I really didn't like Assassin's Creed 3. Here's why.

Ryank1908

New member
Oct 18, 2009
266
0
0
So, as the title may suggest, I've just finished Assassin's Creed 3, and I thought it was impossibly overrated. This isn't a rant thread or anything - I really just want to see how other people responded to the issues that I have with the game. I am entirely open to the fact that maybe the game just didn't click with me, so I want to get some other opinions on some of these facets of the game.

I will do my best to leave it spoiler free, but there may be light gameplay spoilers ahead. Be warned. Let's begin.

Pacing

For most of the time I was playing, I was intensely aware of the fact that I was playing a tutorial. It's a big game with a lot of different elements knocking about, but the tutorial 'section' goes on for about five hours. It was so slow to open up that when it did, I didn't realise, and just kept going through the story missions. The free-roam aspect was left so late and wasn't ever revealed to actually have a point, so I didn't really realise what I could be doing in the Frontier until very late in the game.
This is a gripe I've noticed a lot of people having so I'll keep this section short.

A linear campaign that forgets what made the series great

One thing I really enjoyed about Assassin's Creed 2 was that it managed to keep a great variety of mission objectives and secondary missions while keeping the core of the game -- assassination missions that offer up creative choice in how you approach them -- intact.
Assassin's Creed 3 has an even wider range of things to do, and a lot of it is entertaining, such as the
army command missions where you control cannon fire and squadrons of line infantry.

However, a LOT of the mechanics featured in the main story were absurdly repetitive and dull, and there was an unbelievable lack of what made the series so great; open areas that required thought to approach and daring escapes once you've eliminated your target. Instead, we're treated to dull and glitchy chase scene after chase scene, spending hours running to and fro just because the story tells us to. These missions were so impossibly linear that it genuinely felt to me that Assassin's Creed 3 was an on-rails game where occasionally the rails fell off. If you do ANYTHING that the game doesn't want you to, show any semblance of forward-thinking, then the game tells you you failed and restarts the mission. Making a game that's about free-roaming and creativity this linear makes the moments where you DO have free reign just feel at odds with the rest of the main campaign.

Unfortunately, from what I can remember there were only about three missions in the game that embodied what Assassin's Creed was, for me - intense and creative stealth-action gameplay. Don't expect to just be able to assassinate your targets, either; I was told to 'chase' one of the main story targets and when I just whipped out my pistol and shot him instead, I failed the mission. So, I did what the game asked me to and chased him, only to murder him in a cutscene. Irritating.

Free running is pointless.

Parkour was one of the main things that made Assassin's Creed so interesting and so unique. You had complete freedom in where you wanted to go in these beautifully-crafted cities, and tumbling and swan-diving around them was an absolute blast. I was really looking forward to it in AC3 but honestly, I never found myself using it.

You're given an ability to whistle for a horse very early in the game, in a city or in the frontier. The areas are so big that using free-running to get around is ultimately just redundant - the enjoyment I may have had from hurtling across the rooftops of colonial America was completely negated by the fact that the cities take a very, very long time to traverse and there is an immense amount of inane travelling to do, so either you're going to use the new Fast Travel system (yay, fast travel..) or you're going to spend the whole game with your fat ass on a horse.

The only time I had memorable moments with free-running were genuinely when the game told me to do it for a plot mission. None of the very, very few missions that allowed me freedom in my approach encouraged any kind of free-running to the point where ultimately I just forgot about it. The best part of the game was just thrown to the wayside. Sad. Which brings me to...

'Optimal strategy' issues.

In gaming you are naturally drawn to the easiest and most effective route through any level. As shown above, the optimal method of travel is horse-riding and fast-travel, which is so, so much more effective than running that it almost completely negates the presence of optional free-running and exploring in the game, which was one of my absolute favourite parts of the series.

Similarly, in previous games you had a health bar that had to be restored by herbs. The health bar was lengthy and combat was still rather easy, so you felt no massive threat when you were discovered, but you were still punished by having your health bar cut down until you were forced to use a herb to heal. This encouraged more careful gameplay, to an extent - it was still way too easy to bull through everything - but you did feel punished when you ran out of herbs and your health was dwindling.

