I just don't like how much I fail because I get detected and I miss feeling like a bad arse when I fight/kill people. I'm at chapter (sequence?) 9 and I'm yet to jump off something and kill someone. What's with that?
Why so much hate for Assassin's Creed 3
- Thread starter Kevin7557
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I fucking love AC3. Although, there is some stuff that really piss me off though.
-Let's start with the worst: The ending. I would debate that AC3 has the worst ending ever. A few Mass effect fans without knowledge of this ending would contest this, but if they knew...(Deus ex machina but with no choices this time).
-If the Frontier didn't had tree climbing, I would've gone crazy. The cities are not fun to run on rooftops. Remember Venice from AC2? Every freaking ledge went somewhere. It had a flow. AC3 really asks you to make a detour to reach the other end of the street. New York ain't that bad. It has a few stuff that sets it appart. Boston though? IT'S WORST THAN ROME.
-I don't find Connor that bad. If you do the secondary missions, you'll see a more compassionate character. He cares for the people of his village, the people of homestead and the crew of the Aquila. It's understandable that he's mostly pissed all the time. However, the Templars seem to have a better philosophy than Connor. A conversation between them pretty much look like this.
Connor: Your evil act has ended.
Templar: But that act would've help everyone.
Connor: You did it to control and abuse people.
Templar: Control yes? Harm them? NO!
Connor: Um...well...*plugs ears* LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
-Last, and not least, those **** missions where you have to chase Thomas Hickey and Charles Lee.
-Let's start with the worst: The ending. I would debate that AC3 has the worst ending ever. A few Mass effect fans without knowledge of this ending would contest this, but if they knew...(Deus ex machina but with no choices this time).
-If the Frontier didn't had tree climbing, I would've gone crazy. The cities are not fun to run on rooftops. Remember Venice from AC2? Every freaking ledge went somewhere. It had a flow. AC3 really asks you to make a detour to reach the other end of the street. New York ain't that bad. It has a few stuff that sets it appart. Boston though? IT'S WORST THAN ROME.
-I don't find Connor that bad. If you do the secondary missions, you'll see a more compassionate character. He cares for the people of his village, the people of homestead and the crew of the Aquila. It's understandable that he's mostly pissed all the time. However, the Templars seem to have a better philosophy than Connor. A conversation between them pretty much look like this.
Connor: Your evil act has ended.
Templar: But that act would've help everyone.
Connor: You did it to control and abuse people.
Templar: Control yes? Harm them? NO!
Connor: Um...well...*plugs ears* LALALALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
-Last, and not least, those **** missions where you have to chase Thomas Hickey and Charles Lee.
Imagine Mass Effect 3's ending explained even worse.Zeckt said:
Imagine not being able to choose which ending you got, but the choices were still presented to you.
Imagine that it ended the exact second you made that choice.
That is the ending for Assassin's Creed 3.
I love the franchise, I like AC3. It disappointed me a bit, and the fact that I liked Haytham more than Connor is a bad sign. The ending didn't evoke any emotion from me, it was an interesting twist, but there was nothing to tug at my heart strings. I CRIED at the end of Revelations, full on sobbing, my mother ran into my room to ask what had happened.
I enjoyed the game, it just fell a little below par.
I enjoyed the game, it just fell a little below par.
I didn't hate it but it was just a bit dull. Free running was vastly improved and so were most assassination techniques both of these are the reasons I play AC (free-running and stabbing). The reasons I didn't like it as much as I could have, were these:-
It was chock full of glitches
I thought the weapon system was poor compared to the previous games.
Combat didn't work for me, instead of gutting them I pushed them over, thus over extending myself and earning a bayonet to the face. Pressing B and X simultaneously does not work and it was just a pretentious version of the old system which worked well.
The city's are very dull, in previous AC games I stopped to admire the view a few times, revolutionary America's cities are crap compared to Rome and Constantinople.
The Frontier was pretty cool but it became a chore to navigate.
I am not American.
There was this big lie about killing both Brits and Americans but anyone who played the games knows this is bull shit. You are basically the revolutionists attack dog, they give you command of their troops at one point for Christ's sake. You do kill guys on the revolutionist side but they sound oddly British too.
