Wow... seriously, the only scores that matter to people who rate things these days whether it's an app on google play, movies or games is: 1, 5 and 10. With 1 and 10 having most of the votes. Everything is extremes with people these days. Every piece of criteria is forced fed into black and white categories while people take their opinions, speak as if its “fact” and then shove them into the throats of other people.
Kids these days. Those comments are ridiculous. (love the show BTW)
I'm still wondering, since it says they reviewed it on PS4 here, perhaps the next gen versions are much better than anyone can realize here since us regular consumers have yet to play it on them. Personally, i'm refusing to play any more shooters (ESPECIALLY CoD) until I get the new system. From all the complaints I'm reading from people all over is that it sounds like the game was really meant for the newer systems and their new capabilities. Or at least the multiplayer more so.
Many people hate games and consoles because of graphics alone (PC people, i'm glaring at some of you) and many people are sick and tired of the lag compensation and issues of the multiplayer like myself included. These two things alone are a huge group of people complaining about the game that are MUCH better in the next gen systems.
So perhaps it's just a very bad port from the newer systems to the older ones?
Based on what I have been reading on this game, it really wasn't meant for this console and ported over really poorly. Seems like it was built for the next gen system where, especially the multiplayer, can take full advantage of it. Users are making horrible comments while reviewers who seem to have access to the new systems are giving it much more favorable reviews.
Oh well. All that matters is that the consumer is happy with what they went with. There will always be those who end up not liking the one they thought they wanted and then switch. Whoever sells more at launch isn't that big of a deal. Like others have said, in the longrun is really the teller.
Maybe since I'm American I appreciated AC III much more than most, I don't know. Seemed before the game even came out people hated it simply because it was based on American History and they never even gave it a chance. I can see where Danny is coming from and I agree many people feel what he is saying. Fortunately for me, I enjoy them all mostly for its rich deep story. I truley love the series. I appreciated all the changes made in III and found it refreshing. Connor was a different type of protagonist - he was an anti-hero. I don't think he was ever meant to compare with Ezio and Altair. He was that broken, grief stricken type of person who struggles through a consistently tough life, but pulls through. It was meant to be tragic and less glamorous than the previous installments. Ultimately he succumbs to the fact that he is just a pawn in the overall scheme of things, in terms of the AC III story and the entire series story.
Only thing i'll disagree with is the comment about the animus narrative being terribly acted and written. The gods were meant to talk in riddles and it was meant to make you think and pull you into the mystery. Each game gave hints, usually extremely subtle that you literally have to play EVERY game to understand. The writers are incredibly smart and linked very specific things across all the games in that aspect. If you go on youtube you can watch every major cutscene involving the gods from the first game on. I had to do this to remember what they were talking about or referring to after I played Revelations but when you do, you realize how deep and connected it all is.
Also, in terms of people complaining about the games coming out too fast, they have like 7 or 9 studios working together to release them. They are doing it with manpower, not by cutting corners. It's not like CoD which people compare it to simply based on quantity released.
CraZkid37's comments