Because the prelude of 3 with Haytham as the protagonist is easily the most interesting part of the game, both plot-wise, and character-wise, and that's the part of the game we're talking about here. The story falls apart when the focus switches to Connor. I'm far from the only one who thinks so, even in this thread.
Also, this is a series that has been internationally set from the beginning and this game is focused entirely on America. One of the stated purposes of the series is to have a game set in places that have not been traditionally focused on in games and America is one of the most over-used locations in gaming.
Also also, I think you'll find that the American Revolution is a lot less interesting to non-Americans.
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.
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.
Connor's end game wasn't to avenge his mother. Once the truth is found out, he still pushes forward for the colonial/assassin agenda.
And Connor was needed for the Assassin side since it was a shell of it's former self in America until he comes into the picture.
If Connor had Haytham's/Ezio's personality, it would have unoriginal, derivative and would have ruined the balance of the whole plot. It's unnecessary.
As far as Connor goes... about an hour into playing as him I was a ten-year-old boy tomahawking random guys in the brain while screaming wildly (I might have been the one screaming, actually). It was downhill from there.
Because the prelude of 3 with Haytham as the protagonist is easily the most interesting part of the game, both plot-wise, and character-wise, and that's the part of the game we're talking about here. The story falls apart when the focus switches to Connor. I'm far from the only one who thinks so, even in this thread.
Also, this is a series that has been internationally set from the beginning and this game is focused entirely on America. One of the stated purposes of the series is to have a game set in places that have not been traditionally focused on in games and America is one of the most over-used locations in gaming.
Also also, I think you'll find that the American Revolution is a lot less interesting to non-Americans.
This is kind of a cringey admittance. Not liking someone because they're not stereotypically charming, not liking an under-used setting because future/modern realizations of it are too common and because it's a part of American history, it's uninteresting. I think I get it.
Not a huge AC fan here so that's why I enjoyed ACIII and Black Flag the most.
First two hours of the game were dreadful because of boring prologue but later I though game was pretty good. I really loved a naval combat and upgrading homestead. Setting was great too.
But for those who believe Ezio is more of an Assassin than Connor in the ideological sense, let me enlighten you. First off, Ezio didn't write a book defining what makes an Assassin. Ezio's allies are testaments of Assassins coming in different forms. But if you forget the title of the games for a minute and examine Ezio, you'll see he is not really a believer of the Creed. He is a firm believer of justice, yes, but not the Creed.
The Creed believes in free will and freedom in general for all. Justice is more of an after result of all of this. Once again, the problem stems from the generic nature of Ezio games. Compare Connor's villains to Ezio's and you'll find Ezio's enemies are just plain evil. Unlike the enemies Connor faces who all(except Hickey) truly sees their way is best for humanity and one can truly see and comprehend their logic. I guess for coherency, very generic villains call for a very generic hero.
Think about this article before you go to a Assassin's Creed related forum and worship Ezio like some God-like man in the comment section.
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.
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.
Yeah, AC 3 for me was only good while Haythem was on screen. I was gutted when we switched to Conner, who had zero personality. What annoyed me most about Connor, was how he bullied Achilles into training him, and then proceeded to ignore every instruction and piece of advice he gave him. Connor just came across as a total brat, whereas Haythem had charisma and charm.
At worst, AC 3 was boring, the story was boring, Connor was boring, they somehow made his backstory boring. Which is actually an incredible feat considering what his origins are. How did they make the American revolution boring? And why was Connor present at all the big battles? That was just ridiculous.
Plus the change in Charles Lee from the Haythem part, to the Connor section is laughable. I still can't believe it.
Because the prelude of 3 with Haytham as the protagonist is easily the most interesting part of the game, both plot-wise, and character-wise, and that's the part of the game we're talking about here. The story falls apart when the focus switches to Connor. I'm far from the only one who thinks so, even in this thread.
Also, this is a series that has been internationally set from the beginning and this game is focused entirely on America. One of the stated purposes of the series is to have a game set in places that have not been traditionally focused on in games and America is one of the most over-used locations in gaming.
Also also, I think you'll find that the American Revolution is a lot less interesting to non-Americans.
This is kind of a cringey admittance. Not liking someone because they're not stereotypically charming, not liking an under-used setting because future/modern realizations of it are too common and because it's a part of American history, it's uninteresting. I think I get it.
And there it is. The subtle implication that I'm somehow racist against Native Americans and that's why I didn't like AC3.
That's amusing. I think I'll call up my Lumbee grandfather and have a good laugh about it.
See what happens when you make assumptions about people you don't actually know? I think there's a word for that, I just can't quite remember what it is . . .
I'm a huge AC fan. It was easily my favorite game series of the PS3/360 generation. In my experience, a lot of the hate for 3 came from the way the story ended (pretty crappy, I agree) and how flat most of the characters felt. There's nothing necessarily wrong with Connor, he's just more stern and serious like Altair, and people were used to the much more flamboyant and likable Ezio.
