Assassin's Creed III Review

[Milanezi]

Funny though, there would be no American Revolution without the French Revolution

Since the American Revolution happened before the French Revolution, I'm pretty sure you've got that backwards.

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?

Hmmm Yeah I wa sjust... testing you people... FUCK THIS I won't forgive myself getting this shit wrong! (hits head against the wall)

 

[ProtoChimp]

I KNOW I'M GONNA GET MASSACRED BUT... Doesn't anyone else wants this whole time machine thing to stop? I want a game in Desmond's time! Let's control HIM, the whole game, urban setting! The grand finale to the series!

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?

1, it has already been established that the Templars caused WW1 & 2 for their own gains and means of control. 2, can you please tell me what your avatar says? It looks funny.

 

[DonTsetsi]

It would've been more interesting if the game's protagonist was on Canada's side. Could be problematic since Canada beat the US so quickly, but we would escape the "America, Fuck Yea" cliches.

 

[Greg Tito]

It would've been more interesting if the game's protagonist was on Canada's side. Could be problematic since Canada beat the US so quickly, but we would escape the "America, Fuck Yea" cliches.

AC3 has no "America, Fuck Yea" cliches. It presents the revolution as a much more morally gray event than the marketing presents. Give it a play and you'll see what I mean.

 

[irmasterlol]

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.

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!

You don't really have to finish Revelations. Nothing happens in Revelations, besides one expensive-looking cut scene at the end that I guess is supposed to the the titular revelation.

Also, there's a bit of a philosophical difference about how the AC assassins operate. They're all about making the kill public to send a message. So doing the whole thing stealthily wouldn't really meet their goals.

 

[LobsterFeng]

I still haven't finished Assassin's Creed II and I haven't even touched the ones that came after that. But my brother is picking this up today so I'll give it a try anyway. But will I be able to know what's going on even though I haven't finished AC II?

 

[gigastar]

So i can earmark it for my birthday present in December without fear of another Revelations leaping out of the box and eating 15 hours of my time.

 

[Smiley Face]

Funny though, there would be no American Revolution without the French Revolution

American Revolution: 1775, give or take a year, I can't quite remember
French Revolution: 1789.

I'm sorry, what were you saying about the French Revolution?

Edit: Dang, beaten to the punch. Still, there's the dates for you.

I KNOW I'M GONNA GET MASSACRED BUT... Doesn't anyone else wants this whole time machine thing to stop? I want a game in Desmond's time! Let's control HIM, the whole game, urban setting! The grand finale to the series!

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?

To all of these, I would say hell yes. I don't know HOW you could do a modern, urban AC, but if it can be done, it should be done. And if not, there are some excellent 20th century venues.

 

[antipunt]

The irony of these AC3 threads is that there's always a massive "UK fuck yea!" vibe. Every. Single. One.

The hypocrisy is practically palpable.

 

[PedroSteckecilo]

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 hahaha

Yeah you're not entirely wrong about that...

The American Revolution both showed The French that "It can be done" and that "you don't need kings".

It also bankrupted the French State leading to a lot of the economic upheavals that eventually led to the revolution.

I think the main issue a lot of internationals have with Assassins Creed 3 being set during the American Revolution is that American's have enough games where they're the heroes. Assassins Creed was one of the FEW series's that didn't feature an American lead (other than Desmond, but nobody likes him anyway) and now for the sake of marketing it seems like Ubisoft has now taken Assassins Creed away from us by making a "Rah Rah American Revolution" game with a historical American character interacting with historical Americans, America America America with an extra side of America.

Basically, the game industry has enough goddamn America in it as is and now it has one more... that wasn't previously all America. Just feels worse is all.

captcha: Ace of Spades ^-^

 

[DustyDrB]

Funny though, there would be no American Revolution without the French Revolution

American Revolution: 1775, give or take a year, I can't quite remember
French Revolution: 1789.

I'm sorry, what were you saying about the French Revolution?

Edit: Dang, beaten to the punch. Still, there's the dates for you.

Seems pretty obvious from the tone of the rest of his post that he simply just misspoke and meant to say "there would be no French Revolution without the American Revolution.

Either way...I may actually pick this game up today. I just want to stalk around the woods, climb trees, and pounce on bears. I'm very tolerant of bugs, so that shouldn't bother me.

 

[ciancon]

You can pet random dogs in Assassin's Creed 3. It's the best game EVAR!

I was beginning to think that i've had enough of AC but if this is true it's a must buy!

