Now that I think about it, AC3 is actually disappointing

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by khoofia_pika (13517 posts) -

AC3 is actually pretty disappointing. It's a good game, but I don't know, parts of it just didn't click. It's story was disappointing, it's characters weren't well developed, Connor was boring, there was no stealth, the ending was ass, and it was also historically inaccurate in parts (not that I care usually, but it's an AC game, and AC games pride themselves on being historically accurate).

I did love Haytham though, I wish we get a game with him as the lead.

It's still a good game, but I'd say it's the second weakest in the series after Revelations.

#2 Posted by ms555 (2660 posts) -
I was surprised that i actually liked haytham more than connor haha, ...ironic considering i had no idea there was even going to be a playable british assassin in this game
#3 Posted by IAmNot_fun (3336 posts) -
Bleh Im getting it tmr.
#4 Posted by ms555 (2660 posts) -
I love ac3, but im also an assassins creed fanboy haha (see my logo!). So im biased obviously. But i felt it was obvious the game was made by the same main devs that did ac2. It felt equal in quality to ac2 personally.
#6 Posted by khoofia_pika (13517 posts) -
reply already posted at push.TheGuardian03
Yeah, I read it, but half the people at PUSH haven't played it, so I figured I'd post it here :P
#7 Posted by LustForSoul (5911 posts) -
I have to agree with you. Haytham was really interesting whereas Connor never seemed to grow up in character. It's good to see they changed the game this much though.
#8 Posted by LP4EVA2005 (8585 posts) -
So then dont think about it.
#9 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -

AC3 is actually pretty disappointing. It's a good game, but I don't know, parts of it just didn't click. It's story was disappointing, it's characters weren't well developed, Connor was boring, there was no stealth, the ending was ass, and it was also historically inaccurate in parts (not that I care usually, but it's an AC game, and AC games pride themselves on being historically accurate).

I did love Haytham though, I wish we get a game with him as the lead.

It's still a good game, but I'd say it's the second weakest in the series after Revelations.

khoofia_pika
Characters aren't well developed? They are far better developed than ANY Assassin's Creed game. Connor is actually a more complete protagonist in ACIII than Ezio was in ACII. And unlike ACII, the side characters get FAR better development. Achilles espcially. Sorry, but you are overrating past games in the series. They do worse in the problems you peg ACIII for. Historically inaccurate? So is the other games in the series.
#10 Posted by Liquid_ (2988 posts) -

didn't even need to think about it. game looked way too generic for my taste

#11 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -
I have to agree with you. Haytham was really interesting whereas Connor never seemed to grow up in character. It's good to see they changed the game this much though.LustForSoul
Connor doesn't grow? Are you kidding....he grows more than Ezio does in ACII and he develops the characters around him. Connor does in one game what Ezio had to do in three....be a full developed character. Nevermind ACIII being the best paced AC, the one strongest with its themes, and the riskiest introducing a false protagonist.
#12 Posted by _Cadbury_ (2936 posts) -
I kinda agree. I had the most fun after finishing the game, clearing out all the forts, intercepting wagons in the frontier, using trip mines and rope darts and stuff. The story missions really don't compare to the ones in AC2
#13 Posted by charizard1605 (61578 posts) -
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
#14 Posted by GamerwillzPS (8531 posts) -

Saved money by not buying that garbage = a good decision confirmed.

#16 Posted by BPoole96 (22814 posts) -

I was pretty excited to get this once it's out on PC but after hearing how disappointing it is, I may just skip it. I didn't play Revelations either so I may just quit buying the AC games, like I did with the Mass Effect series.

