08:15 PM
I disagree. The Ezio games were fairly strong....not all of it was my cup of tea...but the design was strong.....AC3 on the other hand was breathtakingly horrid. It simply was not upto the standard...a standard expected from a major game dev/publisher.

I'd argue that the core mechanics of AC3 and the core ideas of the game were great, but that it was the level design and some of the side mission design, and the implementation of the mechanics that ultimately broke the game.

I say that AC3 had the most potential out of any of the AC games so far (barring Unity which we can't speak for until it releases), but that the potential just wasn't reached due to time constrictions. A lot of it just felt unfinished. I think if they had a lot more time (6 months, a year) that they could have vastly improved the game.

x___Luffy___x
06-24-2014, 08:32 PM
AC3 is one of the best AC game i ve played and it will remain one of my favorite forever. i played a little of it after black flag and enjoyed it very much. the character animations are so freaking good in AC3 whereas of edward are so buggy.

SixKeys
06-25-2014, 12:25 AM
I say that AC3 had the most potential out of any of the AC games so far (barring Unity which we can't speak for until it releases), but that the potential just wasn't reached due to time constrictions. A lot of it just felt unfinished. I think if they had a lot more time (6 months, a year) that they could have vastly improved the game.

I disagree that it had the most potential out of all the games. Some of it comes down to personal tastes, but I never saw that much potential in the Frontier or the American setting in general. Right from the start we knew we were getting a country that simply doesn't have as much history as the Middle East or Europe. We were getting a game set in a period where guns were commonplace which never boded well for combat. We were getting a vast forest playground, but already from the previews it looked empty, with nothing else to do there except hunt. Hunting was going to have to be massively deep and engaging to warrant supporting such a huge part of the game practically on its own. Did any of us really expect it was ever going to be that strong? I doubt it. Red Dead had a hunting system that was much better, but even that could never have solely supported the intrigue of roaming a vast, empty prairie. Random events, respawning bandit hideouts and good horses made the experience worthwhile. The Frontier had none of those. (Technically forts reset when bluecoats take over, but narratively it doesn't make sense for Connor to fight bluecoats.)

People often criticize that AC3 didn't deliver on the promise of its CGI trailer, with Connor charging through a battle field to fight through an entire army of redcoats. While I understand the disappointment, realistically I don't think I ever expected that to be an actual event in the game, at least not the way it was depicted in the trailer. Can you really imagine the absurdity of a single native American charging against 1,000 redcoats with guns and just tomahawking through every single one of them? Firing squads seem to have been introduced precisely to underline the fact that such a scenario would no longer be feasible in this game, whereas in previous games we were an unstoppable tank. Of course, it turned out we're still an unstoppable tank in AC3, so ultimately it didn't matter (it would have if firing squads could kill us in one shot). Up until AC3, the trailers had usually been pretty good indicators of what we could actually expect to be in the game, but AC3's trailer showed so many things that just didn't seem plausible from a technical standpoint (like Connor jumping up into the air to fire his bow) that it was the first CGI trailer in the series that made me skeptical if what I was seeing would ultimately be delivered in the final game.

Dev_Anj
06-25-2014, 03:56 AM
I disagree. The Ezio games were fairly strong....not all of it was my cup of tea...but the design was strong.....AC3 on the other hand was breathtakingly horrid. It simply was not upto the standard...a standard expected from a major game dev/publisher.

How exactly? I remember playing through AC 2 and feeling that it wasn't as special as people claimed it to be, and after watching an lp I know it has bad level design and bad open world design as well. I replayed Brotherhood and the only thing that stuck out to me was how bad the mission design felt. While there were side quests, I didn't bother exploring them due to the main campaign draining me out. I tried replaying Revelations as well, and while the Templar Dens are well designed and Constantinople was beautiful, the bad mission design stopped me from replaying it beyond the third chapter. I don't see how the design in those games was strong.

