-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Assassin's Creed III |OT| Easier to read than Ratonhnhaké:ton
- Thread starter Blue Ninja
- Start date
I agree, it did feel out of place. But I assume that is what the game was going for. Seems like Connor could have at least bothered to tell the guy
the man he is listening to is the one who burned down their village.. but perhaps he didn't think he would believe him at that point.
iNvid02
Member
never seen that combat tut vid before, should have been released a while back. just messing around in the pc version and the variety of kills and the excellent animation are still surprising me. its fucking superb
its a good game but if you stuck through ezio's trilogy you'd know its a step backwards in many places.
its a good game but if you stuck through ezio's trilogy you'd know its a step backwards in many places.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Oh, I'm sure that was what they are going for, but when it happened I let out an audible "what?" because of how much Connor's action surprised me. You don't just stab
your fucking best friend in the neck because he won't listen to you and is all pissed off. It was well established that Connor was physically superior to his friend in every way. He could have subdued him.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Question: what were your favorite parts about ACIII?
Agreed.
UncleSporky
Member
I disagree. I only played part of 1, then all of AC2 and Brotherhood and skipped Revelations for now as the internet recommended...and I still think 3 is the best of the series.
iNvid02
Member
wrote this coming from the ps3 version which had terrible performance so might have been a little harsh
http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/723913-Thoughts
For real, My assassin would have stabbed George Washington asshole right there in his camp
for keep believing the liar over and over again and tried to kill my people. What the hell is the point of killing just the messenger and just saying FU to the mastermind and walked away from him.
On the other hands, the founding father cameos are kinda weak. Franklin and Hancock was barely there. Never met Hamilton, Jefferson, John Adams. Revolutionary War? Won off panel while you were obsessed after that one guy. PFFT.
UncleSporky
Member
I liked how the stories outside and inside the Animus paralleled each other. Desmond has a conflict with his father, and then gets to experience a conflict with Connor and his father. While their story doesn't work out, Desmond makes some effort to salvage his own relationship.
Desmond asks whether anyone has ever tried joining the Assassins and Templars together under a common cause and is told it does not work out, then gets to see how one attempt plays out with Connor and his father.
Playing as Haytham was awesome. Fighting Haytham was awesome. I thought it was cool that Ubisoft figured out the one way we're going to be able to see a playable character die, due to the genetic constructs of the Animus - we have to play as their child. I thought that whole angle with Haytham as a Templar, the twist, all of that was very well executed.
Charles Lee looked perfect, was well spoken and actually played a significant part in both the main character's personal story and the overarching story. Unlike in past ACs, we met all the major villains early and got a bit of screen time with them before it was time to take them out. I looked forward to encountering Hickey. I especially liked his death scene - his character was a breath of fresh air from the typical idealistic Templar, and his speech provided some food for thought. Contrast with Ezio's games where we were told "ok, so-and-so is doing bad things, you've never met him, but go kill him anyway."
And speaking of that...generally I feel this game has much more memorable and better characters than in Ezio's games. Of people I really liked, I remember Ezio himself, Leonardo, and that crazy moustache guy who named his sword. The Borgias were boring and had very little personal involvement with the hero - despite Cesare destroying Ezio's home, there was something lacking in there...probably the lack of Ezio giving a shit about it for most of the game, it seemed. There was a weak love interest plot, and as much as I liked Ezio's introduction and revenge for his family, I feel like it was over too quickly. This isn't just in hindsight, I specifically remember thinking "...what now?" and the game going on to a lot of assassinations I didn't feel especially excited about, as I said earlier. "Go kill this random dude." Oh, it was fun, but the story wasn't engaging.
In AC3 I liked Haytham, Lee, and Hickey. Really loved Achilles. Connor was not as great as Ezio, and I didn't expect him to be, but I ended up liking him more than I expected. I'm glad they went more naive than "pissed off native who hates the white men." There's room to go either way in the future, either showing him growing in experience in dealing with westerners or becoming more disillusioned with western society. Besides the major players I really enjoyed every interaction with the homesteaders and my assassin recruits. In fact a lot more of the minor encounters felt more memorable than in past games, little things like how the ship captain reacts when Haytham threatens to kill him, or the terrified redcoat you escort for interrogation.
Lee's death scene was really well done, and I loved the epilogue too. A lot better closure than any previous AC.