In AC3, you now have a recharging health bar. Why, I have no idea, but there you have it. This essentially means that as long as you don't actually die - which is next to bloody impossible with combat this easy - then you won't be punished at all. Furthermore, due to the time era, near enough every enemy is armed with a gun. These two things combine to have a pretty interesting effect on gameplay.

First, since you have rebounding health, you are under no obligation to try to avoid combat; just kill everyone and let your health magically restore. Secondly, since every enemy has a ranged attack, running away or climbing a rooftop to escape (something that was very enjoyable in previous games) is suddenly an awful idea. I tried to flee from combat several times in the game, not even out of self-preservation, but out of the fact that I enjoyed the chase. Every time I was killed by a barrage of gunfire, which, if I just ran at them and stabbed them in the face with very little effort, wouldn't have been a problem. You can't climb buildings quickly enough to escape the magical semi-automatic rifles these men seem to have when you're not looking at them, and it just gets frustrating, so you just turn and kill them all. Not enjoyable.

Secondly, the combination of free-running being neglected and escape being a frustrating and pointless option meant that I was just bulling my way through most of the missions. In the rare moments where stealth was encouraged but not mandatory, I would try to sneak through on my first try and inevitably get seen. I'd kill every single person in the area and then consider restarting from the checkpoint but then wonder what the point would be. I'd finished the objective, and I wasn't punished in any way for just fighting the enemies, and nor would I have been rewarded by using a creative and sneaky route. Ultimately, I just ended bulling my way through most situations simply because the alternative took far too long in an already ridiculously lengthy game.

Pointless side missions and other mechanics.

Now, don't get me wrong. I REALLY enjoyed the hunting and naval mission mechanics in this game. I think they were well-thought out and very well-crafted. Also, as a huge fan of games like Dark Cloud, the Homestead development missions were great.

However, after the initial enjoyment of these little side mechanics, I rarely went back to them. Why? Because they have no point to them at all.

Early in the game you're taught to hunt. 'Cool', I thought. 'Red Dead Redemption made hunting an interesting and rewarding part of the game, and I hope AC3 can follow that example.'
I was later told what hunting is mostly used for - crafting on the homestead. Again, 'pretty cool, I like deeper metagame elements like crafting in games like this.'

A little later in the game and I had completely stopped hunting and crafting. Why? Because all you get from it is money. This'd be fine, if money were at all useful in this game, but I spent most of the game with £0 and still nothing posed a challenge in the slightest.

You can spend money on consumables like arrows and bullets, but why bother when you can just murder guards and steal their guns and loot their bodies for easy ammunition?

You can buy new weapons to increase your combat effectiveness, but why bother? You can literally get through every fight in the game with your fists without so much as losing half your health, as long as you make sure to just run at everyone you find and beat the crap out of them. Remember, running is for fools!

You can upgrade your ship, but the costs are so high and the effects so utterly negligible - and again, you don't need it, even the ship combat is pretty easy - that there is absolutely no point in putting in the effort and time needed to garner enough cash to do it.

It's a shame that so much of the game is rendered completely pointless and given no draw whatsoever simply because Ubisoft can't be bothered to give their game a semblance of challenge.

This all said, the naval missions were fantastic. However - there is a main mission string that's about 5 missions long. It was very enjoyable, but a bit short, and also, utterly pointless. You go through a short story sequence that has no impact on the rest of the game, gives no rewards, and ultimately feels painfully inconsequential. The other missions are just to reduce the risk of your trading ships, which get you... yeah, money. So pointless.

It's not all bad.

A lot of it is actually damn good. The visuals are stunning and Ubi have done a super-human job in recreating the atmosphere of Revolutionary America, and the soundtrack is appropriately memorable. Voice acting and characterisation is strong, and while the story is generally overdrawn and loses track of itself, it's still better than the fast majority of schlock we get passed off as a narrative in this industry. The game does show glimmers of greatness and it's not hard to see why it's worthy of good reviews, but I just cannot understand why huge publications are giving it 95's and so on.

For me, it's like someone tried to make an Assassin's Creed game and just left out all of the parts that made the series noteworthy. I'm not saying it should be exactly like previous games and gameplay evolution in sequels is something I am all for. However, AC3 has moved on from the exciting and creative crowd-stealth infiltration gameplay, but not actually replaced it with anything.