I will agree that AC 3 didn't live up to the standard though, it exaggerated the problems with the franchise as a whole.

shobhit7777777
06-25-2014, 08:29 AM
I'd argue that the core mechanics of AC3 and the core ideas of the game were great, but that it was the level design and some of the side mission design, and the implementation of the mechanics that ultimately broke the game.

I say that AC3 had the most potential out of any of the AC games so far (barring Unity which we can't speak for until it releases), but that the potential just wasn't reached due to time constrictions. A lot of it just felt unfinished. I think if they had a lot more time (6 months, a year) that they could have vastly improved the game.

Yeah...strong concepts and some great additions. However...time restriction doesn't excuse some of the atrocities the game committed - that damn mission where you ride a horse with that annoying pointy guy? Somebody at Ubi actually thought that was a good idea?


How exactly? I remember playing through AC 2 and feeling that it wasn't as special as people claimed it to be, and after watching an lp I know it has bad level design and bad open world design as well. I replayed Brotherhood and the only thing that stuck out to me was how bad the mission design felt. While there were side quests, I didn't bother exploring them due to the main campaign draining me out. I tried replaying Revelations as well, and while the Templar Dens are well designed and Constantinople was beautiful, the bad mission design stopped me from replaying it beyond the third chapter. I don't see how the design in those games was strong.

I will agree that AC 3 didn't live up to the standard though, it exaggerated the problems with the franchise as a whole.

Bad mission design is part of AC DNA...but the Ezio games were for the most part solid experiences due to the fact that they had a strong core and in-game oppurtunities to let the player play with said core elements.

AC2's assassination contracts and the overall addition to social stealth gameplay made for compelling gameplay
ACB had the Borgia towers and carried over everything awesome from AC2
ACR hit the peak with bomb crafting, elaborate Templar dens and overall gameplay

The main missions also - IIRC - were about infiltration and assassination and for the most part had a greater degree of freedom than AC3 IMO.

When you say design....its about the whole. You have an issue with Mission Design. So do I. AC3 was the biggest culprit and its flaws were magnified because it was the fourth ****ing game in the franchise and managed to be more archaic than the first game.

Every element in AC3 was marred by poor design decisions...it wasn't just the mission design. From the ****ed up bush hiding (Connor standing up like a moron and losing the "blend" effect) to the absolutely WORST AI ever in the history of the franchise when it comes to stealth and evasive loops....the game was bad.

It is without a granule of doubt the worst game I have ever played and will ever have played...and I have played a LOT of games. It is a monument to the the absolute **** that had crept into the franchise...stuff which crept in with AC2...but absolutely peaked with AC3....and unlike AC2..AC3 had no redeeming qualities.

I hate it with so much passion..that if I ever have a daughter..and someone asks for her hand in marriage (old school) I'll use AC3 as a litmus test - if he likes it....no marriage.

If I could...I would erase the game from history...and Connor's story would be told via a graphic novel.

If I had my parent's killer in my sights....and AC3 also within reach...I'd let the killer escape and throttle AC3...and break my one rule

SixKeys
06-25-2014, 08:49 AM
It is without a granule of doubt the worst game I have ever played and will ever have played...and I have played a LOT of games. It is a monument to the the absolute **** that had crept into the franchise...stuff which crept in with AC2...but absolutely peaked with AC3....and unlike AC2..AC3 had no redeeming qualities.

I hate it with so much passion..that if I ever have a daughter..and someone asks for her hand in marriage (old school) I'll use AC3 as a litmus test - if he likes it....no marriage.

If I could...I would erase the game from history...and Connor's story would be told via a graphic novel.