#17 Posted by Badosh (12741 posts) -
Am I in PUSH?
#18 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -
[QUOTE="charizard1605"]Disappointing relative to what I expected and wanted this game to be, definitely. It's still a great game, though. And I do take issue with a lot of the stuff you say in the OP: + The game had the best combat in the series + Freerunning was incredible, especially in the Frontier + The game nailed the atmosphere + Haytham and Achilles were awesome characters + There was so. Much. Stuff. To. Do. + Dem naval battles. + Connor's story was great (albeit a bit poorly paced in the beginning) + Connor's story had a beautiful, poignant end + Great geographical and temporal accuracy - So many glitches and bugs - Decreased emphasis on stealth - Some of the Full Synchronization objectives were f*cking retarded, and couldn't possibly be achieved in one attempt - Those forced chase sequences. WHY? - The game fails to justify why Charles Lee is the villain in the first place. - Desmond's story had the most awful ending ever - The controls weren't as good as the previous games - Over aggressive AI at times.

Lee may be the main antagonist, but he is not the Big Bad.....Haytham is. Sometimes the main anatgonist isn't the biggest anatagonist.
#19 Posted by layton2012 (3489 posts) -
They nailed the villain, who I consider to be Haytham, not Lee, and i thought this game did one thing no other AC has give the Templars more personality than just the bad guys, they truly do believe what they are doing is right, I never felt that in any other AC game, and I was somewhat sympathetic. Clearly the Templars and Assasins will be teaming up eventually before the end of the series. I also felt i learned another side of the Revilutionary War, i had only ever learned the American perspective it was neat seeing different perspectives.I didn't hate the ending as much as I thought I would, it wasn't good, but I'm interested in seeing where the series is going, I know most are against yearly releases but I'm dying to know what will happen next. I think if Connor story continues it will have to do with the slave trade, but I'd love if they tackled the trail of tears somehow.
#20 Posted by XVision84 (13804 posts) -

Yeah, AC III is really fun and it has a lot of content, but something about it just doesn't click. I'd say an 8.5/10 is a pretty accurate score, it's a bunch of great ideas that weren't really strung together too well. It's not as smooth as, say, AC II.

[spoiler] Shamelessly copy-pasted from PUSH [/spoiler]

#21 Posted by Samus3D (1819 posts) -
So then dont think about it.LP4EVA2005
I know right? How dare gamers share their thoughts on games, opinions are for losers anyway.
#22 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

No stealth? :(

I was waiting for the PC version and the gameplay always alluded to stealth, kinda crappy if there is none. Doubt it's as bad as people say though overall.

#23 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

Am I in PUSH? Badosh

This is why so many members shouldn't be joining it. SW and PUSH will be the same, despite trying to be the SW away from SW

#24 Posted by layton2012 (3489 posts) -

No stealth? :(

I was waiting for the PC version and the gameplay always alluded to stealth, kinda crappy if there is none. Doubt it's as bad as people say though overall.

seanmcloughlin
There is stealth, just less stealth in comparison to the other entries in the series.
#25 Posted by XVision84 (13804 posts) -

No stealth? :(

I was waiting for the PC version and the gameplay always alluded to stealth, kinda crappy if there is none. Doubt it's as bad as people say though overall.

seanmcloughlin

There is stealth, it just feels forced. The AI is also ridiculously terrible with stealth, they can detect you a mile away in some cases, and in others they don't detect you at all. It doesn't feel natural like Dishonored, and in some cases playing stealthily is nearly impossible even though it's a synchronization objective. That's definitely one thing I've always been disappointed in for the Assassin's Creed series. In Dishonored each kill felt different, it felt stealthy and like an assassination, here it's literally run up to them and assassinate. Or the occasional decent stealth mission that has you climbing trees to kill a target (which only happened once for me and I'm over halfway through the game).

#26 Posted by seanmcloughlin (38219 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

No stealth? :(

I was waiting for the PC version and the gameplay always alluded to stealth, kinda crappy if there is none. Doubt it's as bad as people say though overall.

XVision84

There is stealth, it just feels forced. The AI is also ridiculously terrible with stealth, they can detect you a mile away in some cases, and in others they don't detect you at all. It doesn't feel natural like Dishonored, and in some cases playing stealthily is nearly impossible even though it's a synchronization objective. That's definitely one thing I've always been disappointed in for the Assassin's Creed series. In Dishonored each kill felt different, it felt stealthy and like an assassination, here it's literally run up to them and assassinate. Or the occasional decent stealth mission that has you climbing trees to kill a target (which only happened once for me and I'm over halfway through the game).

