I enjoyed it, but I'd say it had more problems than previous AC games. I made sure I skipped all the side bullshit.
Did Anyone truly enjoy Assassin's Creed 3's Singleplayer?
- Thread starter Kitteman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Honestly I thought the combat was an absolute pain in the ass compared to the other games...what with guys chucking bombs at you, firing-squads lining up half a block away from you and me never seeming to be able to pull off the "human shield move" in time. One of the things I did appreciate was that they updated the counter-attack system to require *GASP!* TWO button presses! They also seem to have made the majority of enemies immune to instant counter-kills. But this uptick in challenge was completely negated once you realize that the Tomahawk is a death machine that kills pretty much anyone in three hits before converting into an unstoppable combo of death and destruction.Kitteman said:
Beyond that, Brotherhood is still my favorite AC to date. 2 was pretty sweet and a very close second, but I REALLY enjoyed killing that bastard Ceasar (probably misspelled that). On a more technical standpoint that I won't get into but rather just mention: the game is FULL of mechanical glitches. And really I have to borrow from Yahtzee's take on the game and mention that a lot of the sidequests are just tedious busy-work with no real point besides absolutely murdering time. I will say I enjoyed the naval battles a LOT more than the tower defense from Revelations...but then again, as a whole, I'd say I liked ACIII a lot better than Revelations.
That said, though, I can't say I liked ACIII too much. A lot of the bonus mission objectives were, in my opinion, almost impossible considering the gear that you're given (the fucking bow and arrow SUCKS! The crossbow was a beautiful, quiet, long-range stealth kill to help with tricky situations...the fucking bow takes 3 arrows to kill someone). There's one where a town is getting bombarded by a couple ships and you have to run through the bombardment, jump in the water, and swim out to the boats. New Optional Objective: kill everyone on the boats without getting spotted. Yeeeah, considering their patrol patterns and my pussy-ass weapons, that wasn't happening. Musta tried 40 times with every possible approach I could think of and I just couldn't get it done.
Onto the character: I can understand why they made Connor the way they did. He was never completely sold on the beliefs of the Assassins. Sure, he bought into it and followed the old man around, but it was clear he didn't have the will or heart of an assassin. He was merely using them as a tool to make himself strong enough to fight against those that would endanger his people. That said, I definitely prefer Ezio - even Old Man Ezio - over Connor.
With the buildings, yeah, it's just not the same without beautiful towers that you take one look at and start getting a chubby while thinking "Oh I'm gonna climb the FUCK outta this tower!!" Orrrrr maybe that was just me who got that excited.
All in all, like I said, I thought it was better than Revelations, but considering how utterly crap Revelations was, that's not saying much. Assassins Creed is best kept to the medieval timeperiod...you know, before EVERYONE had a frickin' gun.
On a side-note..........is it just me, or does Connor sound almost exactly like Alucard from the original PS Syphony of the Night? Seriously, play that again, then play AC III...it's GOTTA be the same voice actor. It's not constant, but there's a good number of points where Alucard REALLY comes out. Mostly when Connor's starting to get pissy about something.
You say regenerating health made combat easier but in 2 trilogy you'd get 30 health blocks and like 40 medicine pouches that were instant to activate. I'm not saying 3 was hard but you barely upgraded squat after 1/3 in the game. If you were even remotely diligent in purchasing Montirigioni, Rome or Istanbul you would be a living god in an hour. If something couldn't kill Ezio in one hit it wasn't killing him period.Kitteman said:
I liked running around and hunting in the frontier. And that's all I liked. The story was so uninteresting I started skipping cutscenes, and eventually gave up on the game altogether, still haven't finished it now.
This was the first AC game to disappoint me so, all the other ones I raced through in days, completely caught up in the beautiful cities, interesting stories and well thought out characters.
AC3 had none of this, and at one point I became convinced the entire game is just a giant Troll.
This was the first AC game to disappoint me so, all the other ones I raced through in days, completely caught up in the beautiful cities, interesting stories and well thought out characters.
AC3 had none of this, and at one point I became convinced the entire game is just a giant Troll.
Actually now that I think about it Ubisoft could have gone in a much more interesting direction instead of the American Revolution. If anyone has ever seen the short Assassin's Creed:Embers then they know exactly what I'm talking about. In Embers older, retired Ezio is met by a young assassin from China, specifically China during the Ming dynasty. Without wishing to spoil anything just know that she was a concubine of Zhengde and she escaped. But, what makes her interesting is that she has character and emotion. And my personal favorite about her is that well one she's a girl so that sorta changes up the formula for AC games and she has blades on her feet. Blades on her feet allow her to have much more fluid animations and just make it a whole lot more interesting to fight. Also, just think about the setting; China. First off China, like Italy and Constantinople, is old. This means that there are much more historic monuments and buildings that are just desperately being asked to be climbed. Compare this to the American Revolution where you don't have that many locations that just make you excited and want to climb them.
I didn't at first, but it slowly started to grow on me nearer the end. Once I started doing things like completing the map, finding the collectibles and so on. The main story as well as all characters except Haytham were meh, but the game overall wasn't that bad.
Definitely worse than AC2, but considering I thought Brotherhood and Revelations were a complete waste of time (except recruiting assassins), I think it was the best one after it. The two before were basically "Let's get back the object you spent the entire last game trying to get, as you lost it during a cutscene at the start" and "Let's stick you in a boring city, give you boring missions and boring characters but a few new features that you never need to use anyway."