 

[cricket chirps]

Ok see the final line in the review vid is why im REALLY not sure if i should get this game. See it sounds like more of the same old same old, which IS good, but isn't something that sells the series for me.

This whole game sounds like they remade revaltions in a time period that not only do i not care for, i actively dislike. (this coming from an american born in america)

So, if the game has a setting i don't like and is no vaste improvement over the last game which i still own, is there ANY reason to get this one?

 

[SpaceBat]

Somewhat interested in this game, even though the previous game didn't grab my attention in terms of its storytelling. Still, I'm sure I'll try this out sooner or later.

And I'm still waiting for an AC game where you're a Russian assassin during the WW2 era.

 

[cricket chirps]

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.

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.

I'm amazed you enjoyed the first game, most people, me included, hated it, it was ridiculously repetitive...

See this makes no sense to me, people say all the time how bad AC 1 was, then HOW did it become such a long and huge series exactly?

1,2, and bortherhood were good.
1: started the whole thing and gave us a game style we were not used to.
2: Vastly imporved upon 1 mechanicly and thematicly.
Brotherhood: Added a multiplayer aspect to a game that seemed it could not have one, AND IT WORKED!
Revelations: series dies for me, nothing in the aspect of improvement to me, same old stuff, beat the whole game and questioned why i spent all that time on it.
3: Sadly sounds exactly like revaltions, no improvements, "yay historical accuracy!" of an uninteresting time period, woot more multiplayer that you already have two games which hold essentialy the same thing.

._. i am dissapoint ubisoft, why? why am i so dissapoint?

 

[Rthe47]

I suppose that one of the things that history buffs will be curious about, especially concerning Paul Revere, is this question. Is Israel Bissell still getting the shaft?

 

[Tumedus]

Ok see the final line in the review vid is why im REALLY not sure if i should get this game. See it sounds like more of the same old same old, which IS good, but isn't something that sells the series for me.

This whole game sounds like they remade revaltions in a time period that not only do i not care for, i actively dislike. (this coming from an american born in america)

I agree with this.

Also, it really seemed that the first one's philosophy was about altering the political climate. Changing or preserving the potential course of history via specific targets.

That doesn't seem as likely when set during the actual war. The political climate is already established. All you become, then, is a talented wetwork soldier. Helping one side win doesn't seem nearly as profound as actually setting the war in motion in the first place.

Edit: It just doesn't feel like the series has anything to say anymore. It has become nothing more than inserting their gameplay in a new setting people will recognize.

 

[Rednog]

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 hahaha

Yeah you're not entirely wrong about that...

The American Revolution both showed The French that "It can be done" and that "you don't need kings".

It also bankrupted the French State leading to a lot of the economic upheavals that eventually led to the revolution.

I think the main issue a lot of internationals have with Assassins Creed 3 being set during the American Revolution is that American's have enough games where they're the heroes. Assassins Creed was one of the FEW series's that didn't feature an American lead (other than Desmond, but nobody likes him anyway) and now for the sake of marketing it seems like Ubisoft has now taken Assassins Creed away from us by making a "Rah Rah American Revolution" game with a historical American character interacting with historical Americans, America America America with an extra side of America.

Basically, the game industry has enough goddamn America in it as is and now it has one more... that wasn't previously all America. Just feels worse is all.

captcha: Ace of Spades ^-^

I'm honestly curious how people can keep claiming that Ubisoft decided to set it in America just to pander to Americans...I'm wondering if these complainers didn't play the previous games or just didn't read the lore at all.

 

[Rainboq]

I KNOW I'M GONNA GET MASSACRED BUT... Doesn't anyone else wants this whole time machine thing to stop? I want a game in Desmond's time! Let's control HIM, the whole game, urban setting! The grand finale to the series!

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?

1, it has already been established that the Templars caused WW1 & 2 for their own gains and means of control. 2, can you please tell me what your avatar says? It looks funny.

It says "Chaotic good - You guys can all go to hell, I'm going to rescue Helo." And what if the Templars made the powder keg, and then tricked the Assassins into killing a certain arch Duke?

 

[Mr Companion]

The trailer for this video was Assassins Creed 3. Just wanted to point that out for no real reason.
Also has anything changed in the multiplayer? I mean, it looks exactly like the last games multiplayer even down to the inclusion of the story bits, that isn't new by the way so listing it as a point in its favor sounds like somebody trying to scrounge up something positive to say about a formula that hasn't budged an inch. I don't know what motivation somebody would have to do that though so I guess he just didn't know.