Stealth in all AC games is ass. I just thought this looked different. I always found it funnhow you play an assassin who never blends in and has no stealth or sneaky-ness about them

#27 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -
They nailed the villain, who I consider to be Haytham, not Lee, and i thought this game did one thing no other AC has give the Templars more personality than just the bad guys, they truly do believe what they are doing is right, I never felt that in any other AC game, and I was somewhat sympathetic. Clearly the Templars and Assasins will be teaming up eventually before the end of the series. I also felt i learned another side of the Revilutionary War, i had only ever learned the American perspective it was neat seeing different perspectives.I didn't hate the ending as much as I thought I would, it wasn't good, but I'm interested in seeing where the series is going, I know most are against yearly releases but I'm dying to know what will happen next. I think if Connor story continues it will have to do with the slave trade, but I'd love if they tackled the trail of tears somehow.layton2012
Connor will probably pair with Aveline.
#28 Posted by layton2012 (3489 posts) -
[QUOTE="layton2012"]They nailed the villain, who I consider to be Haytham, not Lee, and i thought this game did one thing no other AC has give the Templars more personality than just the bad guys, they truly do believe what they are doing is right, I never felt that in any other AC game, and I was somewhat sympathetic. Clearly the Templars and Assasins will be teaming up eventually before the end of the series. I also felt i learned another side of the Revilutionary War, i had only ever learned the American perspective it was neat seeing different perspectives.I didn't hate the ending as much as I thought I would, it wasn't good, but I'm interested in seeing where the series is going, I know most are against yearly releases but I'm dying to know what will happen next. I think if Connor story continues it will have to do with the slave trade, but I'd love if they tackled the trail of tears somehow.texasgoldrush
Connor will probably pair with Aveline.

Online Coop Assasins Creed.
#29 Posted by WiiCubeM1 (4729 posts) -

... I hope this isn't the beginning of what happened to Skyrim.

#30 Posted by XVision84 (13804 posts) -

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

No stealth? :(

I was waiting for the PC version and the gameplay always alluded to stealth, kinda crappy if there is none. Doubt it's as bad as people say though overall.

seanmcloughlin

There is stealth, it just feels forced. The AI is also ridiculously terrible with stealth, they can detect you a mile away in some cases, and in others they don't detect you at all. It doesn't feel natural like Dishonored, and in some cases playing stealthily is nearly impossible even though it's a synchronization objective. That's definitely one thing I've always been disappointed in for the Assassin's Creed series. In Dishonored each kill felt different, it felt stealthy and like an assassination, here it's literally run up to them and assassinate. Or the occasional decent stealth mission that has you climbing trees to kill a target (which only happened once for me and I'm over halfway through the game).

Stealth in all AC games is ass. I just thought this looked different. I always found it funnhow you play an assassin who never blends in and has no stealth or sneaky-ness about them

Not all, AC: Brotherhood actually had decent stealth. Many of their missions were really well made in terms of sneaking around and actually emphasized stealth in the right way. They also got all the synchronization goals right.

In AC III, the assassination side missions pretty much consist of you getting several targets around the map, and sprinting as fast as you can to kill them publicly. There's no stealth needed at all.

#31 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18418 posts) -
I'm in sequence 10.. haven't finished it yet but almost there.. AC1 and AC 2 I never finished.. the games just got too repetitive and too boring. AC3 peaked my interest and I'm really enjoying it.. FAR better than the previous AC games. It does seem a little short, although I haven't done a ton of side missions which would add to the length of the game. Although I'm not really that keen on the side missions since they are all pretty much the game thing over and over again. The story seems decent. The start of the game was great and then the twist.. just wow.
#32 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

There is stealth, it just feels forced. The AI is also ridiculously terrible with stealth, they can detect you a mile away in some cases, and in others they don't detect you at all. It doesn't feel natural like Dishonored, and in some cases playing stealthily is nearly impossible even though it's a synchronization objective. That's definitely one thing I've always been disappointed in for the Assassin's Creed series. In Dishonored each kill felt different, it felt stealthy and like an assassination, here it's literally run up to them and assassinate. Or the occasional decent stealth mission that has you climbing trees to kill a target (which only happened once for me and I'm over halfway through the game).

