Yeah I can see how the first literal assassination is just "Tap X" and is EXTREMELY scripted, but that's kinda like judging a book by it's cover, albeit you could also argue that AC3 is akin to if the front cover of the 5th Harry Potter showed a little girl in the human military fighting in china. I agree that there was probablt more bowls time than assassination time, buuuuuut that's one mission that can be finished in 5 minutes and is totally optional afterwards. The trading company is also optional so it really only has to be done once. Hey, I'm not saying your reasons for not liking the game are wrong, you're fully entitled to your opinion, and I mostly agree with it; There should have been more stabby stabby mc'killingtons in AC3 (especially the last to Templars), but I found that I was able to look past these issues and enjoy the game, so I kind of feel obliged to make excuses for the game.boots said:I think that annoyed me most was that the first assassination of the game is a cutscene-QTE assassination, and the two most important assassinations of the game -
My main gripe is that the stabbing:faffing ratio just gets worse with every game. I brought this up in the last thread on this but ... ACIII had a bowls minigame. Bowls, the favourite sport of septuagenarians. Not just a minigame, either, an actual mission in which the goal was to play bowls. Just stand next to a bearded guy and throw balls at balls in almost total silence. For ages.Haytham Kenway and Charles Lee - are also cutscene+QTE assassinations. You get to fight Haytham but when it comes time to actually kill him it's all prescripted. Then with Charles Lee you have that godawful chase through the ship, which should have been where his assassination took place, but instead the game prickteases you by letting him get away again, pointlessly, just so Connor can catch up with him in the bar later for a good old "press X to assassinate" cutscene+QTE.
I'm pretty sure that I spent more time playing bowls than I spent assassinating people in that game.
Oh, and the stealth sucked. There is one stealth function, and it is "crouch in bush".
Look, at the risk of sounding a little aggressive, I really love stabbing people. Stabbing them in the face, stabbing them in the spine, stabbing them in the guts, jumping down on them and stabbing them, hanging from a ledge and reaching up to stab them in the balls. I'm not saying that stabbing is my favourite thing to do in the world, just that I'd rather be stabbing people than building a wardrobe inside a menu system and micro-managing a trading company. Or playing fucking bowls.
It hasn't, yet. Super Sentai did it in 35.McFazzer said:How many seasons did it take before Power Rangers made it to Pirates?
Ubisoft said they want the AC series to be a yearly release. That's why.knight steel said:Wait didn't we already have an AC game like less than a year ago?
Why is this info coming out so soon shouldn't they wait a little bit more?
I found myself being able to look past the games faults and enjoy the game to the point where I'd give it 8.5/10, even with my version that's glitched and makes it IMPOSSIBLE for me to get full synch on the Eagle mission. Basically, once I get up to the point where you dive into the tree's roots and have to fly around the screen just goes white; I can here everything, I just can't see shit. Also, I found myself enjoying most of the side missions/filler content such as the guild missions (though they did get tedious) and the Homestead missions (for some reason I like them, even though most the internet seems to despise them). I agree with you in saying that the game could have used an extra few months of final polish, they really should have spent more resources on making a good game than following their yearly cycle.boots said:I'm conflicted, because I can sort of see how good the game could have been if it had had a redraft to cut out all the pointless dead air puffing it up, fix the pacing and the storytelling issues, and add more actual assassinations. It also needed an extra 3-6 months for the developers to actually finish making it instead of just being shoved out mostly finished, with the exposed wires of unfinished gameplay elements still visible. Overall it just needed to be edited down. I get that Ubisoft have a "40 hours of gameplay" quota to fill but the stuff they shoved in as content filler just means there's more crap that you have to wade through to get to the good stuff.
I didn't hate ACIII. It was obvious that they did a lot of research for the historical/cultural stuff, and I actually really liked the new characters and the story. That's why I think they deserved better than the game that they ended up in.
Also, the ending for the modern day storyline was absolutely terrible. It was terrible on a Mass Effect 3 level. Maybe even worse.
funny thing is most people say they liked the naval stuff the besthazabaza1 said:The naval stuff was boring as fuck in AC3, so if they're making a game around and in all likelihood keeping Connor...
yeah never getting this game.