SuperSonic1305
Member
AC3 gave us ship combat and I loved the Homestead stuff so it's alright by me.
Assassin's Creed fans, exactly how bad was Assassin's Creed 3?
- Thread starter oni-link
- Start date
Huge Succeeded
Banned
It was so bad, that everyone died
I really loved it. Felt like it should've been a next gen title though, as my biggest issues were performance
I really hope they revisit the American Revolution eventually.
I wonder if I still have my PS3 copy actually. I was going for the platinum a couple years ago, wouldn't mind finishing it up when I have nothing else to play.
and that ending *shudders*.
I wonder if I still have my PS3 copy actually. I was going for the platinum a couple years ago, wouldn't mind finishing it up when I have nothing else to play.
FallenGrace
Member
I really liked it but then I've enjoyed every AC game except Rogue ( it was just ACIV 1.5, even for an AC game it felt hugely uninspired).
I liked both Haytham and Connor as well as the frontier setting and the introduction of ship combat and trading. I rather liked the slow pacing of the story too. My only gripe is that the cities weren't really suited for the AC free running play style.
I liked both Haytham and Connor as well as the frontier setting and the introduction of ship combat and trading. I rather liked the slow pacing of the story too. My only gripe is that the cities weren't really suited for the AC free running play style.
Mass_Pincup
Banned
A huge lack of tall building to climb onto which might be the worst thing to do in a AC game to me.
Trigonometrize.
Member
I think the game's biggest problem was Conner. He was idealistic to a fault like a poorly written JRPG MC. It didn't help that his start was slow and uninteresting after the infintely more engaging opening with Haythem. AC games usually get the protagonist right with Ezio, Edward, and Haythem was promising, but Conner just fucking sucked.
Movalpolos
Banned
This was literally the first game I have pre-ordered digitally and the first time I ever bought a season pass for a game.
The beginning was pretty strong. I enjoyed young Conner and the part where you play as his Dad.
All the other bloat and crap that came later was such a chore. Leveling up your settlement (or whatever it was called) wasn't fun.
I think I remember one of the tasks was breaking up a dispute between 2 people living on the settlement. And it was literally just getting between them and pushing them away from each other using some QTE inputs.
The beginning was pretty strong. I enjoyed young Conner and the part where you play as his Dad.
All the other bloat and crap that came later was such a chore. Leveling up your settlement (or whatever it was called) wasn't fun.
I think I remember one of the tasks was breaking up a dispute between 2 people living on the settlement. And it was literally just getting between them and pushing them away from each other using some QTE inputs.
The same people who thought that the build up to Assassin's Creed III (which included 4 console games and an actually nice comic) was OK.
Waylon Drums
Member
I was helped by the fact that it was my first AssCreed game, but it wasn't bad. Not great, but not nearly as bad as you would think from hearing people speak about it. It was a huge victim of groupthink, if you ask me.
PowderedToast
Junior Member
it had fantastic characters, fantastic writing, but was made for an audience that only desires han solo power fantasies.
few games highlight the dissonance between developer taste and gaming community more than AC3 did.
few games highlight the dissonance between developer taste and gaming community more than AC3 did.
I enjoyed all of them up until 3, even replayed 1 and 2 before 3.
3 is shit. Terrible missions, terrible world and awful present day stuff.
The architecture of the towns was such a bad fit for the formula. Going up on roofs was pointless because the streets were so far apart. The assassinations were so linear that most of the time they just had a linear path that led you to some high point above the target and then press X for awesome was all you had to do.
3 is shit. Terrible missions, terrible world and awful present day stuff.
The architecture of the towns was such a bad fit for the formula. Going up on roofs was pointless because the streets were so far apart. The assassinations were so linear that most of the time they just had a linear path that led you to some high point above the target and then press X for awesome was all you had to do.
SaucyJack
Member
Yep. All of this.
Biggest problem for me was the asinine control changes vs the earlier games.
SporeCrawler
Member
I liked it to be honest. The ship mechanics in particular were exciting and Ass Cred 4, which used that mechanic heavily is my most favorite one (equal to Ass Cred 2).
The story was also interesting given it was the american independence war and from the eyes of a native american.
The story was also interesting given it was the american independence war and from the eyes of a native american.