XVision84

Stealth in all AC games is ass. I just thought this looked different. I always found it funnhow you play an assassin who never blends in and has no stealth or sneaky-ness about them

Not all, AC: Brotherhood actually had decent stealth. Many of their missions were really well made in terms of sneaking around and actually emphasized stealth in the right way. They also got all the synchronization goals right.

In AC III, the assassination side missions pretty much consist of you getting several targets around the map, and sprinting as fast as you can to kill them publicly. There's no stealth needed at all.

In AC3, to fufill many optional objectives, stealth is required.
#33 Posted by XVision84 (13804 posts) -

[QUOTE="XVision84"]

[QUOTE="seanmcloughlin"]

Stealth in all AC games is ass. I just thought this looked different. I always found it funnhow you play an assassin who never blends in and has no stealth or sneaky-ness about them

texasgoldrush

Not all, AC: Brotherhood actually had decent stealth. Many of their missions were really well made in terms of sneaking around and actually emphasized stealth in the right way. They also got all the synchronization goals right.

In AC III, the assassination side missions pretty much consist of you getting several targets around the map, and sprinting as fast as you can to kill them publicly. There's no stealth needed at all.

In AC3, to fufill many optional objectives, stealth is required.

Yes, but the AI reacts very poorly to stealth, and the stealth seems forced. It's not natural like most other stealth games. The optional objectives are pretty bad in AC III, the're nowhere near as fun to accomplish as AC:B. Those 2 are my biggest gripes about the game (stealth and bad optional objectives).

#34 Posted by MFDOOM1983 (8459 posts) -

didn't even need to think about it. game looked way too generic for my taste

Liquid_
Yeah, we have too many games that take place during the American revolutionary era.
#35 Posted by SaudiFury (8707 posts) -

[spoiler]

As for Connor the character, i just saw him generally as just a good guy. but misguided.

he is obsessed with Charles Lee, really out of misplaced blame, even after he realizes Lee wasn't the one that burned his village, that it was Washington, he still wants Lee dead and still sides with Washington.

Of all the three main Assassin's i've liked Ezio and Connor. but i have to say while Connor's story is almost a full life arch, he doesn't really change a whole in that time. Ezio over the course of AC2- AC:B- and AC: R you do clearly see Ezio growing up. and as he grows you like him more.

he is in my opinion the wisest of all the Assassin's.

that isn't to say that Ezio is 'better' then Connor. Connor's arch is just as interesting as Ezio.

Connor's arch is i think a pretty good foil for why Desmond makes his choice. Connor fights for an ideal that doesn't exist nor really ever materializes in a meaningful manner and this is highlighted by the treatment of his people - the mohawk indians - and continuation of slavery in America.

if anyone was paying attention, the Templar's accept the world for what it is, they are initially for the British to win, then when Connor and Haythem become temporary allies, Haythem switches sides and begins helping America win. Connor remains on the side of America nontheless but still goes after killing Templars.

it causes these moral quandries and the fact that there is no absolute. You actually almost feel bad for the Templars in this one, they're not at all that different from the Assassin's.

Not to mention Connor seems like a simpleton nice guy when he keeps pushing the "Templar's must die!" line.

and what's funny is in the end, it turns out. the Assassin's were just tools, Juno was leading him the entire time, when he gets the key, Juno tells him to bury it somewhere where no one can find. and it turns out that time is now - exactly when Desmond finds it, right before the end of the world.

and i think Desmond's choice was a rather simple one, survival, after having been played - not just him, but his ancestors as well.

---------------

Though i gotta say, the worst part of the game is when Connor is talking to Norris (the French Canadian miner), oh my god, this particular dialog is so godawful, and i am no audiophile. the dialog (when the facial animations are working) looks fantastic, and flows well. but the Connor-Norris dialog is just so awful. don't even try to defend this minor part of the game, actually listen to them speak to each other. they don't even sound like they're speaking to each other, their own inflections from sentence to sentence don't even match.