Ultimately, AC3 feels like it an Assassin's Creed game sitting around someone else's campaign. It feels far too much like they're trying to do a 'cinematic gameplay' thing like Uncharted but they haven't changed the mechanics of the game to compliment it.

Anyway, I'm more than open to be told that I'm wrong, and why. My intention is not to stop anyone else from playing the game - just to raise questions and get answers from other people. I do hope I'm wrong.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
17,197
1,231
118
I'm in general agreement.

The game just lacks focus, because it's drowning in side missions and mechnics. Ubisoft seems to think that adding more stuff each sequel means improving the franchise, but that's not how you create engaging gameplay.

The naval missions were indeed badass. Best part of the game in my opinion.
 

Dandark

New member
Sep 2, 2011
1,706
0
0
It sounds like my worst fears for this game were realized then, I doubt I will be buying it myself anytime soon from the sound of it. I was hoping that after brotherhood and revelations they would start fresh and make the game as good as Assassins creed 2 was but the marketing and memories of revelations put me off trying it.

Seems that my worst fears were realized with this.
 

BloatedGuppy

New member
Feb 3, 2010
9,572
0
0
I haven't even played Assassins Creed 2 yet! Or Assassins Creed Motherhood, or Assassins Creed Reverbrations, or any of the 1,000 Assassin's Creed 2 followups!

But I intend to! I have a couple of them on the PC. I'm a little perturbed, though, at the translations of the controls. When I tried it (briefly) on the 360, it felt elegant and smooth. On the PC steering Enzio (Ezio? Anzio? Some Italian stereotype) around felt like trying to bring a barge into port. Using a game pad was no help, it was like trying to bring a barge into port with two broken arms.

So the good news is by the time I get around to trying this (apparently) underwhelming third chapter it'll be 75% off in Steam's Thanksgiving 2016 sale, and everyone will be moaning about Assassins Creed 5: Vietnam.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
The big problem with the tutorial opening is that you spend so long as Connor's father, which means it takes forever for the game to open up in true sandbox mode. Usually, this is only a sequence or two, but factor in Connor's first couple of sequences being tutorials, then it's around Sequence Five that the game truly opens up.

And while I would enjoy taking a role in the occasional historical battle, I can't say I had much interest in riding a horse up and down between three groups of soldiers and telling them when to fire. Nor defending a couple of fairly fragile allies on two different ships while waves of enemies attacked during the Boston Tea Party. But every so often they throw a historical mission at me which is proper cool, such as the one where you had to take out two attacking ships at sea before the legendary "don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes" speech.

I'm also disappointed that a lot of the side missions have become impersonal. The Assassination Contracts is now just the assassination of random blokes, instead of little side stories with each mission requiring different strategies. Oddly enough, the Hunting Missions do have this.

And, yeah, there's been a few places where I basically had to guess what the game wanted me to do. Sometimes you're expected to chase someone or something to a predetermined location, other times you're expected to kill them on the run, and at least one section where you have to tackle a guy (I shot him the first time because he had a red icon on him).

One thing that continues to irritate me while running about in cities is there's various alleys where you'll instantly become Public Enemy #1 if you get too close to the guards. Unlike Restricted Areas, there's no way to back away if a guard takes notice of you. Cross an invisible line in the sand and every guard in the city wants your blood... and it's really easy to run just a bit too close to them and cause the alert.

I don't really have the same problems with climbing buildings as you do during alerts. Like in previous games, you have to look for quick roof access to get off the street level as the ranged weapons tend to make a mockery of any attempt to manual climb the side of a house, but I've fallen less due to gunshots than arrows in previous games.

Mostly I like the new environment. We've basically seen the same basic city four times (but with different landmarks to climb to the top of), so it's nice to see a radically different rooftop and the trees are quite fun once you get the hang of them... even if the game camera needs to be a bit better about not putting leaves in between Connor and me.

Not really surprised that hunting is ultimately pointless, as it was pretty damn pointless in Red Dead Redemption, too. Merely cash and pointless challenges.
 