Makoto-Yuki
Banned
3 was my introduction to the Assassin's Creed series but I couldn't get into it and it put me right off trying any of the others. To be fair I am quite interested in the latest(?) one Syndicate. Might give that a go one day.
rockman zx
Member
The first time I played I hated it, and I couldn't finish the game and I'm a big AC fan but I let it cool for some months and when I replayed it I had a blast, specially with hunting and the homestead. Mission design and secondary objectives are garbage for the most part though.
The frontier and the ship were cool too.
The frontier and the ship were cool too.
I agree with both of you. I had TWICE a save data corrpution right after
Desmond decide to sacrifice himself
I cried when he died.
I really liked the characters, and the ending of the prologue is great (and I really like Haytham).
Playing it was a chore. And not only was Connor very much Forest Gump as stated, dude's action doesn't make sense.
Oh ok, your dad is Templar.... But why the fuck are you suddenly his errand boy?
George Washington sent people to massacre the tribe. Connor was like "Oh, alright. I'll just leave you here and go kill the messenger."
Oh ok, your dad is Templar.... But why the fuck are you suddenly his errand boy?
George Washington sent people to massacre the tribe. Connor was like "Oh, alright. I'll just leave you here and go kill the messenger."
I thought it was good.
The American Revolution setting was cool, the frontier was fun to run around and climb trees and stuff, especially in the winter, and Connor had the coolest weapons in the series between his tomahawk and specialized wrist blade.
The big issue, of course, was the extremely slow start that made Twilight Princess feel like it got to the action quickly in comparison. You spend hours going through tutorial stuff as Haytham before you even get to play as Connor and finally open up things like sidequests and the ability to climb trees.
Also there are some wonky things, like how I was able to take over a fort before Connor even got to the mission in the story where he decided he needed to start taking over forts. I always thought that was funny.
I can't really comment on the story, because I hardly remember the story in any Assassin's Creed game. I find them frankly kinda boring, and the disjointed structure of the game where you can go hours without encountering a story cutscene and progressing the plot certainly doesn't help. But I don't remember thinking it was any better or worse than the rest of the series.
Wow, if Assassin's Creed 3 was able to assassinate one of its players, it must be the best game in the series!
The American Revolution setting was cool, the frontier was fun to run around and climb trees and stuff, especially in the winter, and Connor had the coolest weapons in the series between his tomahawk and specialized wrist blade.
The big issue, of course, was the extremely slow start that made Twilight Princess feel like it got to the action quickly in comparison. You spend hours going through tutorial stuff as Haytham before you even get to play as Connor and finally open up things like sidequests and the ability to climb trees.
Also there are some wonky things, like how I was able to take over a fort before Connor even got to the mission in the story where he decided he needed to start taking over forts. I always thought that was funny.
I can't really comment on the story, because I hardly remember the story in any Assassin's Creed game. I find them frankly kinda boring, and the disjointed structure of the game where you can go hours without encountering a story cutscene and progressing the plot certainly doesn't help. But I don't remember thinking it was any better or worse than the rest of the series.
Wow, if Assassin's Creed 3 was able to assassinate one of its players, it must be the best game in the series!
Tangled Up in Blue
Banned
I really don't understand people who say that ACIII had one of the best protagonists in the series, especially compared to the prior three games . Ezio was warm, funny, charming, and a fully developed three-dimensional character. He wasn't just the best protagonist in the franchise, but one of the best of last gen full stop.
OTOH, Connor had the personality of a block of wood. I'm struggling to think of a more boring and lifeless main character in a AAA franchise. I would have much preferred to play through the game as Haytham (aka evil James Bond).
OTOH, Connor had the personality of a block of wood. I'm struggling to think of a more boring and lifeless main character in a AAA franchise. I would have much preferred to play through the game as Haytham (aka evil James Bond).
Incorrect. It was the worst entry in the series by a good green mile with many people.
The glitches and typos ("DO NOT PUSH OH SHOVE ANYONE!", rifles floating in midair on their own) just sealed the deal in me never spending $60 on an Ubisoft product ever again.
GameAddict411
Member
I enjoyed it a lot more than brotherhood and the other crappy game with Ezio. I hated Ezio and thought he was super annoying. The bad press around the third game also lowered my expectations so I was surprised by how good it was.