If I had my parent's killer in my sights....and AC3 also within reach...I'd let the killer escape and throttle AC3...and break my one rule

Tell us how you really feel, lol

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 08:57 AM
I honestly don't think AC3 is a bad game (but then again, I was never planning in asking shohbit's daughters' hand in marriage :p :D ). I've played a lot of bad games, AC3 is not one of them by any stretch. It's really flawed for sure, and has got quite a few of questionable design choices to say the least. But I've played single-player for 54 hours in total and enjoyed it. Though it could've been much more awesome.

jeordievera
06-25-2014, 09:22 AM
AC3 was my first AC game to play and it got me into the whole series. Since then I went through all the previous games, ACIV, Liberation etc.. and AC3 is still my favourite. Maybe it's because I did not have any expectations whatsoever. Now looking at it back and having the other games to compare it to - it's still the best AC game. What I thought was a bit silly is the fact that Connor was present at almost every important event and they all did let him to take a part in it or even lead the patriots at points. And not only Connor but every character seemed to be pretty naive. The story was a bit rushed but all the character's movements, graphic, the open world - it was all great. I am not saying the game is perfect - every game has it's flaws but for me it's my favourite game I've ever played.

king-hailz
06-25-2014, 01:14 PM
It is considered a dissapointment because the fans along with others thought it was going to be perfect! It was so hyped and were in the hype... we thought there wont be any faults.... and there are sooooo many!!!

Dev_Anj
06-25-2014, 01:47 PM
The main missions also - IIRC - were about infiltration and assassination and for the most part had a greater degree of freedom than AC3 IMO.


Which is why Brotherhood had the first stealth mission in Sequence 4 right? :D

Honestly when I see the missions from the Ezio trilogy, they seem more focused on other aspects like combat, collecting things, escort missions, "exotic" moments etc. I don't see how the core was solid in the Ezio games, the parkour did allow for more control but was also frustrating for precision jumps, which affected the gameplay in some places like tough jumps to get to ledges, the combat was easy and very uninvolving, and the stealth was very barebones, even the social stealth. You mention the assassination contracts from AC 2, but in my experience they focused on line of sight stealth and barely involved the social stealth aspects, which just brought more attention to how underdeveloped the line in sight stealth was. I don't know about AC 3 not having anything redeeming, since I haven't played it, but I don't see how the Ezio games had good design. They had good concepts, but were marred by the overall implementation.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 01:58 PM
Which is why Brotherhood had the first stealth mission in Sequence 4 right?

Speaking of which, I did a thread once where I've calculated how many main campaign missions in the AC games have viable stealth approaches. And by viable approach I mean where there's stealth not only possible (or forced) but makes sense (for example there are missions with sections where you for the most part walk with somebody and talk, and then get to some action scenario for example, and while you don't enter open combat or action scenarios during talking, it's not exactly stealthy). Cutscene missions (i.e. a mission that consisted only of a cutscene, AC games have a bunch of those) didn't count at all. AC1 included investigations and AC2 included Sequences 12 and 13 in the calculation (because, well, they're sequences - ergo part of the campaign, plus in PC version they're mandatory). And since some missions featured both stealth and action segments, I did it point-wise/percentage wise. I mean, it's not entirely accurate, but I think gets the general idea across.

The results, percentage-wise, are as follows:
AC1 - 60% (out of 61 missions)
AC2 - 44% (out of 85 missions)
ACB - 39% (out of 48 missions)
ACR - 40% (out of 52 missions)
AC3 - 43% (out of 44 missions)
AC4 - 56% (out of 43 missions)

So Ezio's trilogy has the least stealth-viable main campaigns for the most part. AC3 isn't much better, though.

EDIT: But to be fair, even though technically AC2 has got stealth viable in more missions/sections than in AC3, that's only because it's got more missions - it's worse to have the same percentage with the amount of missions twice as much, IMO. And without the Vanities DLC it would have even less stealthy missions, Vanities added like 10 of them or smth.

shobhit7777777
06-25-2014, 02:33 PM
Which is why Brotherhood had the first stealth mission in Sequence 4 right? :D

Honestly when I see the missions from the Ezio trilogy, they seem more focused on other aspects like combat, collecting things, escort missions, "exotic" moments etc. I don't see how the core was solid in the Ezio games, the parkour did allow for more control but was also frustrating for precision jumps, which affected the gameplay in some places like tough jumps to get to ledges, the combat was easy and very uninvolving, and the stealth was very barebones, even the social stealth. You mention the assassination contracts from AC 2, but in my experience they focused on line of sight stealth and barely involved the social stealth aspects, which just brought more attention to how underdeveloped the line in sight stealth was. I don't know about AC 3 not having anything redeeming, since I haven't played it, but I don't see how the Ezio games had good design. They had good concepts, but were marred by the overall implementation.

