Do people really think AC3 is worse than Revelations? Revelations is one of the worst games I have played in the last 5 years. It was like they decided to make a Bomb-crafting tower defense game and turned it into an AC game in the last few months of development
You could ignore all the new mechanics if you wanted to, which is what I did. And at least Revelations had a coherent plot with a fantastic ending, AC3 was terrible in every aspect
Do people really think AC3 is worse than Revelations? Revelations is one of the worst games I have played in the last 5 years. It was like they decided to make a Bomb-crafting tower defense game and turned it into an AC game in the last few months of development
I agree with you, though were in the minority. AC3 gets much more hate than Revelations, espcially on Neogaf. Revelations was a much worse game that barely changed anything from Brotherhood, story felt really pointless, used old areas from AC1 aka rehashed a bunch of old material. AC3 had some problems but it was a much better game than revelations, sea combat was was a better minigame than that terrible tower defense game.
You could ignore all the new mechanics if you wanted to, which is what I did. And at least Revelations had a coherent plot with a fantastic ending, AC3 was terrible in every aspect
Maybe the bomb-making, my memory is hazy but I remember those awful tower defense sections happened when your notoriety got high, so you certainly couldnt ignore them. As far as the ending goes what exactly was the Revelation? That
Altair had an apple in his tomb? Is that a Revelation?
Any ending to the game would have been ruined by the terrible trial and error chase section beforehand
I honestly thought they were both below average, Id favour AC3 because I thought it was a little more ambitious (if a little misguided)
I agree with you, though were in the minority. AC3 gets much more hate than Revelations, espcially on Neogaf. Revelations was a much worse game that barely changed anything from Brotherhood, story felt really pointless, used old areas from AC1 aka rehashed a bunch of old material. AC3 had some problems but it was a much better game than revelations, sea combat was was a better minigame than that terrible tower defense game.
Maybe the bomb-making, my memory is hazy but I remember those awful tower defense sections happened when your notoriety got high, so you certainly couldnt ignore them. As far as the ending goes what exactly was the Revelation? That
Altair had an apple in his tomb? Is that a Revelation?
Any ending to the game would have been ruined by the terrible trial and error chase section beforehand
I honestly thought they were both below average, Id favour AC3 because I thought it was a little more ambitious (if a little misguided)
I remember having to farm for the trophy where you have to do three of the tower defense things, so it probably was avoidable. Although it could have been the fact that I went straight through the missions during my first playthrough. And I think Revelations was just a dumb title, I was more impressed by the fact that the ending
provided closure for Ezio and Altair simultaneously, through the context of Desmond. When they show you Altair's death, followed by Ezio discovering the body, and that monologue, I felt that my time with the franchise was coming to a close, will all the narrative threads being neatly wrapped up. Apart from Desmond's thing of course, which was meant to be resolved in AC3.
I agree with you about AC3 being ambitious, but I felt that the game was so off the mark in all aspects that I could not enjoy it at all. My main issue with AC3 lies with the fact that I was heavily invested in the narrative, and the story in that game was god-awful. The ending was my biggest disappointment this gen.
Thanks Mod that changed the title, more accurate now =]
H: All major theme parks have delays. When they opened Disneyland in 1956, nothing worked!
M: Yeah, but, John, if The Pirates of the Caribbean breaks down, the pirates don't eat the tourists.
It takes the best parts about AC, and mixes them with elements from Far Cry 3. I don't see how you can go wrong there. The present day gameplay is now more or less optional. It's AC, I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking. But with Watch Dogs and Drive Club being delayed. It's the perfect filler.
Maybe the bomb-making, my memory is hazy but I remember those awful tower defense sections happened when your notoriety got high, so you certainly couldnt ignore them.
Yes, you could easily avoid them. Played through to 100% completion and only had to do the tutorial tower defense. The only way you had to defend a tower is if you ignored your notoriety levels, and even then you had a "grace period" once it reached high levels. People who had to regularly defend towers are probably the same people who like to rush through games without bothering with the full breadth of a game's systems and design. For everyone else, the tower defense was ridiculously easy to avoid.
Regardless, I thought Revelations was outstanding from a design perspective (story-wise it sucked, and the Altair bits and linear "instanced" areas in the beginning and end were awful). It was far from perfect, but compared to the travesty to intelligence and logic that was AC3, Revelations looks like the Mona Effing Lisa.
I remember having to farm for the trophy where you have to do three of the tower defense things, so it probably was avoidable. Although it could have been the fact that I went straight through the missions during my first playthrough. And I think Revelations was just a dumb title, I was more impressed by the fact that the ending
provided closure for Ezio and Altair simultaneously, through the context of Desmond. When they show you Altair's death, followed by Ezio discovering the body, and that monologue, I felt that my time with the franchise was coming to a close, will all the narrative threads being neatly wrapped up. Apart from Desmond's thing of course, which was meant to be resolved in AC3.
I agree with you about AC3 being ambitious, but I felt that the game was so off the mark in all aspects that I could not enjoy it at all. My main issue with AC3 lies with the fact that I was heavily invested in the narrative, and the story in that game was god-awful. The ending was my biggest disappointment this gen.
I almost want to get this just for the water alone, it looks so beautiful I want to jump in it. But I'm tired/bored of this series after 3, and I don't like/care for pirates.
I'd come back if they made a French/Russian revolution themed game.
It takes the best parts about AC, and mixes them with elements from Far Cry 3. I don't see how you can go wrong there. The present day gameplay is now more or less optional. It's AC, I'm not expecting anything groundbreaking. But with Watch Dogs and Drive Club being delayed. It's the perfect filler.
Sure it sounds great on paper, but then again so did AC3. Once I actually got to playing that game though, I was greeted by terrible pacing, an unlikeable cast of characters, and lots of bugs.
I'm willing to give the franchise another shot, but I just don't want to be burned again. All I need is some confirmation.
I actually really enjoyed AC3 (first and only game in the series I've played), so I'm thinking of picking this up as well. I'm a little hesitant though, because I actually wasn't that fond of the Naval battles, they just felt clunky.
Hope the game will be good, as I'm planning to buy the Wii U version. This game sounds promising, looks great, sounds great, seems to play well. So depending on the reviews and hands on impressions, I'll decide if I buy it or not. But Wii U version it'll be.
You could ignore all the new mechanics if you wanted to, which is what I did. And at least Revelations had a coherent plot with a fantastic ending, AC3 was terrible in every aspect
Revelations plot was practically non-existent. It's the quintessential example of filler. Forgetting the modern day stuff of course, AC3 had a better plot than Revelations.
If this "real world" stuff is completely optional this is starting to feel that it should be more of a side-story then anything. Didn't the "real world" characters, etc drive the story forward and gave structure and meaning for why you were explore the past lives of the various assassin's.
So should this game really have a 4 attached to it in the end? Or could they be lying and there are non-animus sections that aren't optional that will push the game's overall story forward?