T3hSource

New member
Mar 5, 2012
321
0
0
I've stated before that I like AC1 the most,I completed AC2 because it did assassinations competently,not well,but competently,mostly the optional contract assassinations and the few story assassinations(the ones from the DLC I found pleasantly enjoyable).
So I basically wanted Hitman:Free-run in Time,but no,we get more padding upon padding upon padding and just dropping a likable support character here and there and bam: solid hit.The developers are making the franchise a toy box of mini games since AC2,now wasn't this supposed to be a game about assassinations?(not senseless murdering,but that can be fun too)
 

thethird0611

New member
Feb 19, 2011
411
0
0
Im gonna go ahead and write a counter point to these (not saying yours arent right, but just my views). Also, dont take it as belittling, something most people on this forum seem to do.

Pacing -

Honestly, yes, it feels badly paced at the beginning, but something I figured out after I started playing a connor, is that its NEEDS that pacing (for this game at least). The reason I say that is because of the new interface and controls, you just need some time to get used to it. The best thing is that they made the prelouge (I dont know if thats the right spelling) the tutorial instead of playing as connor. Instead of 'Heres a cinmeatic of what happened, now play the tutorial as Connor', they incorporated it. Also, after I got to the free roam, im just stuck in having fun in it. Im only on sequence 8 and have 64% done because ive been running around haviing fun.

Linear gameplay -

Yes, the missions are linear, 'Go do this from here', the thing is, they still embody the multiple strategy way. I was on my assassination mission for Pitcarin, and there are MANY ways to get to him, stealthy and straight in. So yes, it may be more linear than usual, but the charm from before is still there.

Free running -

I.... I dont know what to say about this one. Your main complain (it seems) is that the world is to big and you dont want to free-run from one side to the other. Well.... Thats a personal choice. I free run almost everywhere, except if im going from the homestead to Boston, which I am SO greateful for fast travel. So its a great mechanic, utilize it if you want, or dont. Dont stunt your fun because you think you HAVE to use fast travel or the horse.

Optimal strategy -

Did you play all the AC games? You know the first two (If I remember corretly) had a recharging health bar? Its part of what allows that game to move from Point A to Point B easily without having to micromanage health.

Gunfire - Ive escapsed ALOT climbing buildings against hoards of enemies. The thing is, you cant climb a building right in front of a line of riflemen, or they will shoot you down. There is effectivness in the fireing line they use. Just run, turn a corner, climb.

Your second point I pretty much addressed in the linear gameplay section. There are different ways, and free-running isnt hurt. Also, you said in your linear gameplay section you didnt like how you didnt have different routes to take, but you expect something different for accomplishing the same thing in a different way? Why have a second way to please people then?

Side missions and mechanics -

Hunting : Yes, most everything you do in the game is for money. Money to upgrade. OR to create new weapons and things from the pages of Ben's almanac. I mean, I dont know what else to say, thats what its there for. Also, you seem to have never fought against officers, Jagers, and grenadiers. I have no idea why you claim fighting is so easy, because those guys are little shits to kill. So bigger, badder weapons are better.

Upgrading Ship: So you say money has no use, then complain that it cost to much to upgrade your ship? I did very little to make money, and bought everything for the ship. Not only does it make it funner, easier, and more strategy based, but it also helps you fufill the secondary mission parameters that are available. Also, it seems your whole thing here is just to hate on Ubisoft, showing in the one comment in this section.

Ship Missions: Yeah, this section is seperated from the story... Because its a side story. You wanted more stuff to do away from the story? There you go. You are hunting for freaking treasure dude! Or you are fighting off enemy fleets from attacking your trade ships (which was a big fear in that era, so it fits in great).

Final point -

I actually dont know. I see alot of points you make conflicting with other points. So I have no final point for that. AC3 is a game that sticks to its roots, makes the mechanics a bit sleeker, creates a beautiful world with an amazing story, and keeps with the stealth of the originals.

Soooo... thats my point. Hope I didnt sound at all condesending. If I did, sorry in advance.
EDIT: All the quesitons I ask and things are more for context, not for 'Her her your stupid'
 

kickassfrog

New member
Jan 17, 2011
488
0
0
Ryank1908 said:
-Massively snipped for brevity-
I suppose it's evolution in progress. They took a stab at something new, and it backfired a bit.
Hopefully they'll learn what fans liked and what they hated and use that to improve on the next one.
Assuming AC3 doesn't conclusively wrap up the story (which I doubt is the case).

Incidentally, you made me wanna go play red dead redemption again. I would love another game like that, but maybe a bit more modern.
 

