Didnt really tried it yet to see if the character still climbs and shit but isnt the trigger pressure sensitive, like, if you hold it midway he doesnt go as fast?Casual Shinji said:
Assassins Creed 3 really is terrible.
- Thread starter Jacco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Correct me if I'm wrong, but "terrible" or "atrocious" game usually doesn't warrant a second playthrough. Not even being called "good" at any point. Maybe "not as good as I originally thought"? Yumeria is a really terrible anime and I would under no circumstances rewatch it from my own accord. Nothing about it was good and I finished it for two sole reasons a) I refused to believe it could be that bad and had to get better (plot twist: it didn't) b) it has only 12 episodes. If something has many flaws but is still enjoyable enough for you to come back to it and try to get as much out of it as you can, why can't we just call it "not that good" or "enjoyable but deeply flawed"?Jacco said:
And then people wander why 7/10 means a bad game and 6/10 is reserved for total pieces of shit when even non-numeral qualifiers have gone to the extremes of "DA BEST GARME EVAR!!!" and "WHAT A STEAMING PILE OF SHIT!!!" completely omitting the middle ground of "quite good with some serious shortcomings" and "generally a flop with some good points".
BTW: came here expecting someone to call OP out on this being and opinion. I em dissapoint
Might be.josemlopes said:
It'd still be annoying to have to keep a button partially pressed when running though.
Blackflag is great, don't let 3 taint your opinion of it if you do pick it up because blackflag is pretty much a repentance for 3 and they nailed itCalm Sands said:
Ass Creed 3 was at the point in the series when they really needed to shake things up a little, so I think having you play as Haytham the entire game and not even involving Connor would've been a brilliant move. Only reveal that he's actually a Templar for the ending, and have the rest of the game be an undercover mission or something.
Then again, I doubt whoever wrote this piece of trash would've been able to pull that off. At all.
Then again, I doubt whoever wrote this piece of trash would've been able to pull that off. At all.
I remember spending at least an hour trying to climb a tree that was also a vantage point or whatever it's called. I think I might have done it once, but somehow it didn't save. I quit the campaign halfway through due to complete and utter boredom. Why can't I just free run, climb shit, and kill people? Why do I have to fight colonial battles with horrific controls?
I'm one of the 3 people who actually quite liked AC3. Now it wasn't a brilliant game by any stretch of the imagination nor even worth a second playthrough, but I definitely found it an enjoyable ride first time through. The only time I contemplated quitting was when you have to escort this dude(some historical figure but forgot his name) on a horse while evading guards. That was a truly atrocious part of the game but fortunately didn't last long. Now I won't go into Connor or the ridiculous meta-plot as both left me pretty much indifferent but the actual gameplay was quite fun and the eye for historical detail in a graphically very fine looking game mitigated most story/character issues for me. I really enjoyed just wandering around and discovering the Frontier.
For me the AC games have always been more of a visual tour through some historical setting with loose controls, clunky combat and little challenge(other than the design of the game itself). A game where you can just sit back, relax and enjoy as well as learn some historical things along the way. AC3 delivered in that regard as well as introduced naval combat which surprised me how fun and well developed it was so much so that it could even be its own game...
..which it more or less became in AC4. And while AC3 was fun AC4 is by far the superior game as it fixed nearly every issue I had with the series from the controls to the combat to the boring characters. So while I found AC3 a fun game when it was released you won't miss much if you skip on it and only play AC4.
For me the AC games have always been more of a visual tour through some historical setting with loose controls, clunky combat and little challenge(other than the design of the game itself). A game where you can just sit back, relax and enjoy as well as learn some historical things along the way. AC3 delivered in that regard as well as introduced naval combat which surprised me how fun and well developed it was so much so that it could even be its own game...
..which it more or less became in AC4. And while AC3 was fun AC4 is by far the superior game as it fixed nearly every issue I had with the series from the controls to the combat to the boring characters. So while I found AC3 a fun game when it was released you won't miss much if you skip on it and only play AC4.
I agree it was a let down, especially after AC2 which was seriously one of the best games I've ever played. The ship fighting scenes were unbelievably good though, too bad the rest of the game didn't follow suit.
AC3 isn't actually terrible. It has its problems, but it's actually a good game if taken on its own without the rest of the Assassin's Creed series to compare it to.
It's just not GREAT.
It's about a thousand times better than Assassin's Creed 1.
Best to worst:
Assassin's Creed 2
Assassin's Creed 4:Black Flag
Assassin's Creed:Brotherhood
Assassin's Creed:Revelations
Assassin's Creed 3
Assassin's Creed
It's just not GREAT.
It's about a thousand times better than Assassin's Creed 1.
Best to worst:
Assassin's Creed 2
Assassin's Creed 4:Black Flag
Assassin's Creed:Brotherhood
Assassin's Creed:Revelations
Assassin's Creed 3
Assassin's Creed
I thought it could have had more of an emphasis on stealth and survival, rather than.. AC2. And 1. Just being them, except now sometimes you have your hood down, and there's some better music.