I find it a bit more difficult to see people as villains and then murder them when I know that I am British. Don't get me wrong ethically I am on the Americans side as I disagree with people not being allowed to choose for themselves, on who rules them and makes their laws. But don't you dare tell me that it is a unbiased game.
It was chock full of glitches
I thought the weapon system was poor compared to the previous games.
Combat didn't work for me, instead of gutting them I pushed them over, thus over extending myself and earning a bayonet to the face. Pressing B and X simultaneously does not work and it was just a pretentious version of the old system which worked well.
The city's are very dull, in previous AC games I stopped to admire the view a few times, revolutionary America's cities are crap compared to Rome and Constantinople.
The Frontier was pretty cool but it became a chore to navigate.
I am not American.
There was this big lie about killing both Brits and Americans but anyone who played the games knows this is bull shit. You are basically the revolutionists attack dog, they give you command of their troops at one point for Christ's sake. You do kill guys on the revolutionist side but they sound oddly British too.
I find it a bit more difficult to see people as villains and then murder them when I know that I am British. Don't get me wrong ethically I am on the Americans side as I disagree with people not being allowed to choose for themselves, on who rules them and makes their laws. But don't you dare tell me that it is a unbiased game.
If people "Hated" AC3, this thread would be quite longer.
Rather, people don't like it mainly because Connor's just not as fun as Ezio (Also I think Noah Watts is one of, if not the WORST Voice Actors in all of time. Everything I've seen (I'm in Sequence 5)? Not good.), and everyone was expecting a massive gameplay change like in AC1 to AC2, while this is a refinement.
Honestly, I like what I've played, but I was kind of hoping that Connor would occasionally help the Brits if the leader of the American forces was a Templar.
Also, the ending hate is because we're told about both futures, but we can't choose which one we want. I'm expecting stuff to change in patches/DLC.
In defence of the, "You don't kill Revolutionaries," complaint? Get the King Washington DLC, that should satisfy your murderous craving, you bastards*.
*Just came off from Spec Ops The Line, sorry.
Rather, people don't like it mainly because Connor's just not as fun as Ezio (Also I think Noah Watts is one of, if not the WORST Voice Actors in all of time. Everything I've seen (I'm in Sequence 5)? Not good.), and everyone was expecting a massive gameplay change like in AC1 to AC2, while this is a refinement.
Honestly, I like what I've played, but I was kind of hoping that Connor would occasionally help the Brits if the leader of the American forces was a Templar.
Also, the ending hate is because we're told about both futures, but we can't choose which one we want. I'm expecting stuff to change in patches/DLC.
In defence of the, "You don't kill Revolutionaries," complaint? Get the King Washington DLC, that should satisfy your murderous craving, you bastards*.
*Just came off from Spec Ops The Line, sorry.
Cause it's taken me two hours to get to the main character and now I'm playing fucking hide and seek.
I actually really like certain parts of the game, but it doesn't take three sequences to realise
I actually really like certain parts of the game, but it doesn't take three sequences to realise
Hatham has his ring finger
So have all of the assassins since Ezio. In ACII, Da Vinci improved the design of the hidden blade so cutting off the ring finger isn't necessary.SextusMaximus said:
Combat is still too easy. There's even regenerating health now (albeit I don't think it regenerates DURING combat).
The game is way too linear, too scripted. The developers need to take a page from The Elder Scrolls and actually give freedom to the player.
A lot of the quests/missions are boring.
The game is way too linear, too scripted. The developers need to take a page from The Elder Scrolls and actually give freedom to the player.
A lot of the quests/missions are boring.
Meant it metaphorically, but I can see how that didn't come across, I still thought the assassins cut their ring finger though. I meant there are a number of clues across the way, as long with the knowledge you can derive from trailers and dev interviews.theemporer said:
Oh man I got replies, not used to that.
They directly involved Ezio in the Pazzi conspiracy to overthrow the Medici.
They had Ezio fighting Rodrigo Borgia for all of AC2, and Cesare in AC:B.
They had Ezio be directly responsible for Cesare Borgia's death in that 1507 invasion.
Leonardo Da Vinci actually building that flying machine he designed but never built (namely because it wouldn't have worked) and then Ezio flying it.
Machiavelli being an assassin and Ezio's advisor.
Those various truth puzzles that revealed stupid shit like Gandhi actually having a piece of Eden, etc.
