So who else was disappointed with AC 3?

#1 Posted by ABakedAlien (307 posts) -

In my opinion the combat was changed for the worse. The setting was ambitious but didnt fit with AC gameplay (2 story buildings spaced far apart). The hunting was so simple and boring it might aswell not even of been in the game. The side missions are even worse with absolutelty no reason to complete them unless you want achievements (assuming there is some for side missions). The story was so poorly executed and uninteresting with very bland voice acting, it felt like I was watching some cheap B movie with horrible actors. Framerate issues and countless bugs. Also a more slight nitpick is I found the frontier to be boring to explore as you knew the only two things you were going to find was animals or redcoats.

I did however like the animations in general and especially the tree running was cool (although I still do like the original AC control scheme) . I had lots of fun with AC 1 and 2, but for me the assassin's creed forumla has grown stale anyway and then on top of that AC 3 just isnt that good of a game in my opinion.

Now I'm not trolling kids. this is called a negative opinion of a game. I'm sorry I dont like your beloved AC3. So seriously don't bash me for not liking the game. I made the title inviting people who didnt like the game for a reason. I know im in the minority but I just really didnt care for AC 3 regardless of a few bugs.

Anyone else feel similar or the same way?

#2 Posted by res123123 (231 posts) -

I can understand why someone would'nt like compared to the others. Overall i really enjoyed it, but when your secondary missions like taking a fort or controlling a ship are more interesting than the main missions, then the game as problems. Don't get me wrong, running through the woods at night time with heavy rain pouring down while attacking a convoy, as been this years gaming highlight for me ,it was an amazing feeling prowling your prey in the trees as thunder and lighting was playing in the background.

Actually the frontier was more interesting than the cities because how the cities were set out and how little was used in the main missions. Seriously nearly all Connors missions are everywhere except Boston and New York. Also the main missions without cutscene's can be done in minutes, which is just shocking. The other assassins creed games were the same but never this short, seriously apart from two assassinations and a run to the ship, the main missions were an after though to a good game.            

#3 Posted by Kravyn81 (9438 posts) -
Anyone else feel similar or the same way?ABakedAlien
Yes and no? I finally (last night) got to sequence six where apparently this is where the game finally "starts." Some things I've noticed right away about this new game: Combat - Much more simplified. I'm not sure if I like it or not because it feels less like you're really fighting than just waiting to push the button to counter and then watch Connor do the rest. Hunting - Boring and unnecessary. Seriously. I mean, am I playing Assassin's Creed III or Red Dead Redemption here? Homestead - Echoing my sentiments for hunting, was this really necessary? You have to collect materials now to craft items? Again, am I playing an AC game or what? Overall I don't hate the game, but it just seems that Ubisoft added a bunch of crap to this game that isn't needed and acts against this feeling like an AC game than some sort of half-assed amalgamation of other games.
#4 Posted by Assemblent (682 posts) -


For me it's better then all the previous games combined. It just flows better, more brutal, more fluid, more awesome.


Any important historical setting fits assassin's creed. Not every time period is like the renaissance. It surely doesn't need to be only about climbing historical buildings.


Could be more developed, still, it's there, you go through it only if you want to. It's not like you're obligated to hunt.

Side Missions:

They're better then all the previous Assassin's Creed. They give you a better understanding of the time period, what the world was going through at that time and shows allows you to see the bigger picture and experience the birth of a new country/world. And I could care less about achievements or throphies. And the fact that you don't even know if there is or not, shows how poorly you know this game and its premisses.

Story and voice acting:

Are you insane? This is probably one of the best stories that we've ever seen in a video game... Unless you're more a "The avengers" story fan and consider it a work of art, if so, I'm sorry you're born into this generation. And the voice acting is absolutely amazing, believable and feels much more alive than the previous games, so I really don't understand your argument here. That you don't like it as a PERSONAL opinion, I can accept that, now stating that it's just bad, you're wrong. Example, I hate GTA, but I know that it's a good game. I hate MAx Payne 3 story, but I know that it has quality.

Framerate & bugs:

I don't know if you're playing it on X-box or PS3, on the ps3 the framerate is absolutely perfect and smooth, as for the bugs, they are as what you could expect in a game as big as this one is.


Yeah, here I somewhat agree with you, there could be more variety in stuff you can encounter, random stuff.

#5 Posted by redfeenix (7 posts) -

I have to agree wih TC here:

Controls: Remapped to make it feel "new" and is a real annoyance. The controls were oversimplified and I no longer feel in   control of the assassin. 