The core - basic mechanics and systems

AC2 introduced blending - crowds became actual hiding spots
Factions introduced - for combat, parkour and social stealth
Ezio trilogy had tools which allowed for alternate approaches - traps, poisons, distractions
Parkour saw incremental development in the form of jump-grab and hookblade
AI was tweaked and built for urban gameplay and did a fair job

Combat - "easy and very uninvolving" - an entirely subjective observation...same for you not liking the parkour (Both of which I didn't have any issue with). The above however are actual developments whether good or bad and worked with the overall design. It took the Assassin gameplay further. The mechanics weren't broken like in AC3 - the bush hiding, firing arrows from hiding spots, the ****ed up AI, the at-odds design approach, the pointless economy etc.

Good design here implies that the elements and mechanics have a focus and complement the main gameplay. Hiding in crowds worked - consistent and accessible. All the tools worked - consistent and in line with Assassin gameplay. Hookblade - a tool for combat and parkour - worked.

And most importantly - they had a sandbox for the player. Whether it is assassination contracts, Borgia towers or Templar dens....the Ezio games let the player cut off from the BS and focus on the assassin stuff.

Ezio trilogy shared many of AC3's flaws and is by no means a perfect design - but they were closest to it than any of the other games..save perhaps Unity.

Dev_Anj
06-25-2014, 05:05 PM
Combat - "easy and very uninvolving" - an entirely subjective observation...same for you not liking the parkour (Both of which I didn't have any issue with). The above however are actual developments whether good or bad and worked with the overall design. It took the Assassin gameplay further. The mechanics weren't broken like in AC3 - the bush hiding, firing arrows from hiding spots, the ****ed up AI, the at-odds design approach, the pointless economy etc.


Oh come on, you can't deny that the combat system hardly went any more beyond, "press counter attack button to kill" or "mash buttons till enemy dies". I didn't have an issue with the overall parkour, just that it was not good for precision jumps due to its automated nature, and this is a fact.

But I can agree that the mechanics, while underdeveloped, actually worked consistently and weren't broken unlike in AC 3.

Jexx21
06-25-2014, 07:49 PM
Ezio trilogy shared many of AC3's flaws and is by no means a perfect design - but they were closest to it than any of the other games..save perhaps Unity.

I'd argue that AC4 was a better game in design and mechanics than any of the AC2 trilogy :/

SixKeys
06-25-2014, 09:36 PM
Speaking of which, I did a thread once where I've calculated how many main campaign missions in the AC games have viable stealth approaches. And by viable approach I mean where there's stealth not only possible (or forced) but makes sense (for example there are missions with sections where you for the most part walk with somebody and talk, and then get to some action scenario for example, and while you don't enter open combat or action scenarios during talking, it's not exactly stealthy). Cutscene missions (i.e. a mission that consisted only of a cutscene, AC games have a bunch of those) didn't count at all. AC1 included investigations and AC2 included Sequences 12 and 13 in the calculation (because, well, they're sequences - ergo part of the campaign, plus in PC version they're mandatory). And since some missions featured both stealth and action segments, I did it point-wise/percentage wise. I mean, it's not entirely accurate, but I think gets the general idea across.

The results, percentage-wise, are as follows:
AC1 - 60% (out of 61 missions)
AC2 - 44% (out of 85 missions)
ACB - 39% (out of 48 missions)
ACR - 40% (out of 52 missions)
AC3 - 43% (out of 44 missions)
AC4 - 56% (out of 43 missions)

So Ezio's trilogy has the least stealth-viable main campaigns for the most part. AC3 isn't much better, though.

EDIT: But to be fair, even though technically AC2 has got stealth viable in more missions/sections than in AC3, that's only because it's got more missions - it's worse to have the same percentage with the amount of missions twice as much, IMO. And without the Vanities DLC it would have even less stealthy missions, Vanities added like 10 of them or smth.