I haven't played them in a while so that's just the standout stuff. And in AC:R I pretty much mentally tuned out an hour in but there's probably a few examples in there too. But basically everything Ezio did was him getting directly involved in historical events.
I shouldn't have included AC1 because they were pretty good about that, but the Ezio trilogy is full of it.Murmillos said:
They directly involved Ezio in the Pazzi conspiracy to overthrow the Medici.
They had Ezio fighting Rodrigo Borgia for all of AC2, and Cesare in AC:B.
They had Ezio be directly responsible for Cesare Borgia's death in that 1507 invasion.
Leonardo Da Vinci actually building that flying machine he designed but never built (namely because it wouldn't have worked) and then Ezio flying it.
Machiavelli being an assassin and Ezio's advisor.
Those various truth puzzles that revealed stupid shit like Gandhi actually having a piece of Eden, etc.
I haven't played them in a while so that's just the standout stuff. And in AC:R I pretty much mentally tuned out an hour in but there's probably a few examples in there too. But basically everything Ezio did was him getting directly involved in historical events.
Fair enough dude, complain away. It's just been annoying me because I've been seeing a bunch of people complaining (namely Kotaku writers) that the previous games did this stuff much better when they really didn't.woodaba said:
I have seen both endings and vehemently disagree. First off, while Deus Ex Machina is always a bad way to end a story, it's far more appropriate in Assassin's Creed, where we've been dealing with god-like beings since the second game.Random Argument Man said:
Second, Mass Effect's ending was meant to to be much more of a conclusion than Assassin's Creed's. The ending of AC3 is sequel bait, plain and simple. Sure, you don't get to choose your ending, but when has Assassin's Creed ever claimed to be about choices?
Meant just the Forrest Gump stuff/easiness/one button parkour that everyone complains about (well actually it was two buttons in everything else but whatever). AC2 and AC:B are the best by a long shot - better writing, better setting, better characters. Combat's really a matter of preference but I prefer the AC3 stuff which was highly derivative of Batman, and you just can't go wrong with that.woodaba said:
Also this is a pretty petty thing to complain about but the AC3 weapon wheel (chain?) is stupid as hell.
What ever dislike I have for the game comes from elements that were already in prior installments.
For instance, I never liked the whole future Desmond, ancestor memory retrieving tech, and ancient conspiracies of the supernatural crap. A whole bunch of stupid gobbledygook that was already established way back in the first installment, and stuff I can't really complain about because of it.
Also, I never liked the whole GTA4 influence of fluffing up the game with a whole bunch of pointless mind numbing mini games like building baroque furniture for some whorehouse you bought out from some... yeah! What ever! Can I just assassinate people... please? And this all began with AC2.
So, if anything, AC3 has had my favorite setting so far. Too bad it's just more of the same b.s. seen in it's predecessors that I was hoping the developers would take out.
=/
For instance, I never liked the whole future Desmond, ancestor memory retrieving tech, and ancient conspiracies of the supernatural crap. A whole bunch of stupid gobbledygook that was already established way back in the first installment, and stuff I can't really complain about because of it.
Also, I never liked the whole GTA4 influence of fluffing up the game with a whole bunch of pointless mind numbing mini games like building baroque furniture for some whorehouse you bought out from some... yeah! What ever! Can I just assassinate people... please? And this all began with AC2.
So, if anything, AC3 has had my favorite setting so far. Too bad it's just more of the same b.s. seen in it's predecessors that I was hoping the developers would take out.
=/
It may due to personal preference since I'm a AC fan. AC3 was supposed to be the end of Desmond story. Instead of trying for a strong ending, they just end it. No payoff to all of this other than "See you next game". During the ending, it seemed like you were going to have a choice too! But...no. Desmond touches a magic ball and it's over. Ubisoft always did cliff hangers for AC games, but I at least hoped for a better conclusion than this... For an AC fan, this disapointing. However, I won't make 10 000 threads about it.El Pwnz said:
As for Mass effect, what would make things worst depends on how attached to Shepard's story and how pissed about a A,B,C choice. You guys at least get a choice with the deux ex machina.
Naval Combat is the best part of the game.
Which is weird
Why is there no Pirates!-Remake with that level of awesome? :/
Which is weird
Why is there no Pirates!-Remake with that level of awesome? :/