Story: Oh God was it boring! The Desmond end sequence could have been more detailed. I mean this was Desmonds swan song and this is how they ended it?

Characters: Not one soul was interesting, save for Haytham.

Gameplay: Decent, however the naval gameplay blew my effing mind out. Simply astonishing. Horse riding got screwed up somehow despite being smooth in AC1 and ACB

Missions: Probably the most poorly constructed and most annoying I have ever played on an AC game. The stupid hearing missions which were scrapped after AC1 were brought back for reasons unf***known, all I can remeber is chasing and hearing nothing else stands out.

Graphics: Definitely a step up, with the occasional bug/glitch here and there

Multiplayer: Just doesn't feel fun anymore, stun/kill on one button? seriously? 

Sequels are supposed to one up their predecessors on all fronts. Ubisoft worked hard but in the wrong direction, they went for change and I applaud their risk but it didn't work for me. I'm ranting coz I'm out$60 and not satisfied with the franchise.

Next time I'll wait for the reviews before I buy the next AC. I've lost faith in the franchise.

#6 Posted by redfeenix (7 posts) -

And yes TC was right about the poor voice acting. Whats with the lack of women in this game? Too much of a sausage fest going on here.

Lee was the main antagonist? Compare him to Rodrigo Borgia, what a difference

#7 Posted by TheEroica (14463 posts) -

I think the game is fantastic thus far (sequence 8) and Im impressed at how they made the historical setting and surrounding regions come alive... that said, the trading is the only thing to me that feels slugish and over complicated for no reason.  everything else is really well done and diverse.  I love the new combat. I feel like only people who fight with the hatchet are upset about it.  linking flowing combos together with different weapons, strings a very satisfying flow to the combat... This was a very good addition to the assassins creed family.

#8 Posted by jaidev004 (358 posts) -

whoever said the story is bland is a big idiot :) this is the best story in a videogame for me, i felt so emotional when a son kills his best friend and his dad.. come on man stick to call of duty and all those FPS games

#9 Posted by dovevoice (3 posts) -

I have to agree with you. I played all the previous assassin's creed games and enjoyed them, but somehow i just can't play AC3. I have the game for more than 2 weeks now and whenever i try to play the story, i get bored so fast i quit the single player and play the multiplayer instead! and i am in sequence 7! this never happended in the older games. I just can't find the incentive to play the story mode anymore :(

#10 Posted by nanquan72 (20 posts) -

The big disappointment I had (have) with AC:USA is the setting. Too patriotic to American ideals. Firstly, you, the assassin, are stopping Abstergo taking over the world. So why am I only in the USA? The USA doesn't control the world. Never has, never will. What about Asia, Africa, Europe (beyond past games)? Shouldn't I be multiple assassins in multiple places?

Beyond that, and too many other rants I have posted across various sites in the past 12 months, is the mistake I made in firstly playing 1). Assassins Creed with its awesome setting of the Crusades, and 2). Red Dead Redemption, the absolute best game I have played due to character development and game play. Imagine is Rockstar had AC?!! Coming to AC:USA on the back of those games was only going to lead to disappointment.

No, I will rant. UFOs, ghosts and bigfoot; easy controls; animals that don't attack when on horseback; lovely Native character one minute, angry the next but never against the American occupiers?? Come on. Seriously!! Red Dead got it right with their take on the wild west and the zombie pack. Pure enjoyment!

I stuck with AC because I am loyal to brands and wanted to play the game out. I never expected anything beyond American patriotic cliches and got them. All the best to America; you have a great history and heritage but it is overdone in gaming...another reason AC original was so great with its time period setting (Abstergo was never in America at that stage either). The game should have stayed as Templar v Assassin with the main character passing though the events around him/her like previous games without getting involved in making the USA.

#11 Posted by Lord_Tulak_Hord (210 posts) -
I wrote this in another thread but here are my thoughts.... I think AC III is great for Americans, but bad for rest of the world. As someone from Turkey, from a nations that's been around for thousands of years in Asia and Europe, and from a country that has been a part of European history for centuries, I'm really interested in European and Middle Eastern history. You know crusades, European wars, actual templars (some of them were Knights Hospitaller whom Ottomans fought) and thus, playing AC I and AC II (also Brotherhood, Revelations) was so much fun. However, I am in no way interested in American history full of persons (like Samuel Adams) I don't care about. It's boring to me because compared to European history, it's dull. I still played AC III but didn't enjoy it as former AC games due to the location of the game. I'm sure most non-Americans feel the same way. Oh, Connor was boring as well.