Just curious, are side missions (assassination contracts etc.) included in these percentages or just main missions?

Jexx21
06-25-2014, 09:39 PM
His post says just the main campaign missions up top.

roostersrule2
06-25-2014, 09:42 PM
Because the game was boring and over-hyped.

Way over-hyped, I've never seen a game so over-hyped.

SixKeys
06-25-2014, 09:45 PM
His post says just the main campaign missions up top.

Oops, missed that.

In that case I wouldn't mind seeing a similar post detailing the percentage of side missions that can be completed stealthily. The main campaign is often linear, it's how stories are told. If the developer decides a huge fight is necessary, there's little the player can do about it. But I would argue that the Ezio trilogy and AC4 had WAY more possibilities for stealth in the side missions department than AC3. And the side content has always been where it's at with these games.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 09:59 PM
Well, for AC1 I counted all investigations as the main campaign, even though technically they're on a level of 'side-missions that unlock main mission' (but the percentage stays pretty much the same with AC1 even if I just count the beginning/ending and assassination missions, actually).


The main campaign is often linear, it's how stories are told.

This doesn't have anything to do with linearity, though, but with stealth only. I.e. an open-ended mission where stealth's possible and is just one route (fully or partially) or a linear mission where stealth's forced all have the same value for the purposes of that statistic.

TO_M
06-25-2014, 10:24 PM
AC:3 was dissapointing due to the hype, boring gameplay and an overload of cutscenes. Cutscene Creed would have been a better name.

SixKeys
06-25-2014, 10:37 PM
This doesn't have anything to do with linearity, though, but with stealth only. I.e. an open-ended mission where stealth's possible and is just one route (fully or partially) or a linear mission where stealth's forced all have the same value for the purposes of that statistic.

By linear I meant more that the story is often told via pre-determined mission design. Stealth is only viable up to a certain point, at which there's suddenly a scripted event that forces you to be detected no matter how careful you were etc. There's quite a lot of this in AC2 and AC3. AC2's side missions allowed for more freedom of approach than AC3's though.

Farlander1991
06-25-2014, 10:48 PM
Well, for example I've quickly counted how stealth is viable in ACB's side missions (excluding Da Vinci Disappearance, Copernicus, and things that aren't technically missions i.e. Borgia Towers), and the result is 56% (with the assassination contracts being the biggest part of that). Which, combined with main campaign mission brings ACB mission stealth viability to 48% in total.

I will try to do this more in detail in a few days.

shobhit7777777
06-26-2014, 08:02 AM
Oh come on, you can't deny that the combat system hardly went any more beyond, "press counter attack button to kill" or "mash buttons till enemy dies". I didn't have an issue with the overall parkour, just that it was not good for precision jumps due to its automated nature, and this is a fact.

But I can agree that the mechanics, while underdeveloped, actually worked consistently and weren't broken unlike in AC 3.

I liked the combat. Flowed better and felt better than AC3/4. The combat is around player expression - if you put in absolutely **** all effort and just button mash ...then you will get a boring experience. I mixed **** up. Counters, blades, gadgets etc End result: An experience where Ezio felt badass, lethal and the combat was fast and fluid.

I said "good" not pefect


I'd argue that AC4 was a better game in design and mechanics than any of the AC2 trilogy :/

I'd agree. It was consistent, well put together and solid. However, in terms of the core 'Assassin' experience - something I put a premium on - The Ezio games edge out AC4.

Jexx21
06-26-2014, 08:34 AM
Combat wasn't that great in AC2 though.

I say AC2 combat was the worst in the seires.

And I still personally think that AC3/AC4 combat edges out ACB/ACR's combat.

Dev_Anj
06-26-2014, 09:00 AM
I liked the combat. Flowed better and felt better than AC3/4. The combat is around player expression - if you put in absolutely **** all effort and just button mash ...then you will get a boring experience. I mixed **** up. Counters, blades, gadgets etc End result: An experience where Ezio felt badass, lethal and the combat was fast and fluid.


