Assassin's Creed fans, exactly how bad was Assassin's Creed 3?

O

oni-link

Member
If you generally don't enjoy the Assassin's Creed games at all, or you wouldn't consider yourself a fan of the series, then this isn't really a question for you. I'm more interested in hearing from people who don't have a negative perception of the series

I enjoy the series but I decided to skip 3 after the GAF reaction around its release, so now it's 4 years later, is it really that bad?

I really enjoyed the Ezio trilogy, and IV and Rogue, but have yet to play the two current gen games. Is it the worst game in the series? Is it notably worse than the other games in the series? If so, what went wrong, and if not, why is it so maligned?
 
WHERE IS CHARLES LEE

Edit: It was just boring. The story was very lackluster, Connor is a bad protagonist. It had the "Forrest Gump Effect" going, where Connor was conveniently there at most of the important parts of the revolution.

The frontier was a good idea. The cities were badly designed, you could almost never run on rooftops due to the excessive amount of guards with rifles on rooftops. Don't even get me started on the useless side missions.

Oh and the modern day story was trash. What a stupid ending to the modern story they built from AC1-R
 
Not at all. Loved it personally, certainly prefer it over AC: Brotherhood, AC: Unity, and that trash AC: Revelations.

Trust me, from a narrative standpoint it really casts Connor as the most complex of his kin and fellow assassins. probably the best characterization since AC2's Ezio.
 
I liked it. Connor is somewhat stale as a character but I love the US revolutionary setting. I think it gets way too much undeserved hate due to groupthink.
 
It's just an incredibly boring world (which sucks, b/c I was so excited about the American Revolution setting) and an incredibly boring main character. It was my least favorite Assassin's Creed game... that is, until I played Unity.
 
It takes like literally 5 hours to get the Assassin's outfit. The story's ambitious but the pacing and tutorials just make playing through it a total slog.

Couple that with the wider streets between buildings and armed enemies on nearly every rooftop - two design choices that discourage free climbing/vertical traversal - and you have imo the least fun Assassin's Creed title of the bunch.
 
It and Unity are the 2 worst games in the franchise imo. Syndicate is a huge step up from both. For plot purposes though 3 is pretty important so you may want to play it or at least watch the important parts on YouTube.

Unity is entirely skippable
 
Mostly the boring characters. The beginning story/character build up is really long and not necessary at all. The world is just so plain. That's from what I remember.
 
I don't think it was bad as it's reputation, it's just where I finally noticed that I was playing and paying for the same thing every year.
 
Lowest point of the series.
Almost killed any interest for the franchise i had.

I say this as someone who didn't come to it with prejudice, i was pretty hyped about it.
 
I liked it, it introduced ship combat, the frontier was great, and it has probably the best protagonist of the series. Others will disagree with me on that last point, but those people are wrong.
Yeah it starts a little slow though.
 
LastNac said:
Not at all. Loved it personally, certainly prefer it over AC: Brotherhood, AC: Unity, and that trash AC: Revelations.
Click to expand...

You see, I didn't think Revelations was as strong as the two previous games, but other than the almost optional tower defense rubbish, it wasn't drastically different.

The setting was a nice change of pace, as was playing as a character in his 50s, and it ended the Ezio story in a satisfying manner

I just don't really get how people can like 2 and Brotherhood so much and hate Revelations, unless it's because it's simply more of the same (which is a fair criticism)
 
I liked it. I don't know how to put it but it felt kinda like playing dancing with wolves. I thought the opening was cool (I guess people don't like it). Then again I am starting to realize I am a whole lot less critical than the majority of people here where it is either love/hate. That said unless you really have nothing newer to play I'm not sure your time couldn't be spent better elsewhere at this point.
 
The Revolutionary War setting was the great part about it.

Unfortunately there was a lot of tedious elements such as the "underground mapping" feature to unlock fast travel and the woods area which was way too spread out to be interesting.
 
It's the worst of the mainline games, especially the story and characters were absolute garbage. However it's not a "terrible" game, but it's mediocre through and trough and I wouldn't recommend it.
 
I also skipped 3 due to the negative reaction, then went back to it last year, and loved it. Much better than Unity and Syndicate IMO.
 
I actually quite liked it. I was a big fan of the setting and it had some good characters. I also really liked how they used the actual language by the native americans.
 
oni-link said:
You see, I didn't think Revelations was as strong as the two previous games, but other than the almost optional tower defense rubbish, it wasn't drastically different.

The setting was a nice change of pace, as was playing as a character in his 50s, and it ended the Ezio story in a satisfying manner

I just don't really get how people can like 2 and Brotherhood so much and hate Revelations, unless it's because it's simply more of the same (which is a fair criticism)
Click to expand...
Revelations was just more of the same. It's a fine game, but when played after both AC2 and BH, fatigue set in. I liked it for what it was though.
 
Boston and NY were not good cities in terms of exploration parkour. Very low fun factor.

They changed the notoriety system for the worse, made playing the game in general more of a pain in the ass than necessary.

Lots of niggling bugs everywhere. Worse than Unity in my experience.

Connor was OK, I can honestly say I liked his character. But coming on the heels of Ezio he felt like a real bring-down.

The economy/crafting system was ridiculously convoluted to the point of seeming broken. I've played through the game three times, never got a handle on it.
 
I'd say it's worth playing. It's got some good story parts to it even if Conner is lame. The setting is cool too, and it started the naval combat the IV ran with.
 
It felt like the first 70% of the game was a poorly paced tutorial and then it suddenly ended. AC3 is just utterly bizarre.
 