Didn't help that the game had a slow start, and the cities didn't feel as vertical as the ones before it. I personally liked them, and I loved the frontier and the way things would change when it was winter in the game. I just wish it was winter more often, or that you could choose to toggle that effect on after beating the game.
It's funny though, after playing Unity and Syndicate, I can't go back to the older games. The way they improved the parkour in those two games (Unity mostly) makes it really, really hard to look back. Parkouring around the map is my favorite thing in these games. A full on remake of AC3 and 4 with the Unity/Syndicate engine (or NEWER engine for next year's game) would make the happiest person around.
And there it is. The subtle implication that I'm somehow racist against Native Americans and that's why I didn't like AC3.
That's amusing. I think I'll call up my Lumbee grandfather and have a good laugh about it.
See what happens when you make assumptions about people you don't actually know? I think there's a word for that, I just can't quite remember what it is . . .
Never once implied or considered you racist. Sorry you came to that conclusion. I'm saying it's a weird way of forming your opinion by complaining about one thing not being typical and another being too typical despite it being so underused in gaming and then claiming the period in history is uninteresting and shouldn't be explored because some people don't like it. It's weird.
And has nothing to do with whether what we got is good or not. It's just "I didn't like it." I'm providing evidence of why said setting and character traits work and you refuted with that...?
The main story was boring but the village in the woods side quests were entertaining. I did not care enough for the different protagonists in the revolution to really have fun while making progress in the story. It suffered from the same flaws AC:R had but without a main character I actually liked. Connor felt bland, I don't feel the relationship with his father was properly exploited.
Gameplay wise it was more of the same with boat fights so it did the job, not remarkably, but done nonetheless. You had to suffer through the terrible stealth though.
It's an interesting analysis, but I pretty much disagree with all of it I'm sorry to say. The way they boiled down Ezio's character is a bit odd to me. And the way they presented Connor being more relatable is... just not good.
I have to wonder why I felt so genuinely invested in Ezio and his story. I felt strong emotions when Ezio lost his family and it really had me on his side wanting him to get revenge. In AC 3, I felt.... nothing. Yet Ezio games are the more generic? maybe it's a presentation thing, because for whatever reason, I felt invested in Ezio and could not care less about Connor.
It's an interesting analysis, but I pretty much disagree with all of it I'm sorry to say. The way they boiled down Ezio's character is a bit odd to me. And the way they presented Connor being more relatable is... just not good.
I have to wonder why I felt so genuinely invested in Ezio and his story. I felt strong emotions when Ezio lost his family and it really had me on his side wanting him to get revenge. In AC 3, I felt.... nothing. Yet Ezio games are the more generic? maybe it's a presentation thing, because for whatever reason, I felt invested in Ezio and could not care less about Connor.
Yeah, once I fully re-read it after posting, I found myself not agreeing with the writer in certain areas. But I do feel they were onto something with the part I quoted which might tie in to what you're saying. AC2 being "generic" (not in a negative sense), probably makes it more relatable.
I loved it. I thought it had some of the worst "real life" parts the main story and areas were great.
I don't know what people wanted. It was a legit evolution in the series with the tree climbing, being out of the city, new gameplay, new animation. It felt like progression.
I guess some people didn't like the main character but I thought it was a nice change.
I loved it. I thought it had some of the worst "real life" parts the main story and areas were great.
I don't know what people wanted. It was a legit evolution in the series with the tree climbing, being out of the city, new gameplay, new animation. It felt like progression.
I guess some people didn't like the main character but I thought it was a nice change.
Connor's end game wasn't to avenge his mother. Once the truth is found out, he still pushes forward for the colonial/assassin agenda.
And Connor was needed for the Assassin side since it was a shell of it's former self in America until he comes into the picture.
If Connor had Haytham's/Ezio's personality, it would have unoriginal, derivative and would have ruined the balance of the whole plot. It's unnecessary.
not only that, but it would be dishonest. connor with ezio's personality basically could not exist. he is in the process of losing his entire culture.
warm, funny, charismatic, these are not traits that determine a good character. likeable, maybe. but likable does not equate to good. a good character should be engaging, complex, conflicted, relatable - someone you can empathise but also disagree with. they should have layered and believable motivations, be wrestling with something.
yes, AC3 suffers from the typical dissonance of over world games, but the major character beats are all there and hit home. sometimes i feel that people just don't care about the stories of marginalised, oppressed people. i don't understand how you can't have sympathy for connor's story as you watch his dogmatic humanistic beliefs clash with colonial powers of the time. most players do not like feeling disempowered, which i guess many saw his naivety as. but character flaws are what allows great drama. what were ezio's?
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.