Emperor Bohe
Member
I forgot to mention, the dlc for AC 3 is great. It's better than the full Gabe, and it just gets wackier and wackier as it progresses
It's still better than AC1 but damn the prologue goes on for WAY too long, once you get working on the Homestead and the main story begins it's not that bad, a bit of a different flavour compared to the previous games, a bit of a slog in places and some very STUPID and questionable storyline choices and placement (Can't say the two most messed up ones as they are huge spoilers) but apart from that it isn't anywhere as bad as people make out.
Wut, no. No. No, dear. No. No.
Also the one good thing I can say about AC3 is that it gave us Haythem Kenway and tried to make the Templar's ... not sure of the word... acceptable? It showed that both sides really aren't as bad as both sides think they are, they both have good intentions but different ideologies for it.
Oh and Wolfpack, which meant that even if the multiplayer was dead, you could (granted after level 5 here, whereas it was unlocked from the start in 4:Black Flag) grind to max rank in the multiplayer.
That's not to mention that the love story was completely pointless. For a "main entry" it was a completely pointless affair.
ScientificPizza
Banned
it wasn't bad! it's actually pretty good!
Tangled Up in Blue
Banned
Yeah, and that article highlights a big problem with 3: the protagonist takes a backseat to the story and the story isn't strong enough to support that. But honestly, if Connor had been given more than two emotions (angry and bland), it would have gone a long way toward making up for the weak plot.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
Connor became my favorite character of last gen. Free running through the frontier (through trees and up cliffs) became my most wanted thing in all action games. And the ship combat was handled much better in their respecrive missions than Black Flag tried doing on a whole.
I personally love it. Quite a bit. It doesn't match the tone/feel/mystery/puzzles of 2 and brohood, but it's up there.
I personally love it. Quite a bit. It doesn't match the tone/feel/mystery/puzzles of 2 and brohood, but it's up there.
matrixman92
Member
I liked 3. Black flag is probably one of my least favorite along with revelations and Rogue. So it's above those three. I didn't mind at all that it took so long to become an actual assassin.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
The Homestead missions beg to differ. Some fantastic character moments on display.
What I love about the game is the contrast. It is the strongest "theme" in the game.
Growing up surrounded by Native Americans because of family members being involved/related and marrying into a Rev war reenactment family, I think you'll find I don't agree with your plot and character opinions. As mentioned in the article, I get that not having the typical hero trope isn't exactly appealing to many. Unity even makes fun of that sentiment.
I'll help you....Altair.
KratosEnergyDrink
Member
AC3 was MUCH better than AC4 at least. It was a real full fledged open world game where AC4 seems to have cheaper production values, with small areas on land and an endless boring ocean.
Banjo-Kazooie
Member
The beginning was amazing and then Connor came into play and I wS bored to tears. I have no interest in hunting and his character was just so boring. It's the only AC game I haven't finished yet
Tangled Up in Blue
Banned
Yeah, I have to give the game credit for that. The Templars see themselves as the good guys and the Assassins as agents of chaos, which is a good idea. After all, no one actually thinks of themselves as the bad guy regardless of what they do, and it's not like the Assassins haven't done some morally questionable things themselves.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
And how is placing a naive character in between all of that to establish this for the audience a bad thing?
"I'll give it credit, but boy I hated playing as a non-sterotypical playboy hero. I liked Haytham and Ezio."
I don't get it.
Tangled Up in Blue
Banned
Altair actually has some good character moments during his flashbacks in Revelations, but yeah, he is pretty much a nothing character in AC1. I'm not saying that it's impossible for Connor to be interesting with a different creative team, just that he's fairly boring in 3.
Toni
Member
Oh my god.
It just hurts so much. T_T
You have no idea how many hours i would have put on a game like that.
Because Connor wasn't even USED for that bit he quoted. You play Haythem for about 4-5 hours without (if it's not spoiled for you) realizing he was a Templar. The game frames it as if he was an assassin (which is why the twist WORKS) and made him likable and really a fan favorite despite being a Templar and short-in-hours-of-play.
Then his son comes in and... isn't likable in anyway. Like, I don't hate Connor, but if I don't ever see him again: I won't mourn. His whole arc was pointless not just in the American Revolution but stopping his father. His end game was to avenge his mother, not stop events that his father was trying to put into motion. Like, we've seen that with Ezio in AC2, but Ezio's arc still had him realize that there was bigger things going on. Connor just gets pushed to these events without any realization.
Similar threads
- Poll