Assassin's Creed III Review
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Sorry,playing AssCreed 1,can't hear you over the interesting philosophical conflict between Altair and his enemies.
All I want is "assassinations",good ones,like those in which you can use stealth the entire time,the series always has had the potential to accomplish that,but they never do it,ever.Just add more distractions and be done with it.Also is Connor the only assassin in the entire game?No mention of the development of the Templars as an enemy faction,but I guess that falls into spoiler territory.And another big mini-game,because the last one didn't already show the "what do we do now" panic of the devs.
I guess I'm missing the point that people accept these series as "dickhead with a hood in past eras".I'm disappointed.
All I want is "assassinations",good ones,like those in which you can use stealth the entire time,the series always has had the potential to accomplish that,but they never do it,ever.Just add more distractions and be done with it.Also is Connor the only assassin in the entire game?No mention of the development of the Templars as an enemy faction,but I guess that falls into spoiler territory.And another big mini-game,because the last one didn't already show the "what do we do now" panic of the devs.
I guess I'm missing the point that people accept these series as "dickhead with a hood in past eras".I'm disappointed.
I'm glad you mentioned that Conner is an "equal" against the Red and Bluecoats as the marketing was borderline if not over the line uncomfortably... well...
The French-Canadians really did know how to market to America.
The French-Canadians really did know how to market to America.
I think having Templars across both sides makes for an interesting situation and I hope that they use that to its full. Imagine a situation where an enemy is a dangerous Templar but you know that if you kill hm it will negatively affect the revolution, what would you do in such a situation?
Still hugely disappointed at Ubisoft for deciding to set the game during the gawdem American Revolution. Really it is NOT as big a deal to the rest of the world and it seems to me the French Revolution would have provided a far more interesting (and far more morally grey) storyline.
Though I'm curious to see how "equal opportunity" the plot is as the review was fairly spoiler free, it seems to me that painting the British as the "bad guys" seems far to simplistic and doesn't really fit the more politically neutral tone of the rest of the series.
Though I'm curious to see how "equal opportunity" the plot is as the review was fairly spoiler free, it seems to me that painting the British as the "bad guys" seems far to simplistic and doesn't really fit the more politically neutral tone of the rest of the series.
I hear ya. When I bought AC 1 I went for it with a serial killer's macabre smile, and then... Nothing. I expected Hitman in an open world, with crusaders and all... But then I played AC 2 and it was much better than AC 1, still no "Hitman style" gameplay, but it dawned on me "this is just not how it's supposed to be played". I came to terms with it then, Assassin's Creed is an assassination game, you can use some stealth, not MUCH, but you can, it's more action-oriented. Once I understod that, I came to enjoy it, there's so much there to be absorbed.T3hSource said:
All in all, I wanna play AC III, but I still have to finish "Revelations", and many other games I just bought and take higher priority (to my tastes that is)... However, I AM feeling VERY hungry for this game!
Am I the only one who thinks Assassins Creed is really boring? The only good Assassins Creed game was the first one due to its length and the fact that it got to the point while Assassins Creed 2 was so padded and long winded I had to force myself to finish.
Plus everything is mediocre and easy: the running is hold a button a push a stick forward, the combat is wait for a baddie to attack and push a button and the actual assassination missions are so far and few between calling the game is hardly about Assassins. Challenge is desperately needed.
Plus everything is mediocre and easy: the running is hold a button a push a stick forward, the combat is wait for a baddie to attack and push a button and the actual assassination missions are so far and few between calling the game is hardly about Assassins. Challenge is desperately needed.
he is right about connor he seemed to me more like a lapdog than assassin but the open world is still amazing
It WAS hugely important. Though indeed the French Revolution would have been more interesting. Funny though, there would be no American Revolution without the French Revolution, and my country, Brazil, along with most other South American countries, would NOT have sought freedom (at least not when we did) if not for the North American revolution. But again, the French Revolution would make much more sense as a sequel, and later the American Revolution, or Civil Wars, could do something interesting with Lincoln, poor bastard is becoming a puppet for everyone now anyway, might as well put him in an AC game hahahaPedroSteckecilo said:
It's not about assassins as we understand it, it's about hashashins (or something like that), which is the origin of the world Assassin, which was a clan of religious zealots in the middle east, wikipedia has more on the subject, sincerely, I never cared much to go after it ahahah.Toilet said:
I'm amazed you enjoyed the first game, most people, me included, hated it, it was ridiculously repetitive...
So far, I'm really loving the game. I found the opening with the other character bearable because they were able to draw me into the story. And more than likely, you're going to love this guy more than Conner or even Altair. That first big plot twist of the game made me go "Whatthefuck! But why!"
For some reason though, the combat feels nerfed. I can't seen to pull off multi kills as easy as I did in the last two.
For some reason though, the combat feels nerfed. I can't seen to pull off multi kills as easy as I did in the last two.
Nice, but I have just one question. IS that synchronization BS still in this game? Thats the one thing I hated about Brotherhood.
I'd like to see one set during the buildup to either of the world wars, one set during the Spanish civil war or up to the assassination that triggered World War One (Think of how morally grey it'd be if the Assassins sparked World War One to fight the Templars?Milanezi said:
Air Assassinate rabbits? I need $60...
As with all things that have a long line of previous entries If you love the Assassin's Creed series you will love this game; if you've never played before, it isn't advised you jump in here, but you'll probably find the game to be fun or think it's dumb; if you hate the series it won't convince you otherwise.
As with all things that have a long line of previous entries If you love the Assassin's Creed series you will love this game; if you've never played before, it isn't advised you jump in here, but you'll probably find the game to be fun or think it's dumb; if you hate the series it won't convince you otherwise.
Probably because it has been. people complained the assassination streaks made the game too easy so it's likely they've toned it down in this one.Shadowstar38 said:
Though I don't know for sure as I haven't played it yet.
OT: Roll on Xmas, once this goes down in price I'm snapping it up
Since the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution, I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards.Milanezi said:
It'd also be pretty repetitive to do two games set during revolutionary wars back to back, even if the atmosphere is fairly different between the two conflicts.
So am I the only one who watched the review and thought, "Why did they put him in an all-white outfit to try crossing a battlefield in the open during the day?" Why not a dark olive or brown kit? You know, something that has any chance at all of blending in?