Oh this is a game that gaf suddenly loves now? this game was just bad from start to finish. Slow start, fucked up story, glitch fest, Connor was a dumb kid and the most important reason for me: THEY GOT RID OF JESPER KYD.
not only that, but it would be dishonest. connor with ezio's personality basically could not exist. he is in the process of losing his entire culture.
warm, funny, charismatic, these are not traits that determine a good character. likeable, maybe. but likable does not equate to good. a good character should be engaging, complex, conflicted, relatable - someone you can empathise but also disagree with. they should have layered and believable motivations, be wrestling with something.
yes, AC3 suffers from the typical dissonance of over world games, but the major character beats are all there and hit home. sometimes i feel that people just don't care about the stories of marginalised, oppressed people. i don't understand how you can't have sympathy for connor's story as you watch his dogmatic humanistic beliefs clash with colonial powers of the time. most players do not like feeling disempowered, which i guess many saw his naivety as. but character flaws are what allows great drama. what were ezio's?
The problem for me with AC 3 was that I was super excited for it being a history buff, and it never came close to expectations. Tutorials were way too long. The story lacked. The end to Desmond's arc was horrible.
Oh this is a game that gaf suddenly loves now? this game was just bad from start to finish. Slow start, fucked up story, glitch fest, Connor was a dumb kid and the most important reason for me: THEY GOT RID OF JESPER KYD.
I have these problems with the Assassin's Creed games where none of them are actually about the Assassin's Creed anymore. In AC1, Altair is brash, vain, and inconsiderate, cot the point where it gets his partners wounded or killed to serve his own ego. Then he follows the creed and learns not to be such a dick!
In AC2, Ezio is a privileged young man who gets everything handed to him and doesn't know how to live when his freebies are taken away. Then he follows the creed and becomes a responsible adult who not only helps himself but others, and his entire city!
I guess you could argue that Brotherhood is about Ezio teaching the Creed to others? But only barely, and usually offscreen. Revelations certainly has nothing to do with it. 3 is the return of the original developers to the franchise after watching someone else handle it for three years, and they kick in the front door shouting "ALRIGHT SO FUCK THE CREED, IT'S ACTUALLY DUMB SHIT APPROPRIATED BY WHTE MEN AND FOLLOWING IT WILL
ACCOMPLISH PRETTY MUCH NOTHING AND GET ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY KILLED."
Connor continues to adhere to the Creed to the point where it no longer makes sense and that leads him to completely ignore Washington, his real enemy, and continue going after Charles Lee long after he's actually relevant in the war or anyone else's lives anymore. He actively betrays his tribe's beliefs and values in order to continue being an Assassin, and just keeps getting shit on in return for it. No wonder Achilles is revealed to be a bad guy in Rogue.
Didn't help that I wasn't into the American setting to begin with. But yeah, I didn't really like Connor, even if a suave, brash Ezio wouldn't have fit either. So not really Connor the character's fault, the game overall just didn't appeal to me. It also seemed way too bloated. Brotherhood was where I felt they nailed balance in the amount of stuff to do.
But ultimately, the lack of interest in the setting doomed it for me and magnified the actual flaws. Didn't mind them so much in the others, even Unity.
It was more a relief to finish 3. For me, was a bit like Mass Effect 3 where it felt like an obligation to play through.
I liked 4 ok and liked Rogue more than 4, but expectations played a part. I was really hoping for Unity to get it right, but at least there was Syndicate to close off this era of AC.
This thread reminded me of how good AC2 is. Why did they ever get rid of those tombs that tested your parkour? Those were the best bits.
On-topic: I wasn't too keen on the American Revolution as a setting. I feel like a series like AC is best when it's set in an old city like Damascus, Rome or London. That, and taking over Connor after having Haytham is deflating.
Its starts very slowly. Which I understand from a story point of view, but it still starts slowly. I feel Conner has an interesting story but he's a bit boring. He's not very charismatic so its difficult to get invested in his story. I basically had to force myself to care about his story which I shouldn't have to do. The cities weren't designed in a way that allowed you to traverse them in a way that was fun. There were always guards on the rooftops (which makes no sense. They are just there because the designers put them there because they knew you would always be on the rooftops) and the streets were often too spread out making traveling on the roofs a bit of a pain. I've never liked Desmond and you have to play a lot has him which isn't fun and I thought the ending was a terrible way to end it.
I was so disappointed with this game I hadn't played an assassin creed since until Syndicate came out and they showed off Evie. That game got me back into the series because of how well they portrayed Evie and they made it fun to play and traverse the city again. I've decided to go back and try AC4 and Rogue because of it. I'll probably still skip Unity though, heard it was bad and performed bad and don't really need it for and story stuff.
I wouldn't say the game was bad... But it definitely wasn't good. Is was meh. It forever for things to finally get moving. It was their first attempt at forest free running and it was definitely a pain. Not a lot of areas to run on buildings.