I could keep going but so much just felt good about the game...I liked the early American cities (I'm no crazy patriot, I just like historical worlds brought to life), I liked the more natural wilderness with thick vegetation, the hunting was fun, the variety of tools was fun, etc.
Desmond asks whether anyone has ever tried joining the Assassins and Templars together under a common cause and is told it does not work out, then gets to see how one attempt plays out with Connor and his father.
Playing as Haytham was awesome. Fighting Haytham was awesome. I thought it was cool that Ubisoft figured out the one way we're going to be able to see a playable character die, due to the genetic constructs of the Animus - we have to play as their child. I thought that whole angle with Haytham as a Templar, the twist, all of that was very well executed.
Charles Lee looked perfect, was well spoken and actually played a significant part in both the main character's personal story and the overarching story. Unlike in past ACs, we met all the major villains early and got a bit of screen time with them before it was time to take them out. I looked forward to encountering Hickey. I especially liked his death scene - his character was a breath of fresh air from the typical idealistic Templar, and his speech provided some food for thought. Contrast with Ezio's games where we were told "ok, so-and-so is doing bad things, you've never met him, but go kill him anyway."
And speaking of that...generally I feel this game has much more memorable and better characters than in Ezio's games. Of people I really liked, I remember Ezio himself, Leonardo, and that crazy moustache guy who named his sword. The Borgias were boring and had very little personal involvement with the hero - despite Cesare destroying Ezio's home, there was something lacking in there...probably the lack of Ezio giving a shit about it for most of the game, it seemed. There was a weak love interest plot, and as much as I liked Ezio's introduction and revenge for his family, I feel like it was over too quickly. This isn't just in hindsight, I specifically remember thinking "...what now?" and the game going on to a lot of assassinations I didn't feel especially excited about, as I said earlier. "Go kill this random dude." Oh, it was fun, but the story wasn't engaging.
In AC3 I liked Haytham, Lee, and Hickey. Really loved Achilles. Connor was not as great as Ezio, and I didn't expect him to be, but I ended up liking him more than I expected. I'm glad they went more naive than "pissed off native who hates the white men." There's room to go either way in the future, either showing him growing in experience in dealing with westerners or becoming more disillusioned with western society. Besides the major players I really enjoyed every interaction with the homesteaders and my assassin recruits. In fact a lot more of the minor encounters felt more memorable than in past games, little things like how the ship captain reacts when Haytham threatens to kill him, or the terrified redcoat you escort for interrogation.
Lee's death scene was really well done, and I loved the epilogue too. A lot better closure than any previous AC.
I could keep going but so much just felt good about the game...I liked the early American cities (I'm no crazy patriot, I just like historical worlds brought to life), I liked the more natural wilderness with thick vegetation, the hunting was fun, the variety of tools was fun, etc.
7echnicolor
Member
Public 'Wolfpack' sessions in multiplayer are absolutely frustrating: people rushing to get as many kills as possible, ignoring bonus objectives, etc. it's so hard to get into a game with people who actually know what they're doing. The gametype is so fun when everyone works together.
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Charles Lee looked like Tom Selleck.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
Good stuff. I mostly agree about what you liked there. I, too, really enjoyed the atmosphere and just walking around the world as if I was in that time. They really nailed this part.
I probably would have enjoyed it more if I didn't mess around with the side content for like six hours or so and just focused on the story.
I still think that, while the animations are better than they've ever been, the changes the made to the movement and combat are mostly for the worse. When coming from ACII and Brotherhood, it felt like the gameplay really took a dive in quality, and that's what bothers me most.
Overall, I still enjoyed my time with the game and think it's worth playing. Just disappointing.
Ah fuck Ubisoft didn't fix this in the patch? I think I'm just going to sell this fucking thing. I haven't even bothered with the PS3-only missions, are they even worth it?
UncleSporky
Member
I really agree with this. I feel like a lot of people critical of the game focus too much on one or two very specific things that they consider a dealbreaker. I don't know, maybe something's wrong with me, but the game was just straight up enjoyable and I can forgive some slights. Overall though I feel like this game did a lot of things better than in previous ACs.
I mean, really, what do people consider to have been really well done plotwise in past games?