How about you give some examples of which counters, blades, and gadgets you mixed? Because I never felt so, the gadgets just felt more overpowered than anything else, especially the smoke bombs and crossbows. Also, I'd have put more effort if the game actually encouraged me to and pointed other methods.

Another big discouragement to experimenting with the various moves was how they seemed overtly inconsistent, for instance you can grab and throw people, but spearmen and heavy warriors magically block them. Heavy warriors block swords but can't block the hidden blades that well somehow. Spearmen somehow went from been vulnerable to disarms and heavy counters to being just vulnerable to counters. If anything, it just feels overtly arcade like, and doesn't encourage experimentation that much.

shobhit7777777
06-26-2014, 12:46 PM
How about you give some examples of which counters, blades, and gadgets you mixed? Because I never felt so, the gadgets just felt more overpowered than anything else, especially the smoke bombs and crossbows. Also, I'd have put more effort if the game actually encouraged me to and pointed other methods.


Not my problem. If you need a cookie (or a "slap") to mix things up or try something out....then its not for you.


Another big discouragement to experimenting with the various moves was how they seemed overtly inconsistent, for instance you can grab and throw people, but spearmen and heavy warriors magically block them. Heavy warriors block swords but can't block the hidden blades that well somehow. Spearmen somehow went from been vulnerable to disarms and heavy counters to being just vulnerable to counters. If anything, it just feels overtly arcade like, and doesn't encourage experimentation that much.

"Overtly inconsistent"

Inconsistency creeps in when you don't know when the Spearmen and Heavies will block. Here its a clearly laid out - a consistent game rule.

Arcadey - yeah kinda.....then again a more realistic model veers towards less fluidity and a slower pace.

The design goal was player empowerment and increased lethality - Ezio the badass...the combat system achieves this. Its not a fighting game where the fight in and of itself needs to be a difficult task. The same principle lies behind Arkham's combat - being Batman...the ultimate H2H fighter. Its not a question of challenge its a question of whether the player feels like Batman while fighting...being able to take on 40 guys at once.

Arkham's combat is as 'easy' as AC's....but you do use gadgets and combos don't you?

shobhit7777777
06-26-2014, 12:52 PM
Combat wasn't that great in AC2 though.

I say AC2 combat was the worst in the seires.

And I still personally think that AC3/AC4 combat edges out ACB/ACR's combat.

I personally felt they ****ed the pace and with it any semblance of fluidity and lethality

- Time slows down for counter attack/other option
- Enemies are pin-cushions who can take a ridiculous amount of cuts
- Counter kills are lengthy and elaborate...good..but I get disengaged real quick...watching those cutscenes play out

ACB/R - had a faster pace overall....the killchain element was super lethal and fluid...you had to decide whom to move to next....look for the cowering fella...and counter a guy to maintain your killchain. It came closest to Arkham's system in terms of 'flow' based combat.

Furthermore, the kill animations were quick....at least they felt so...enemies didn't feel like sponges. Lethality was high - something I liked.

I just can't enjoy AC3/4 combat...I just don't GAF about it because its not my area of interest when it comes to AC. At least with the Ezio games if I got into fights...I'd be out of them quick and feel like a badass when done. Now it feels like a chore - like chopping wood.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WNKvvxJbdo

^

Super fast and fluid....and check out the versatility....melee combat with on-foot guards seamless takedown of a horsemounted mook with the hidden pistol - same for throwing knives, crossbow usage etc.

roostersrule2
06-26-2014, 12:58 PM
I agree with Batman, while I'd say AC3 has my favourite combat, I did like getting in and out of there in a flash like ACB/ACR.

Dev_Anj
06-26-2014, 01:10 PM
Not my problem. If you need a cookie (or a "slap") to mix things up or try something out....then its not for you.



"Overtly inconsistent"

Inconsistency creeps in when you don't know when the Spearmen and Heavies will block. Here its a clearly laid out - a consistent game rule.

