@evil_m3nace

*rolls eyes* The developers have addressed this over and over again. Connor will attack both sides in the game - he is not "for" either side of the conflict.

They picked one enemy for marketing purposes. The reason they picked the red coats is because of the color contrast between the red coats and the snow.

I am not making this up - this is how they responded to people claiming AC3 is anti-British.

If you want to go conspiracy theory - go right ahead. But if you don't trust the statement of the people who made the game...there's really no facts that can convince you of reality.

@Arda_Daghan212

I believe graphics are important to a degree - but I've found a balance between the two is preferable for me personally.

While I appreciate games with a lot of graphic "eye candy". Games with fundamental gameplay issues - no matter how pretty - typically prevent me from wanting to finish the game. This is why I give more leniency to graphics and less to gameplay.

@GhansB

Thank you for the clarification - I understand your point of view now.

The developers said they spent a lot of time improving interactions in cities and changing up how cities feel during the game.

So on that - I'll simply hold criticism until I've gotten a chance to see what has changed.

@Col_Swamp

LOL! You kidding? I pre-ordered over a month ago!

@GhansB

"...the change in scenery. which is long overdue."

Assassin's Creed has always focused on creating a historical environment.

For crying out loud - my sister is an art history major - and she spends most of her gameplay just looking around.

In addition...the crowd dynamics were unique to Assassin's Creed - they made environments feel alive more than other similar games.

Sometimes I wish this website had a Dis-Like button. I don't understand your comment at all.

@abHS4L88

Precisely! And then those same complainers apply hundreds of mods to make their game pretty - and then wonder why their game slows down.

@ben_amitai

From what I heard - PC is shipping same day as console. According to what I heard during an E3 interview. Apparently they have a dedicated group of people working on making the PC version intuitive. So they are trying to avoid the "bad port" stigma.

They have done well in the past - so I'm not concerned about the PC version. A question was asked about PC version DRM...but the development team had no information on that. The distribution team has jurisdiction over that detail.

Everyone is talking about graphics from the perspective of "how it looks". When I think the biggest step is in animation. Or...how the characters interact with their environment.

More detail on surface aspects (ie clothing resolutions) demand more memory space and RAM. These games are bound by console restrictions...in other words...you can only be as advanced as your weakest release platform.

Most game developers could do better in terms of graphic resolution, music quality, etc. But a game that can't be played on multiple platforms is not economically viable. So incredible restrictions are placed on developers.

Personally, I'm looking forward to how the main character will interact with the game world itself. That kind of advancement means more than how graphically "pretty" it is. Because game companies will apply popular advancements that improve baseline gameplay into future games.

@AuGZA Ditto! I don't see how people can still complain...they obviously spent a lot of time extending the original ending.

@risckbreaker I agree. Plus...now I can stomach the ending to the game. Thanks for the extra work BioWare! I'm sure they'll focus on complete game endings more in all future productions too. I really hope this isn't the last game in the "mass effect" universe after all.