The pacing is atrocious, traversal is a pain in the ass - FUCK SNOW FUCKKKK SNOWWWW -, characters are horrible and it single handedly killed the present day plotline, making keeping up with the series' story completely pointless.
 
I finished and 100% every AC game, sometimes on multiple platforms.

Then AC3 happened and I haven't even finished SP story of any game after that.
 
to me it was the second best game in the series after AC2, i liked AC3 alot because of the amazing combat and the fact it was different unlike AC2.1(Brotherhood) AC2.2(Revelations)
 
It started off okay and then went to shit when you started playing as Connor. It was also a pain in the ass to get anywhere.

and it was just wasn't any fun to play. Black Flag was sooooo much better in every way.
 
for all of the things AC3 did badly, it definitely had the most interesting templars out of the games that i've played (up to black flag). i loved how the templars were morally grey with the assassins, they just had different means. however, the modern story side of AC3 was complete trash.
 
xRaizen said:
WHERE IS CHARLES LEE

Edit: It was just boring. The story was very lackluster, Connor is a bad protagonist. It had the "Forrest Gump Effect" going, where Connor was conveniently there at most of the important parts of the revolution.
Click to expand...

Curious, do people complain about that in Forrest Gump or is it supposed to be silly in Forrest Gump?
 
Stone Ocean said:
and it single handedly killed the present day plotline, making keeping up with the series' story completely pointless.
Click to expand...

Yep this is the biggest (of many) problems I have with the game. It absolutely destroyed the modern day setting that the series still hasn't recovered from. There's almost no purpose to the plot anymore
 
The story was very boring. Missions were boring. Had no connection to the protagonist. The architecture was not AC friendly to traverse. Hunting was not fun. I would like to forget 3 now. I'm playing Unity right now and I'm still debating which one is worse.

EDIT: oh yeah and the present day story got all screwed up.
 
lIt was just fundamentally flawed from it's core design/location choices.

Yeah remember how fun it was to climb buildings really high? now you're running around instead.

It wasn't a BAD game but it was incredibly disappointing after the previous 2. And it really disappointed in the dream of eventually being able to go open world assassin in present day.
 
Game is bad, art is gorgeous.

assassins_creed_iii_conceptart_EIiuh.jpg


assassins_creed_iii_conceptart_iPUba.jpg


assassins_creed_iii_conceptart_MMkqX.jpg
 
oni-link said:
You see, I didn't think Revelations was as strong as the two previous games, but other than the almost optional tower defense rubbish, it wasn't drastically different.

The setting was a nice change of pace, as was playing as a character in his 50s, and it ended the Ezio story in a satisfying manner

I just don't really get how people can like 2 and Brotherhood so much and hate Revelations, unless it's because it's simply more of the same (which is a fair criticism)
Click to expand...

It boils down to the story of Revelations being completely choppy and irrelevant to the rest of the game. The support staff is strongly allocated to "Wait, who?" and the setting is the least interactive and involved of all the AC games; it literally feels like a backdrop for events that are mentioned just in passing.

Not to mentioned that it completely undercut and ruined the characterization of Altair from AC1 to the point where he isn't even the same character.

To this day one of my biggest disappointments.
 
The story wasn't great, but I really liked Connor. He was committed to his mission, didn't crack random jokes, and had the best kill animations of all the Assasins. His only mistake was not joining
the Templars with his Father.
 
Homestead was the best part of the game and it was all optional. Loved the side stories and it actually had a conclusion. Main story and characters were trash.
 
It wasn't. Assassin's Creed 3 is probably the best game in the series. It's improvements were just undermined by Brotherhood and Revelations and people couldn't get over Ezio enough to respect Connor for the character her was. If you play the game Connor is a great protagonist, sympathetic, strong and naïve to a fault. I guarantee if it had come out after AC2 with no side games it would've been GOTY 2012.
 
It has a very slow start. Connor wasnt at all what he was cracked up to be, stealth mechanics were clunky as hell, and literally no memorable characters.

The only redeeming Pro's were the American Revolution setting (that couldnt live up to its full potential due to ancient, last-gen hardware and well, bad story telling)...And the combat animations are the best to date in an AC game.

There was an early footage build that ultimately was what the developers wanted AC3 to be, but allegedly they couldnt make it there because of last gen hardware restrictions and shipped a completely different game.

It looked SO good. That was what I thought AC3 was going to be. Its a such a shame.
 
LiK said:
Homestead was the best part of the game and it was all optional. Loved the side stories and it actually had a conclusion. Main story and characters were trash.
Click to expand...

Yep Homestead is by far the best part and I didn't even start doing it until basically the end portion of the game and was surprised with how interesting that part is.
 
Sheriff_Battlesnake said:
Curious, do people complain about that in Forrest Gump or is it supposed to be silly in Forrest Gump?
Click to expand...
It made the character pretty interesting.

Connor however has none of the charisma or charm that Forrest has, and the reasons for being at the big Revolutionary War events were stupid. Just felt very out of place, IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Assassin's Creed full universe infographic
27
864
Cyberpunkd replied
Assassin's Creed: Shadows reaches 3 million players
News Sales-Age  2 3 4 5
228
10K
A.Romero replied
  • Poll
Assassin's Creed: Shadows | Review Thread
Analysis Review  18 19 20 21 22
1K
71K
Rocco Schiavone replied
Assassin's Creed Shadows: Launch Cinematic TV Ad
45
2K
Chuck Berry replied
  • Poll
Are you going to buy Assassin's Creed Shadows?
2 3 4 5
211
8K
Ristifer replied
Top Bottom