Lol Well I thought it was pretty good the first time I played it mainly because I just went through the campaign. But now that I'm 100%-ing it, I have come to the realization it is a terrible game.dangoball said:Correct me if I'm wrong, but "terrible" or "atrocious" game usually doesn't warrant a second playthrough. Not even being called "good" at any point. Maybe "not as good as I originally thought"? Yumeria is a really terrible anime and I would under no circumstances rewatch it from my own accord. Nothing about it was good and I finished it for two sole reasons a) I refused to believe it could be that bad and had to get better (plot twist: it didn't) b) it has only 12 episodes. If something has many flaws but is still enjoyable enough for you to come back to it and try to get as much out of it as you can, why can't we just call it "not that good" or "enjoyable but deeply flawed"?Jacco said:
And then people wander why 7/10 means a bad game and 6/10 is reserved for total pieces of shit when even non-numeral qualifiers have gone to the extremes of "DA BEST GARME EVAR!!!" and "WHAT A STEAMING PILE OF SHIT!!!" completely omitting the middle ground of "quite good with some serious shortcomings" and "generally a flop with some good points".
BTW: came here expecting someone to call OP out on this being and opinion. I em dissapoint
I've played all 6 main installments of the Assassin's Creed series, and AC3 is by far the worst.
Simply put, I hated all the changes they made to control and combat mechanics. The reason why the previous four installments were fun is because each preceding title built upon itself and had an overall familiar game feel.
Everything from the hit-and-miss combat and counters, insanely difficult Captains that can die easily from a Double Counter Kill, chasing the floating pieces of paper, bull crap objectives that caused you to restart an entire mission, etc. made it very difficult to enjoy the game, let alone wanting to complete 100%.
Assassin's Creed 4 employs a similar combat system and it is easier to grasp, but only because it is very similar to Assassin's Creed 3's (Gee; employing a similar combat system from a previous installment for a seamless transition to game play. How about that s***?).
Simply put, I hated all the changes they made to control and combat mechanics. The reason why the previous four installments were fun is because each preceding title built upon itself and had an overall familiar game feel.
Everything from the hit-and-miss combat and counters, insanely difficult Captains that can die easily from a Double Counter Kill, chasing the floating pieces of paper, bull crap objectives that caused you to restart an entire mission, etc. made it very difficult to enjoy the game, let alone wanting to complete 100%.
Assassin's Creed 4 employs a similar combat system and it is easier to grasp, but only because it is very similar to Assassin's Creed 3's (Gee; employing a similar combat system from a previous installment for a seamless transition to game play. How about that s***?).
It does on PC. I played Blood Dragon once, closed it, went back to start it and apparently I was offline for the next 36 hours despite being able to go on any other internet service so... yeah not getting it on PC.TizzytheTormentor said:
I agree with almost all of this, apart from one thing. Revelations was an abomination, everything it did well was done far better in previous games, and everything that was new was done terribly.Seracen said:
AC3 was not a good game, but thankfully AC4 was vastly improved.
It was hit and miss for me, I did a 100% playthrough shortly after it came out.
Pros
Core gameplay is pretty much intact
The Homestead...I really loved watching it go from a wasteland to a thriving town, most of the characters who joined it where fun characters if a little cliched.
I liked Achilles character, which actually made me dislike Connor due to his treatment of him now and again.
Tree running was pretty fun, but doesnt make up for the boring architecture else where.
Hunting small animals is actually quite fun, stalking them from above.
Cons
I'm in the minority that did not enjoy the Naval parts (the main reason I haven't picked up AC4)
Some 100 percent requirements where so specific, you would never do it without a guide.
Hunting Large animals...QTEs
Connor
Didnt enjoy the crafting parts. I usually just went on a Beaver cull and sold there pelt.
Overall I enjoyed just slightly less than AC2 and ACB, probably on par with ACR for me, but with a less interesting story.
Pros
Core gameplay is pretty much intact
The Homestead...I really loved watching it go from a wasteland to a thriving town, most of the characters who joined it where fun characters if a little cliched.
I liked Achilles character, which actually made me dislike Connor due to his treatment of him now and again.
Tree running was pretty fun, but doesnt make up for the boring architecture else where.
Hunting small animals is actually quite fun, stalking them from above.
Cons
I'm in the minority that did not enjoy the Naval parts (the main reason I haven't picked up AC4)
Some 100 percent requirements where so specific, you would never do it without a guide.
Hunting Large animals...QTEs
Connor
Didnt enjoy the crafting parts. I usually just went on a Beaver cull and sold there pelt.
Overall I enjoyed just slightly less than AC2 and ACB, probably on par with ACR for me, but with a less interesting story.
I remember playing through AC3 in a haze the first time around. I ignored all the side missions and objectives and focused on the main campaign, but the longer I played the more bored and frustrated I got. There was so much goddamn hand-holding and gameplay restrictions, it honestly felt like the game either resented the need for human input or was terrified of me screwing up its precious narrative. Talk to a guy. Go to the objective marker. Watch a cutscene. Do the ridiculously simple things it tells you to do. Watch another cutscene. Every once in a while they'd throw in other game mechanics that got used once, maybe twice, and then never came up again.