Netrigan

New member
Sep 29, 2010
1,924
0
0
kickassfrog said:
I suppose it's evolution in progress. They took a stab at something new, and it backfired a bit.
It's certainly a case of two steps forward, one step back.

The Pros:
1) Combat requires a touch of skill to utilize effectively. In the last few games, it's been really difficult to get killed by a guard. I've actually dropped myself in the middle of them, done nothing, and spent a minute or two watching them completely fail to kill me. Combat is still as easy as it ever was, but I'm much more likely to run away from a bad situation than just stick it out.
2) Nicely different feel to free run from the previous games. As I mentioned before, swap out a few landmarks and a lot of the cities are practically interchangeable. The trees were a good addition.
3) Managing your assassins is a lot easier now that it's a menu you can call up anytime and they have an assortment of useful skills.
4) I like how the game elements are a bit more hidden now. Want a covert escort, no more searching for Courtesans, you'll have to call in the Brotherhood. So much of the previous game seemed to scream out "hide here" or "use these people", but that kind of stuff more seamlessly fits into the world this time.
5) I'm not spending half the game running around buying shops.
6) Naval missions are nicely cool.
7) Less emphasis on collections and climbing the same damn tower over and over again. Both are still there, but apart from That Damn Tree in the Frontier, none of the tower types wore out their welcome.

The cons:
1) Free running along roofs isn't quite as smooth anymore, and hopping around in trees is a bit more difficult than it should be thanks to camera placement.
2) Less emphasis on assassination missions.
3) Crafting and trading is more tedious than it needs to be.
4) Main missions branch out into not-terribly-fun attempts to offer up different kinds of experience. Giving orders to three different fire teams isn't nearly as much fun as sneaking on-board an English ship and killing everyone on board. A case of trying to be all things to all people, while putting less focus on the core gameplay which brings people back every year.
5) A tendency toward chase sequences (poison darts are your friends), where the rules of catch or kill aren't always clear until you fail.

Then the usual complaints.
1) Free run works properly about 90% of the time. Just enough to be really disappointed in it when you go hurling off a building you were climbing or refuse to jump down from a fence or decide to cling to a flag-pole in the middle of a complicated chase sequence.
2) Fighting is still too easy, making the multitude of killing implements offered you kind of useless.
3) Way too much running from one side of the map to another for shit the NPCs could easily do for themselves. Case in point in the "love story", where you practically have to do everything for the guy except guide his penis in on their wedding night.

But mostly it's a solid sequel, which improves some stuff, screws up some new stuff, and slightly loses its way underneath new game mechanics.
 

Et3rnalLegend64

New member
Jan 9, 2009
2,448
0
0
I just want to address your health bar issue specifically. The first game had a recharging health bar. The Ezio games had healing items. You were never in danger if you were any good at the game because healing itmes were way too cheap to buy and you could pause time to heal whenever you needed it.
Health in III doesn't come back until after the fight is over, so you could still try to stubbornly kill everyone but it carried a tangible risk if you carry on for too long. I don't quite know how you're getting shot while climbing unless you aren't trying to break line of sight first. It just kinda makes sense that they can't shoot the building to get to you.

That I want to say just for an objective look at the health mechanic. Everything else seems mostly subjective so I won't even go there.
 

Ryank1908

New member
Oct 18, 2009
266
0
0
BloatedGuppy said:
I haven't even played Assassins Creed 2 yet! Or Assassins Creed Motherhood, or Assassins Creed Reverbrations, or any of the 1,000 Assassin's Creed 2 followups!

But I intend to! I have a couple of them on the PC. I'm a little perturbed, though, at the translations of the controls. When I tried it (briefly) on the 360, it felt elegant and smooth. On the PC steering Enzio (Ezio? Anzio? Some Italian stereotype) around felt like trying to bring a barge into port. Using a game pad was no help, it was like trying to bring a barge into port with two broken arms.
I would highly recommend playing them in order, as long as you at least enjoy the previous one all the way to the end. It is basically second verse (and third, bridge, chorus, post-chorus and outtro) same as the first, but they made so many of them because they were thoroughly entertaining games. They were focussed, the lack of which is largely my gripe with 3. The gamepad takes some getting used to on the PC but it's about as functional as the 360 gets, but you have to get acquainted with the differences.


thethird0611 said:
Side missions and mechanics -

Hunting : Yes, most everything you do in the game is for money. Money to upgrade. OR to create new weapons and things from the pages of Ben's almanac. I mean, I dont know what else to say, thats what its there for. Also, you seem to have never fought against officers, Jagers, and grenadiers. I have no idea why you claim fighting is so easy, because those guys are little shits to kill. So bigger, badder weapons are better.