Arcadey - yeah kinda.....then again a more realistic model veers towards less fluidity and a slower pace.


Arkham's combat is as 'easy' as AC's....but you do use gadgets and combos don't you?

Well, then just give an example of how you used the tools, gadgets etc. to get a good experience.

It is clearly laid out, but the problem is the rules are very arbitrary. Now if they were made more intuitive, say a heavy warrior weighs much more, so can't be pushed back easily, and can't be stunned that easily either, and a spearman would have longer reach and a shorter window to get hit, then I might have adjusted to it.

I didn't play much of the Arkham games to be honest. I just played the Arkham Asylum demo, and from my experience the combat in that was too easy as well. It didn't have enemies just standing around Batman though.

What I can agree with is that the combat in the Ezio games looks good, and Brotherhood had the best combat system. But my problem is there seems to be little under that system. Even the video you posted is actually very easy to pull off, and relies more on reacting to the attacking enemies swiftly.

Regarding your point about the combat's goal being to empower the player, well I think there's one factor you're ignoring. In the Batman games, you generally face off against thugs, mercenaries and the like, so making it that easy is fine. But when you have Ezio/Connor/Edward/Altair/any Assassin facing off against professional soldiers and they go down this easily, it feels awkward and unfitting, particularly when the Assassins tend to be vulnerable in the cutscenes themselves.

shobhit7777777
06-26-2014, 01:53 PM
Well, then just give an example of how you used the tools, gadgets etc. to get a good experience.

Hookblades+Smokebombs
Melee+Gun
No counter+Dodge only+throwing Knives (This one is a lot of fun)
Steal+Throw heavy weapons
Fists only+Dirt chucking
Sticky bomb+Grab+throw towards enemy (Best)
Lay down traps+Grab enemies+Throw at traps (very hard...but worth it)


It is clearly laid out, but the problem is the rules are very arbitrary. Now if they were made more intuitive, say a heavy warrior weighs much more, so can't be pushed back easily, and can't be stunned that easily either, and a spearman would have longer reach and a shorter window to get hit, then I might have adjusted to it.

Would've been nice



I didn't play much of the Arkham games to be honest. I just played the Arkham Asylum demo, and from my experience the combat in that was too easy as well. It didn't have enemies just standing around Batman though.

Don't look at it from an easy-difficult perspective - BTW getting a flawless flow with all gadget usage is indeed a hard thing to master - look at from the perspective of a Batman experience. If you fo into a game like AC or Batman AA looking for challenging combat...you're doing it wrong. Its not their goal.



What I can agree with is that the combat in the Ezio games looks good, and Brotherhood had the best combat system. But my problem is there seems to be little under that system. Even the video you posted is actually very easy to pull off, and relies more on reacting to the attacking enemies swiftly.

Easy is the point. Accessibility. The majority of the players should be able to feel and fight like Ezio the badass.....the more skilled ones should have other options to explore....to do it better. I can kill 200 guys as well...but there is another player who does it better...who does it quicker...and does it with more panache.

The system is deep...the difference is that the player isn't forced to the "bottom of the pool". This leads to the perception that the combat is too easy. Players who are used to games enforcing elements to promote difficulty would be at odds with this design approach.

Eg: In games like The Witcher 2 - where you're forced to explore alchemy and sword oils....the perception of depth and challenge is deeper set. Its not a matter of player expression - you kinda have to do it in order to be successful in combat.
Imagine the same system without the forced element - where swordplay alone will win you the fight. You can still win...but a victory where you use oils and potions would be a sweeter one...and rewarding because it rewards your effort....however it doesn't alienate the average player who may not be inclined or have the time to delve that deep.



Regarding your point about the combat's goal being to empower the player, well I think there's one factor you're ignoring. In the Batman games, you generally face off against thugs, mercenaries and the like, so making it that easy is fine. But when you have Ezio/Connor/Edward/Altair/any Assassin facing off against professional soldiers and they go down this easily, it feels awkward and unfitting, particularly when the Assassins tend to be vulnerable in the cutscenes themselves.