I remember the first AC, where they'd give me a huge city to explore, and I had to actually do the exploring myself to find the clues, then had to decide my own plan of attack on the assassination target. I actually felt like I was in control of events. AC3 never did that, it just herded me from one shooting gallery/chase scene to the next.
In terms of story, it was just plodding and anticlimactic. In AC1, the methodical elimination of all the targets leading up the twist ending had some building action with a satisfying climax. In AC2 and Brotherhood, there was a clear villain and a sense of progress towards a goal ultimately culminating in victory. In AC3 I was never really sure of who my enemy was. Yes, the Templars were there, but the whole Assassin/Templar conflict felt completely drowned out and sidelined by the Revolutionary War story. First the Templars backed the British. Then they swapped to backing the Colonists, maybe? Then we were teaming up with them to hunt down a traitor Templar, but after that we were enemies again. The battle with Kenway felt like it should have been the climactic Final Boss Fight, and everything just felt tacked on and pointless after it.
The final chase/confrontation actually shocked me at how poorly paced and set up it was. The chase through the burning boat itself was essentially pointless, and the final battle was two exhausted, wounded men clumsily finishing it off at a barroom table. In a cutscene.
The only things I actually liked in AC3 were the naval missions, and the homestead story. It might have been a little sappy and simplistic, but I liked how it added some life and character. Watching the everyday struggles of this little town was actually more interesting and emotionally engaging for me than the game's central story.
And for some reason, I seem to be the only person who actually enjoyed playing the Desmond missions. I get how people think he's a bland boring character (and I kind of agree, he is) but I was just more interested in the modern day version of the Templar/Assassin struggle. I wanted to see stealth and intrigue action in the modern day, and I actually knew and cared about the Desmond crew after watching them over several games. I knew what the stakes were and what the threat was, and I wanted to see them succeed.
I remember the first AC, where they'd give me a huge city to explore, and I had to actually do the exploring myself to find the clues, then had to decide my own plan of attack on the assassination target. I actually felt like I was in control of events. AC3 never did that, it just herded me from one shooting gallery/chase scene to the next.
In terms of story, it was just plodding and anticlimactic. In AC1, the methodical elimination of all the targets leading up the twist ending had some building action with a satisfying climax. In AC2 and Brotherhood, there was a clear villain and a sense of progress towards a goal ultimately culminating in victory. In AC3 I was never really sure of who my enemy was. Yes, the Templars were there, but the whole Assassin/Templar conflict felt completely drowned out and sidelined by the Revolutionary War story. First the Templars backed the British. Then they swapped to backing the Colonists, maybe? Then we were teaming up with them to hunt down a traitor Templar, but after that we were enemies again. The battle with Kenway felt like it should have been the climactic Final Boss Fight, and everything just felt tacked on and pointless after it.
The final chase/confrontation actually shocked me at how poorly paced and set up it was. The chase through the burning boat itself was essentially pointless, and the final battle was two exhausted, wounded men clumsily finishing it off at a barroom table. In a cutscene.
The only things I actually liked in AC3 were the naval missions, and the homestead story. It might have been a little sappy and simplistic, but I liked how it added some life and character. Watching the everyday struggles of this little town was actually more interesting and emotionally engaging for me than the game's central story.
And for some reason, I seem to be the only person who actually enjoyed playing the Desmond missions. I get how people think he's a bland boring character (and I kind of agree, he is) but I was just more interested in the modern day version of the Templar/Assassin struggle. I wanted to see stealth and intrigue action in the modern day, and I actually knew and cared about the Desmond crew after watching them over several games. I knew what the stakes were and what the threat was, and I wanted to see them succeed.
People give Assassin's Creed 1 waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much credit. That game is by far the worst in the series.
Altair is marginally better than Connor, Jesper Kyd's soundtrack is superior, and the Crusades cities are a better setting, but the gameplay is just WORTHLESS.
AC1 was a game where they spent all their resources building a magnificent game engine and framework and then clearly had no time and money left to build a real game in that world and engine.
For as bad as the cities, story, and Connor are, the world, gameplay and variety in Assassin's Creed 3 ABSOLUTELY blow AC1 out of the water.
Altair is marginally better than Connor, Jesper Kyd's soundtrack is superior, and the Crusades cities are a better setting, but the gameplay is just WORTHLESS.
AC1 was a game where they spent all their resources building a magnificent game engine and framework and then clearly had no time and money left to build a real game in that world and engine.
For as bad as the cities, story, and Connor are, the world, gameplay and variety in Assassin's Creed 3 ABSOLUTELY blow AC1 out of the water.
It wasn't that bad. I never have any glitches, which is A LOT more than what I can say of 3.hazabaza1 said:
The Uplay is still a thing. I believe the worst part is that it requires an Internet connection for some content in the campaign.
But yeah... AC 4 is miles better than 3.
I'm just gonna quietly put up my hand and say that I really liked the game, and though it had some issues it entertained me for a good period of time and have no regrets buying it. I disagree with many of you all but hey, such is life.