Actually this was was them attempting a lot of new things with the franchise.. Some was good.. Some they dumped after the game. But you can tell that it was their first try at them. Like the idea was cool and you can see that it could be awesome but it just wasn't really implemented well
Didn't love Connor, but I didn't hate him either. I thought it was a nice change of pace to play as someone that was so earnest, on the straight 'n narrow. Also really liked the way he looked; with and without the Assassin's robes, he came off as a strong dude. Also, I really liked the switch blade and how he used it in his attack animations.
The cities were terrible, but the frontier was awesome... Just, not utilized as well as it could have been, I think.
Story just nearly destroyed my interest in the franchise though. Not just how they handled things with Connor later on in the game, but the modern day stuff in particular. They did Desmond wrong.
It wasn't bad per se, but Conor was pretty flat for a protagonist and I never truly felt he deserved to wear the Assassin's robes. And not that I really blame him, but he never really took the Assassin's ideals too seriously and instead did everything for his tribe first. Granted Ezio started out as a revenge thing, but eventually really embraced his training as an Assassin. Conor was void of any personality and your main assassinations lacked any weight like in 2.
And yeah the cities were underwhelming, but that's what happens when you go from Renaissance era Florence, Venice, Rome, and Constantinople to colonial era New York and Boston. Plus the Homestead stuff felt half-assed.
I wouldn't call AC3 bad, it just left a lot to be desired.
It's not my least favorite, that would be Revelations, but the double-whammy of Revelations and then 3 almost made me quit the series. Luckily, Black Flag brought the A-game.
I have these problems with the Assassin's Creed games where none of them are actually about the Assassin's Creed anymore. In AC1, Altair is brash, vain, and inconsiderate, cot the point where it gets his partners wounded or killed to serve his own ego. Then he follows the creed and learns not to be such a dick!
In AC2, Ezio is a privileged young man who gets everything handed to him and doesn't know how to live when his freebies are taken away. Then he follows the creed and becomes a responsible adult who not only helps himself but others, and his entire city!
I guess you could argue that Brotherhood is about Ezio teaching the Creed to others? But only barely, and usually offscreen. Revelations certainly has nothing to do with it. 3 is the return of the original developers to the franchise after watching someone else handle it for three years, and they kick in the front door shouting "ALRIGHT SO FUCK THE CREED, IT'S ACTUALLY DUMB SHIT APPROPRIATED BY WHTE MEN AND FOLLOWING IT WILL
ACCOMPLISH PRETTY MUCH NOTHING AND GET ALL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY KILLED."
Connor continues to adhere to the Creed to the point where it no longer makes sense and that leads him to completely ignore Washington, his real enemy, and continue going after Charles Lee long after he's actually relevant in the war or anyone else's lives anymore. He actively betrays his tribe's beliefs and values in order to continue being an Assassin, and just keeps getting shit on in return for it. No wonder Achilles is revealed to be a bad guy in Rogue.
Dude did you really just throw in a rogue spoiler in there for an AC3 thread. Haven't played rogue yet and it sounded like that portion of the rant was just about AC3...
It wasn't horrible but it was one of the worst paced and most clunky games in the series. This of course was exacerbated by the initial bugginess of the release; the worst it had ever been at that point. Ratonhnhaké:ton is a bit of a dull character and the modern day story felt rushed and blech. It was still enjoyable as an Assassin's Creed game, but it was definitely a lowpoint, especially following the declining Revelations.
not only that, but it would be dishonest. connor with ezio's personality basically could not exist. he is in the process of losing his entire culture.
warm, funny, charismatic, these are not traits that determine a good character. likeable, maybe. but likable does not equate to good. a good character should be engaging, complex, conflicted, relatable - someone you can empathise but also disagree with. they should have layered and believable motivations, be wrestling with something.
yes, AC3 suffers from the typical dissonance of over world games, but the major character beats are all there and hit home. sometimes i feel that people just don't care about the stories of marginalised, oppressed people. i don't understand how you can't have sympathy for connor's story as you watch his dogmatic humanistic beliefs clash with colonial powers of the time. most players do not like feeling disempowered, which i guess many saw his naivety as. but character flaws are what allows great drama. what were ezio's?
I don't know if it's a flaw in the writing but I don't see much of that in Connor. Conflicted yes, but not much else, certainly not engaging in any way for me. For some reason I can not stand the character, it's one of those dislikes that borders on irrational at this point. I just can't describe why I dislike him so much. Maybe i'd have liked him more if he listened to his master on occasion, you know the one he harassed into training him. It didn't help that I disagreed with almost everything he did, whenever he opened his mouth I was normally thinking 'ffs Connor, you are wrong.... again'
To me bib describes Joel from the Last of Us, who is a brilliant character. I just don't see it in Connor.