[/spoiler]

#36 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -

[spoiler]

As for Connor the character, i just saw him generally as just a good guy. but misguided.

he is obsessed with Charles Lee, really out of misplaced blame, even after he realizes Lee wasn't the one that burned his village, that it was Washington, he still wants Lee dead and still sides with Washington.

Of all the three main Assassin's i've liked Ezio and Connor. but i have to say while Connor's story is almost a full life arch, he doesn't really change a whole in that time. Ezio over the course of AC2- AC:B- and AC: R you do clearly see Ezio growing up. and as he grows you like him more.

he is in my opinion the wisest of all the Assassin's.

that isn't to say that Ezio is 'better' then Connor. Connor's arch is just as interesting as Ezio.

Connor's arch is i think a pretty good foil for why Desmond makes his choice. Connor fights for an ideal that doesn't exist nor really ever materializes in a meaningful manner and this is highlighted by the treatment of his people - the mohawk indians - and continuation of slavery in America.

if anyone was paying attention, the Templar's accept the world for what it is, they are initially for the British to win, then when Connor and Haythem become temporary allies, Haythem switches sides and begins helping America win. Connor remains on the side of America nontheless but still goes after killing Templars.

it causes these moral quandries and the fact that there is no absolute. You actually almost feel bad for the Templars in this one, they're not at all that different from the Assassin's.

Not to mention Connor seems like a simpleton nice guy when he keeps pushing the "Templar's must die!" line.

and what's funny is in the end, it turns out. the Assassin's were just tools, Juno was leading him the entire time, when he gets the key, Juno tells him to bury it somewhere where no one can find. and it turns out that time is now - exactly when Desmond finds it, right before the end of the world.

and i think Desmond's choice was a rather simple one, survival, after having been played - not just him, but his ancestors as well.

---------------

Though i gotta say, the worst part of the game is when Connor is talking to Norris (the French Canadian miner), oh my god, this particular dialog is so godawful, and i am no audiophile. the dialog (when the facial animations are working) looks fantastic, and flows well. but the Connor-Norris dialog is just so awful. don't even try to defend this minor part of the game, actually listen to them speak to each other. they don't even sound like they're speaking to each other, their own inflections from sentence to sentence don't even match.

[/spoiler]

SaudiFury
However Ezio has to go through more games of development and Connor takes alot less. Of the three assassin's (and not counting Aveline), connor is the most moral of the three who even has a problem with deception. Its funny how Altair kills people he interrogates while Connor has a problem with this. As for Lee and Washington....Connor realizes that Washington is the lesser evil. Lee is far more dangerous.
#37 Posted by Liquid_ (2988 posts) -

[QUOTE="Liquid_"]

didn't even need to think about it. game looked way too generic for my taste

MFDOOM1983

Yeah, we have too many games that take place during the American revolutionary era.

An uninsterting period combined with the same system as AC2 and other generic 3rd person games. The definition of generic

#38 Posted by HaloPimp978 (7329 posts) -

I actually enjoyed going so far to rate it a 9.0

#39 Posted by layton2012 (3489 posts) -

[spoiler]

As for Connor the character, i just saw him generally as just a good guy. but misguided.

he is obsessed with Charles Lee, really out of misplaced blame, even after he realizes Lee wasn't the one that burned his village, that it was Washington, he still wants Lee dead and still sides with Washington.

Of all the three main Assassin's i've liked Ezio and Connor. but i have to say while Connor's story is almost a full life arch, he doesn't really change a whole in that time. Ezio over the course of AC2- AC:B- and AC: R you do clearly see Ezio growing up. and as he grows you like him more.

he is in my opinion the wisest of all the Assassin's.

that isn't to say that Ezio is 'better' then Connor. Connor's arch is just as interesting as Ezio.