Upgrading Ship: So you say money has no use, then complain that it cost to much to upgrade your ship? I did very little to make money, and bought everything for the ship. Not only does it make it funner, easier, and more strategy based, but it also helps you fufill the secondary mission parameters that are available. Also, it seems your whole thing here is just to hate on Ubisoft, showing in the one comment in this section.

Ship Missions: Yeah, this section is seperated from the story... Because its a side story. You wanted more stuff to do away from the story? There you go. You are hunting for freaking treasure dude! Or you are fighting off enemy fleets from attacking your trade ships (which was a big fear in that era, so it fits in great).
I appreciate your comments, and certainly didn't feel offended by them. I merely wanted to encourage discussion on this subject as I feel very few people are talking about drawbacks to the game. Most of your points I disagree with, but such is the nature of an opinion.

The ones I have quoted however, I just want to clarify things up a bit.

For how much time you have to spend to get money i.e, hunting, crafting, sending convoys and ensuring they were safe, it ultimately didn't feel like anything available was worth spending that time to get it. I didn't feel like I needed or even particularly wanted any of the things on offer, so grinding up £19,000 to buy an upgrade for my ship was just not something I wanted or ever needeed to spend the time to do, and seemed like a chore. I rinsed through combat without dying once, I believe, and so I didn't need to spend it on weapons, either.

I understand that this is a personal thing, largely, but I also think it might apply to a lot of people. If you place an economy in the game but your mechanics don't make those things feel significant or worth purchasing for any impact on gameplay then more lackadaisical people, like myself, won't make the effort to get them, and therefore will see no point in getting the money in the first place either, making a large part of it feel redundant.

Again, just my point of view. I do appreciate you spending the time to lend your own thoughts to this discussion, as I'm not looking to start a riot against Ubisoft. Just to see if anyone else had the same thoughts I did.
 

Ryank1908

New member
Oct 18, 2009
266
0
0
Et3rnalLegend64 said:
I just want to address your health bar issue specifically. The first game had a recharging health bar. The Ezio games had healing items. You were never in danger if you were any good at the game because healing itmes were way too cheap to buy and you could pause time to heal whenever you needed it.
Health in III doesn't come back until after the fight is over, so you could still try to stubbornly kill everyone but it carried a tangible risk if you carry on for too long. I don't quite know how you're getting shot while climbing unless you aren't trying to break line of sight first. It just kinda makes sense that they can't shoot the building to get to you.

That I want to say just for an objective look at the health mechanic. Everything else seems mostly subjective so I won't even go there.
Yeah, but health only recharged up to a point. I'm not saying it worked brilliantly but to make your entire health bar recharge feels like a cop out, to me. I much would have preferred if they just made enemies hit a bit harder and increased the cost of health items a bit. Then we'd have some challenge, a reason to spend some cash, and a sense of punishment if you got into fights unnecessarily.
A recharging health bar in a game like this just adds nothing to it aside from eliminating a certain amount of the sense of caution you might have going into a fight - you know that as long as you don't die (in which case you'll respawn like 10 seconds away anyway) then you'll have no punishments whatsoever and in a stealth game it's not an approach I like.

And yeah, it is mostly subjective, but as stated, that's the point. I'm more than willing for people to change my mind; in fact, I want them to. I've thoroughly enjoyed all the previous games, and I'm hoping perhaps my mindset was just wrong going into this or I didn't give it the time it deserved. I'm by no means pretending to be objective.
 

prophecy2514

New member
Nov 7, 2011
328
0
0
Ryank1908 said:
Hit the nail right on the head here for me, good job. I havent finished AC3 yet, and I'll play it through, but I have no intention of keeping it in the collection - will probably trade it in.
 

Okamiyasha

New member
Jun 21, 2012
27
0
0
I'm with the TC on this one.

I think the game is still great, but it's not the amazing experience it could have been. It really could have been GotY material but a few things hold it back. I'd just like to add a few points that I personally had issue with.