Valid point - but that is the direction Ubi had taken. However, Ezio has been painted as a super badass...and this image has only been re-enforced with each successive game.

ACU with its new protag and approach to the Assassin experience would be a better for a punitive combat model.

shobhit7777777
06-26-2014, 02:01 PM
I agree with Batman, while I'd say AC3 has my favourite combat, I did like getting in and out of there in a flash like ACB/ACR.

*Batfistbump*

Coming back OT

Every time I think of AC3...I think of how this game could've been the pinnacle of systemic, emergent gameplay within the AC franchise....it could've been so so much.

Markaccus
06-26-2014, 02:21 PM
well. My simple answer to this OP question is this...... Most of it seemed half-done. Underground and side quests in particular, and the Brotherhood section in this one was also half baked.

Jexx21
06-26-2014, 04:33 PM
I personally felt they ****ed the pace and with it any semblance of fluidity and lethality

- Time slows down for counter attack/other option
- Enemies are pin-cushions who can take a ridiculous amount of cuts
- Counter kills are lengthy and elaborate...good..but I get disengaged real quick...watching those cutscenes play out

ACB/R - had a faster pace overall....the killchain element was super lethal and fluid...you had to decide whom to move to next....look for the cowering fella...and counter a guy to maintain your killchain. It came closest to Arkham's system in terms of 'flow' based combat.

Furthermore, the kill animations were quick....at least they felt so...enemies didn't feel like sponges. Lethality was high - something I liked.

I just can't enjoy AC3/4 combat...I just don't GAF about it because its not my area of interest when it comes to AC. At least with the Ezio games if I got into fights...I'd be out of them quick and feel like a badass when done. Now it feels like a chore - like chopping wood.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WNKvvxJbdo

^

Super fast and fluid....and check out the versatility....melee combat with on-foot guards seamless takedown of a horsemounted mook with the hidden pistol - same for throwing knives, crossbow usage etc.

I see what you mean. I really hated the fact that they moved to a "finish this animation combo to kill the guy" for AC3 and AC4, but with Unity they're going back to the health bars which is a good thing, just as long as they don't pull another Janissary situation which was ridiculous.

I suppose I like the AC3/AC4 system because I felt like the weapon/gadget system was better, but then again they did allow you to do something similar with ACR.

However, Unity's system as a whole looks a lot cleaner... to me it looks like it's more complex and but also simpler at the same time, which is contradictory, but... I guess what I'm saying is it lacks the convoluted system that AC3/AC4 had with it's countering system where your options were kill, disarm/disable, and throw. Yea, sometimes in AC3/AC4 you'd need to disarm and disable some of the archetypes before you could kill them, but eh.. Unity makes it simpler by just having flat out: parry, dodge, attack. If the repertoire of tools is good, I'd say that this would be the basis of a combat system that is just as fluid as the Arkham system (which also relies on a system similar to parry, dodge, and attack: attack, counter, evade, but there's also the cape stun and gadget use). I heard that heavy attacks may be returning, which is great, because I loved that AC1/AC2 system of having light and heavy attacks, although it barely meant anything in AC2 without the chain attacks from AC1. I wonder if the chain killing from ACB-AC4 will still be in Unity, and if so, maybe they'll be activated like chain attacks from AC1 (where you have to press the attack button right as your blade hits your enemy).

JustPlainQuirky
06-26-2014, 04:42 PM
I actually liked lack of health bars in AC.

Felt more realistic in the sense that they don't survive obviously fatal wounds.

Of course I'm not saying AC is the definition of realistic. lol

Jexx21
06-26-2014, 04:48 PM
I actually liked lack of health bars in AC.

Felt more realistic in the sense that they don't survive obviously fatal wounds.

Of course I'm not saying AC is the definition of realistic. lol

but to kill people you had to complete an animation chain

JustPlainQuirky
06-26-2014, 04:59 PM
Did I? I hadn't noticed. Hn.

HeedfulMass4856
06-26-2014, 05:17 PM
Because it was a disappointment.