If u like assassins creed games youll like this alot. Its jam packed with diverse things to do outside the main story abd the new setting is alot of fun. If youre not an ac fan though this wont change your mind. Its one if my favorite games this year
Good but not great. It has a lot of issues both technically and gameplay wise. It insists upon itself and is more of a "hey look at our new engine" type of game rather than a game for the player to do and enjoy things how they see fit. A lot of the new stuff in it is a bad choice or broken and doesn't work as intended. The game holds your hand for too much of it and while cutscenes in AC are nothing new, this one is very cutscene heavy. Like start the mission cutscene, walk a bit and follow some dude, cutscene, do another little task, cutscene and then finish the mission, cutscene.
I thought it was pretty great. I especially liked running through the frontier and sailing. The biggest con that I can think of is that there isn't more sailing. It should have been featured in the multiplayer at the very least.
It isn't as good as the second. Some of the missions are f*cking irritating, and Connor is a bland, unlikable protagonist.
dommeus
I wouldn't say he's unlikable, I just think that he was a missed opportunity from Ubisoft. Ubisoft really needs to make another Connor game to help define his character.
It isn't as good as the second. Some of the missions are f*cking irritating, and Connor is a bland, unlikable protagonist.
PhazonBlazer
I wouldn't say he's unlikable, I just think that he was a missed opportunity from Ubisoft. Ubisoft really needs to make another Connor game to help define his character.
To each their own. I found his constant flip-flopping to be really irritating. I also think he is a pretty poor voice actor, especially when compared to the liked of Haytham, Charles Lee, and Achilles. Also I don't know how much Connor ages by the end of the game (since II I've always found it difficult to remember how much time has passed since the beginning), his face looks all crusty and old, and I assume he is supposed to be no older than his 30's.
It isn't as good as the second. Some of the missions are f*cking irritating, and Connor is a bland, unlikable protagonist.
PhazonBlazer
I wouldn't say he's unlikable, I just think that he was a missed opportunity from Ubisoft. Ubisoft really needs to make another Connor game to help define his character.
They definitely missed that opportunity. Connor was really boring, the premise for him was intriguing but they whittled him down into a tantrum throwing naive child for far too much of the game
It isn't as good as the second. Some of the missions are f*cking irritating, and Connor is a bland, unlikable protagonist.
seanmcloughlin
I wouldn't say he's unlikable, I just think that he was a missed opportunity from Ubisoft. Ubisoft really needs to make another Connor game to help define his character.
They definitely missed that opportunity. Connor was really boring, the premise for him was intriguing but they whittled him down into a tantrum throwing naive child for far too much of the game
Connor had some really good moments, like in the Homestead missions, but yeah he was kinda whiny.
I wouldn't say he's unlikable, I just think that he was a missed opportunity from Ubisoft. Ubisoft really needs to make another Connor game to help define his character.
PhazonBlazer
They definitely missed that opportunity. Connor was really boring, the premise for him was intriguing but they whittled him down into a tantrum throwing naive child for far too much of the game
Connor had some really good moments, like in the Homestead missions, but yeah he was kinda whiny.
Yeah the homestead missions did show a better side of Connor. Problem was on my first play through I got so f*cking bored of them that I didn't finish them, and completely missed out on that element of him in the process.
I'm considering to getting this game at Christmas. I like stealth and the Frontier looks stunning. I have a few questions. I just read Edge review, they said: " There are suprisingly few assassinations and relatively little freedom to plan your approach to them". Is this true ?
I'm considering to getting this game at Christmas. I like stealth and the Frontier looks stunning. I have a few questions. I just read Edge review, they said: " There are suprisingly few assassinations and relatively little freedom to plan your approach to them". Is this true ?
jackfruitchips
There aren't many assassinations but the ones that are there are pretty fun, though not too much freedom. There was one particular assassination that offered alot of freedom though.
it's not that good. the gameplay is padded with useless stuff and is rarely fun. Lot of changes to the series and I can confidently say that none of them are improvements. First 5 sequences are slow boat to china levels of torture. The story picks up (and gets interesting) near the end but there are plenty of bad devices including a horrible end chase. In previous games they might give you a target who walks around to kill and you gotta scope things out, make your way through danger and choose a time and place to kill them. Here you get to kill a guy after nearly dying and running him down. You get to drop from a very specific tree. You kill a guy in a fight (unavoidable). And you even kill a guy in a tavern. It's just poorly executed in many situations. While there are "free" targets in the shape of side tasks they are ridiculously trivial and are hardly worth mentioning.
The AC series has few strengths and AC3 doesn't play to them. Focus is on the action and the story; the stealth is awful, platforming minimal and side activities apart from naval battles and forts are largely a step down from previous games.
It isn't as good as the second. Some of the missions are f*cking irritating, and Connor is a bland, unlikable protagonist.
dommeus
This is one criticism I don't understand, expecting Connor to be some kind of charming socialite. He's an assassin, not the host of a talk show. If you're not a woman who wants to be seduced by Ezio, why does it matter? Haytham was likeable as far as manners and demeanor, but he was cold killer who made questionable choices and was absolutely untrustworthy and a terrible father figure. I have no idea why some of you guys liked him so much, was it just because he was Caucasian?
[QUOTE="charizard1605"]It's a good game, but nowhere near as good as the previous games in the series.Bigboi500
Even Revelations:o
It's better than both Revelations and AC1, and chaz knows it. I'm assessing each game by when they originally released. The first Assassins Creed game was stunning when it released. It aged terribly, but it was great then. Revelations was more satisfying as an experience. Ironically enough, it provided more closure than Assassins Creed 3 did.
It's better than both Revelations and AC1, and chaz knows it. I'm assessing each game by when they originally released. The first Assassins Creed game was stunning when it released. It aged terribly, but it was great then. Revelations was more satisfying as an experience. Ironically enough, it provided more closure than Assassins Creed 3 did. That's because the ending of 3 was so terrible and vague, it was clearly a setup for AC4. More milkage is eminent.
[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="Bigboi500"]It's better than both Revelations and AC1, and chaz knows it.
Bigboi500
I'm assessing each game by when they originally released. The first Assassins Creed game was stunning when it released. It aged terribly, but it was great then. Revelations was more satisfying as an experience. Ironically enough, it provided more closure than Assassins Creed 3 did. That's because the ending of 3 was so terrible and vague, it was clearly a setup for AC4. More milkage is eminent. Whatever the reason, the ending to 3 sours the entire (already remarkably disappointing) game.
Log in to comment