I'd like to add-in when someone said Jagers and other enemy types were hard. You can disarm them instead of going for the counter-kill or grab. That way all you have to do is hack at them when they have no defence and they go down quick. The axe-wielders take a bit longer but only because they have more health.

The tree-running sections are all incredibly obvious and stick out in the environment. You can see what branches have been developed to run on and it's distracting to the overall Frontier area. I know it's a new feature to the game but I'd appreciate more than like two different branches to run across. In the cities climbing was always blended in to the overall look of the game, whereas the tree-climbing is really not.

Also! I can't believe nobody has mentioned it yet but their are an enormous amount of glitches. Like ridiculously large amount. You can't go ten or maybe even five minutes without experiencing some annoying gameplay bug. They aren?t even funny ones like you see in Fallout or TES; they really negatively affect the overall experience. It doesn't help that the majority negatively affect the player rather than just the environment. I know that these could eventually be patched out but gee, even Skyrim wasn't this bad upon release.

Connor is incredibly unlikable as a character. He gets angry at practically everyone and even goes off at his mentor several times for no reason. During most cut scenes where supporting characters would get offended by him as a player I'd be like "Hey it wasn't me controlling him," (pretending to console the NPC's) and you just get this huge sense of disconnect.

Oh and on the note of being shot at while climbing buildings I didn't actually know you could get hit. I thought they must have programmed it for the AI to miss to add more drama as I haven't been hit a single time, even when running up the face of multiple story buildings.

On the good side though:
Combat is fun as it's ever been. While it provides little challenge the revamped system is very rewarding to use, as well as all the cool extras like rope darts, the bow, tomahawk and dual pistols.
The naval missions are all awesome from what I've played. I especially liked the sea battle amongst that huge storm with all the rogue waves.
Dynamic weather system. Cool to see rain some days or fog or wind.
Story picks up nicely in the second half. Well, like 70% through.
Desmond's sections are the best they have ever been in an AC game. I liked them all and actually wanted to play more of them because of how enjoyable they were.
I am liking exploring the Frontier and getting more people to settle on my land. Also attacking convoys and forts are fun (convoys I like the whole stalking in the trees with my bow and rope darts, forts are just easy distractions).

So anyway yeah that's my additional thoughts but I definitely agree with TC about the majority of his issues.

It's also nice to have a free-roam game that features Uncharted 3 level graphics.
 

Et3rnalLegend64

New member
Jan 9, 2009
2,448
0
0
Ryank1908 said:
Et3rnalLegend64 said:
I just want to address your health bar issue specifically. The first game had a recharging health bar. The Ezio games had healing items. You were never in danger if you were any good at the game because healing itmes were way too cheap to buy and you could pause time to heal whenever you needed it.
Health in III doesn't come back until after the fight is over, so you could still try to stubbornly kill everyone but it carried a tangible risk if you carry on for too long. I don't quite know how you're getting shot while climbing unless you aren't trying to break line of sight first. It just kinda makes sense that they can't shoot the building to get to you.

That I want to say just for an objective look at the health mechanic. Everything else seems mostly subjective so I won't even go there.
Yeah, but health only recharged up to a point. I'm not saying it worked brilliantly but to make your entire health bar recharge feels like a cop out, to me. I much would have preferred if they just made enemies hit a bit harder and increased the cost of health items a bit. Then we'd have some challenge, a reason to spend some cash, and a sense of punishment if you got into fights unnecessarily.
A recharging health bar in a game like this just adds nothing to it aside from eliminating a certain amount of the sense of caution you might have going into a fight - you know that as long as you don't die (in which case you'll respawn like 10 seconds away anyway) then you'll have no punishments whatsoever and in a stealth game it's not an approach I like.