Definitely worse than AC2, but considering I thought Brotherhood and Revelations were a complete waste of time (except recruiting assassins), I think it was the best one after it. The two before were basically "Let's get back the object you spent the entire last game trying to get, as you lost it during a cutscene at the start" and "Let's stick you in a boring city, give you boring missions and boring characters but a few new features that you never need to use anyway."
I really despised it.
When I finished the game, I couldn't actually remember assassinating anyone. Then I realised that's because the last two, at least, happen in a fucking cutscene. Besides which, there are only a few targets that are set up.
The first 5 hours at least are a drag of tutorials, some of which I'm pretty sure were repeated after the character-switch, and missions consist of walking between cutscenes. Despite all that, I still didn't know how to recruit assassins until I'd finished the game and looked it up myself. Perhaps that was me being dense, but it doesn't prioritise what it tells you at all.
After around 20 hours of playing, I still couldn't tell the difference between Boston and New York. The most interesting area, the frontier, is barely used for actual missions it seems. Uncovering the map is also an even greater chore.
Overly-strict mission parametres remain. So whilst you're chasing targets (on the odd occasion you're given something interesting to do and actually have a fucking target) you may as well just be running down a corridor.
The modern-day plot, which at the end of AC2 I was very much into, continued its descent into inanity. Yet another fucking cutscene takes the place of actually assassinating someone who was initially being set up as the Big Bad of the Templars. Cross' death is as inconsequential as his introduction.
So much of it is just disparate, dull, and poorly realised fluff. The homestead was a nice addition in AC2, and it never needed to be anything more than it was. Brotherhood managed to integrate the idea very well into the city itself, so that was fine. AC3 is a regression, to spreadsheets of all things. Say what you want about the first Assassin's Creed, but that shit knew what it was about: running, climbing, and killing. AC3 managed to cut the crap that filled up Revelations, but it seems they forgot to hold back the core fucking concept.
There are clearly some good ideas in there, in terms of the narrative especially: the twist with Haytham at the beginning was very good, even if it took 3 hours of faffing about to get there. Shame they never capitalised on that relationship in any way whatsoever, bar the very convoluted reason for working together. (Why not just, y'know, kill each other? Since each is far more detrimental to the other's plans than what was going on at that moment.) And the sad irony of Conner helping a bunch of people achieve freedom when we all know they were going to fuck his people over was at least touched upon, if not explored to the extent it shoulda, woulda, coulda been.
When I finished the game, I couldn't actually remember assassinating anyone. Then I realised that's because the last two, at least, happen in a fucking cutscene. Besides which, there are only a few targets that are set up.
The first 5 hours at least are a drag of tutorials, some of which I'm pretty sure were repeated after the character-switch, and missions consist of walking between cutscenes. Despite all that, I still didn't know how to recruit assassins until I'd finished the game and looked it up myself. Perhaps that was me being dense, but it doesn't prioritise what it tells you at all.
After around 20 hours of playing, I still couldn't tell the difference between Boston and New York. The most interesting area, the frontier, is barely used for actual missions it seems. Uncovering the map is also an even greater chore.
Overly-strict mission parametres remain. So whilst you're chasing targets (on the odd occasion you're given something interesting to do and actually have a fucking target) you may as well just be running down a corridor.
The modern-day plot, which at the end of AC2 I was very much into, continued its descent into inanity. Yet another fucking cutscene takes the place of actually assassinating someone who was initially being set up as the Big Bad of the Templars. Cross' death is as inconsequential as his introduction.
So much of it is just disparate, dull, and poorly realised fluff. The homestead was a nice addition in AC2, and it never needed to be anything more than it was. Brotherhood managed to integrate the idea very well into the city itself, so that was fine. AC3 is a regression, to spreadsheets of all things. Say what you want about the first Assassin's Creed, but that shit knew what it was about: running, climbing, and killing. AC3 managed to cut the crap that filled up Revelations, but it seems they forgot to hold back the core fucking concept.
There are clearly some good ideas in there, in terms of the narrative especially: the twist with Haytham at the beginning was very good, even if it took 3 hours of faffing about to get there. Shame they never capitalised on that relationship in any way whatsoever, bar the very convoluted reason for working together. (Why not just, y'know, kill each other? Since each is far more detrimental to the other's plans than what was going on at that moment.) And the sad irony of Conner helping a bunch of people achieve freedom when we all know they were going to fuck his people over was at least touched upon, if not explored to the extent it shoulda, woulda, coulda been.
The third Assassin's Creed game or the one with a 3 on the title?
I haven't played since the original game, just jumping in to say that it seems to me after all the reviews I've watched and read about this series that Ubisoft is probably getting more comfortable with phoning it in on their fifth title. They know they have a fanbase so they know they're going to sell units no matter what they do.
I guess I'm saying your opinion doesn't matter to them.
I haven't played since the original game, just jumping in to say that it seems to me after all the reviews I've watched and read about this series that Ubisoft is probably getting more comfortable with phoning it in on their fifth title. They know they have a fanbase so they know they're going to sell units no matter what they do.
I guess I'm saying your opinion doesn't matter to them.