Connor's arch is i think a pretty good foil for why Desmond makes his choice. Connor fights for an ideal that doesn't exist nor really ever materializes in a meaningful manner and this is highlighted by the treatment of his people - the mohawk indians - and continuation of slavery in America.

if anyone was paying attention, the Templar's accept the world for what it is, they are initially for the British to win, then when Connor and Haythem become temporary allies, Haythem switches sides and begins helping America win. Connor remains on the side of America nontheless but still goes after killing Templars.

it causes these moral quandries and the fact that there is no absolute. You actually almost feel bad for the Templars in this one, they're not at all that different from the Assassin's.

Not to mention Connor seems like a simpleton nice guy when he keeps pushing the "Templar's must die!" line.

and what's funny is in the end, it turns out. the Assassin's were just tools, Juno was leading him the entire time, when he gets the key, Juno tells him to bury it somewhere where no one can find. and it turns out that time is now - exactly when Desmond finds it, right before the end of the world.

and i think Desmond's choice was a rather simple one, survival, after having been played - not just him, but his ancestors as well.

---------------

Though i gotta say, the worst part of the game is when Connor is talking to Norris (the French Canadian miner), oh my god, this particular dialog is so godawful, and i am no audiophile. the dialog (when the facial animations are working) looks fantastic, and flows well. but the Connor-Norris dialog is just so awful. don't even try to defend this minor part of the game, actually listen to them speak to each other. they don't even sound like they're speaking to each other, their own inflections from sentence to sentence don't even match.

[/spoiler]

SaudiFury
I personally thought it was great to see the Templars as more than just the antagonist, but actual people who truly believe in what they are doing. Probably my favorite part of ACIII, and Haytham was awesome. I would love to continue Connors story.
#40 Posted by layton2012 (3489 posts) -

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"][QUOTE="Liquid_"]

didn't even need to think about it. game looked way too generic for my taste

Liquid_

Yeah, we have too many games that take place during the American revolutionary era.

An uninsterting period combined with the same system as AC2 and other generic 3rd person games. The definition of generic

I actually love the era, and even though I loved this game, I don't think yet used the Revolutionary War to its full potential. I do hope they will tackle American History at least one more time in the series, maybe the War of 1812 with Connor?
#41 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -
[QUOTE="Liquid_"]

[QUOTE="MFDOOM1983"] Yeah, we have too many games that take place during the American revolutionary era. layton2012

An uninsterting period combined with the same system as AC2 and other generic 3rd person games. The definition of generic

I actually love the era, and even though I loved this game, I don't think yet used the Revolutionary War to its full potential. I do hope they will tackle American History at least one more time in the series, maybe the War of 1812 with Connor?

I think the French Revolution is next.
#42 Posted by Minishdriveby (10455 posts) -

Does anybody else think it's weird that Connor looks like a full grown man at 17? He literally looks like he's 25-30 at the beginning of sequence 6. Maybe it's just the time period.

To me 14 year old Connor, the one that brutally murders quite a bit of people, looks more like a 17 year old boy.

#43 Posted by charizard1605 (61578 posts) -
[QUOTE="layton2012"][QUOTE="Liquid_"]

An uninsterting period combined with the same system as AC2 and other generic 3rd person games. The definition of generic

texasgoldrush
I actually love the era, and even though I loved this game, I don't think yet used the Revolutionary War to its full potential. I do hope they will tackle American History at least one more time in the series, maybe the War of 1812 with Connor?

I think the French Revolution is next.

Nope, they said colonial India is next.
#44 Posted by campzor (34932 posts) -
so you are saying asscreed 1 > asscreed 3?
#45 Posted by Mr_BillGates (3189 posts) -

Don't forget super easy combat system requiring zero skillzzzzzz.

#46 Posted by texasgoldrush (9477 posts) -
[QUOTE="charizard1605"][QUOTE="texasgoldrush"][QUOTE="layton2012"] I actually love the era, and even though I loved this game, I don't think yet used the Revolutionary War to its full potential. I do hope they will tackle American History at least one more time in the series, maybe the War of 1812 with Connor?

I think the French Revolution is next.

Nope, they said colonial India is next.

that may actually be a good idea