And yeah, it is mostly subjective, but as stated, that's the point. I'm more than willing for people to change my mind; in fact, I want them to. I've thoroughly enjoyed all the previous games, and I'm hoping perhaps my mindset was just wrong going into this or I didn't give it the time it deserved. I'm by no means pretending to be objective.
I think I'll give you part of that. AC2's recharging health only restored the most recently damaged square, which is nigh useless in the grand scheme of things. I also believe that enemies never gave more than money when looted. In that case, then there is some need to remember to stock up regardless of whether you had money coming out of your ears. Combat is still far too easy because of the ability to heal whenever with your 20 stocks of medicine and you shouldn't be running out of too quickly unless you are truly horrible at combat. I don't know exactly which game it started in but you also get a mercy hit so you can heal. No attack can kill you unless you're already bottomed out. I feel that is way too much hand holding there. I actually don't know if AC3 carried that mechanic over. I'm still relatively early in the game and haven't been hit that hard yet.
After AC2, looting rewarded items. Once you ran out, you could refill for free after every battle and didn't even have to detour to a doctor at that point so there should be no problem keeping your health topped off before and after every conflict. Having an out-of-combat recharge is basically the logical conclusion of that, minus the ability to keep yourself alive during a fight after taking far more damage than is really conceivable. Having the enemies hit harder might have been a good idea. Increasing the cost of healing would have done nothing at all unless healing became prohibitively expensive because of Ezio's enormous automatic income.
 

Jolly Co-operator

A Heavy Sword
Mar 10, 2012
1,116
0
0
As much as I was looking forward to the game, I was rather disappointed by it. It just felt like too much of the same, yet not enough of what's important. The most repetitive aspects of the AC formula are back, but it didn't feel like there were any more times where you got to actually plan your assassination, and actually take some agency as to how the events afterwards unfolded (big chases with guards, stealthy ways of escaping, etc.). Granted, the series had never captured that aspect as strongly as they did in AC1, but the lack of it feels very noticeable in this installment.

The economical features sound kind of cool in theory, but you can sell animal hides for such high prices that the crafting and trading system feels almost useless. It all just leads to a lot of fluff that sounds like it could go very deep, but never really draws you in or gives you incentive to start down the rabbit-hole.

One new addition that I do like is the naval missions. It gave the frontier a sense of huge and epic scope, was a nice change of pace, and actually offered some decent rewards.

And lastly, the bugs. Good lord, are there a LOT of bugs. As for ones I've experience personally, I've had map icons not appearing, horses freezing in place (without letting me dismount), citizens and soldiers popping in and out of the environment, texture pop-in, a few floating textures, getting stuck inside of scenery, and Connor was invisible for the duration of a cutscene. Keep in mind that those are just the ones I've experienced personally, and that I've read of many more.

In short, I can't really say it's a bad game, but I was definitely disappointed by it. I really doubt that I'll be picking up the next installment.
 

TheCommanders

ohmygodimonfire
Nov 30, 2011
589
0
0
Another AAA game released, another 4 threads about it being overrated...

That aside, you bring up some good points. I've found I have the most fun with this game when I ignore what it wants me to do. A lot of the missions are more fun if you ignore the full synchronization, but a lot of them are too damn linear for even that to help. Fortunately - as you pointed out - the open world does offer plenty to do if you don't feeling like messing around with the story missions.

I understand your point about free running because of the size of the world, but I would like to say that this free running system is definitively the best of any of the AC titles so far. It has so much nuance and variety that I usually take the extra time to free run around, rather than using horse.

I do take issue with one aside you made at the game. What the hell is wrong with a developer inserting fast travel into a game? It's the definition of a feature that you can use if you want it, and can ignore completely if you don't. I tend not to use fast travel systems in most games, but I will say that I almost always miss it in games that don't bother to include one (dragon's dogma, I'm looking at you (yes I know it technically had a fast travel system, but it was shit)). It's incredibly easy to add as a developer and takes nothing away from the experience of the players who don't want to use it, so why the hell are you complaining?
 

Erik Hamm

New member
Nov 8, 2012
1
0
0
I loved the free roaming and the tree running. The ship battles were a blast too. I'll never finish the game because of the New York missions though. How the heck did you get through that fight and never die. I must have done that 20 times because apparently lowly prisoners can counter an assassins counter move with ease. I have a pet peeve against grinding in a game. If I have to repeat the same scene over and over again just to get the story to progress that's bad game design. How about a sneak button guys? I guess my main problem is I felt like most of the game the designers had a way they wanted me to play and if I thought out of the box at all I was penalized severely by desynching. Maybe I've played too much Skyrim or Dishonored and I'm spoiled by all that player choice. AC3 borders on brilliance but for me just wasn't interesting enough to grind it out during the parts that were not. I mean I know how the story ends.