I like Ezio but he carries the whole thing himself. I remember...killing a fat guy at a party. And destroying some
Leonardo inventions
killing the effing pope is a great idea, especially using the apple the way you saw the boss of the first game use it, but sparing his life for no reason is as bad as the wishy washiest things Connor did in his own story. Ezio had even less reason to spare him, at least Connor was built up as a naive, peaceful person. And the end of Brotherhood was just one more generic fight with a villain I didn't care about.
AC3 has a much better progression with very clear and memorable story beats.
UncleSporky
Member
chickdigger802
Banned
The sad thing is if they took out all the optional objectives, I'd enjoy the game a lot more.
LightofRohan
Member
I know, I've disliked that since AC1. I actually email Ubisoft directly when that was shown in AC1 asking them for an option to disable it... haha. I'm lame.
I actually prefer Connors story arc over Ezios (3 game story). For some reason I felt there was more closure in his storyline and more motivation that eventually leads to be a lost cause, changing his and my perspective about the war... but I can understand not liking him.
100% agreed. But they don't even have to do that... just make them more interesting. I thought they did it really well in one of the Haythem missions, the optional objective is; Destroy 2 cannons. So it allows you to go on a different path that you normally would have avoided, but at the same time not penalizing you for not wanting to do it.
The: don't get hit, dont get detected, don't touch the ground, don't use weapons, don't touch people. Are just fucking a waste...
smokeymicpot
Beat EviLore at pool.
Well I finally finished it now the credits are rolling. I got nothing. AC2 is a lot better compared to this. New York and Boston felt exactly the same which sucked. A big what the fuck at
Desmond just dying like that. We knew this character for the longest fucking time all they did kill him off. Not even with a badass send off or pressing a fucking button. That chase mission was a fucking bitch too running in that flaming boat.
I just ignored them for the most part. The game isn't the boss of me.
UncleSporky
Member
I have no idea why anyone would assume he's really dead.
My guess is that next game they'll discover that Desmond is the only person who can do X thing to take down Juno, so we'll play as Desmond's dad in the Animus trying to find a precursor artifact that can revive him.
Either that, or "nah just kidding, he's ok." Maybe the Templars will realize they're in deep shit too and use some tech to bring him back. Maybe it'll be another Rev coma situation. In any case, Desmond's coming back.
The end doesn't bug me much because I consider the real end of these games to always be in the Animus sequences. The sci-fi story is just there to give us a cliffhanger for as long as the series continues.
My guess is that next game they'll discover that Desmond is the only person who can do X thing to take down Juno, so we'll play as Desmond's dad in the Animus trying to find a precursor artifact that can revive him.
Either that, or "nah just kidding, he's ok." Maybe the Templars will realize they're in deep shit too and use some tech to bring him back. Maybe it'll be another Rev coma situation. In any case, Desmond's coming back.
The end doesn't bug me much because I consider the real end of these games to always be in the Animus sequences. The sci-fi story is just there to give us a cliffhanger for as long as the series continues.
Also, what about AC2's story was better? See my thoughts above. Ezio's revenge story at the beginning was really strong material but it couldn't sustain that.
chickdigger802
Banned
the game does love to rub salt in your wounds though with big ass red text and YOU SHOULD REDO THE MISSION CUZ YOU SUCK.
Connor is a weird beast, I feel like i'm at the edge of liking him, but some disconnect always kills it.
Maybe it's due to him being the most effective killing machine ever, yet he tries to be against violence or something... idk.
Uhhm, Haytham says that burning the village isn't something that Lee would do. Why would he try and burn it down at one point and then try and defend it later?
Assassin's Creed wiki:
"Sometime during the French and Indian War, the village was burned down by George Washington and his soldiers in order to diminish possible threat based on the Native Americans working with the French against the British Army. During this burning, Ratonhnhaké:ton's mother, Kaniehtí:io, was killed, leaving a sense of revenge in his heart.
During the American Revolutionary War, George Washington once more planned to destroy the village, based off a lead that the Mohawk people were working with the British in the war. Not far outside of it, he had stationed several soldiers prepared to attack. Ratonhnhaké:ton, who went back and killed the messengers, as well as stop his own people from attacking, stopped the initial plans though."
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Kanatahséton
I just don't understand why Connor hates Lee so much even after he finds that Washington is responsible for burning his village and thus killing his mother. More generally he's basically constantly confronted with the fact that the Patriots don't care about the natives but decides to carry on working with them anyway. Admittedly, as the Templars continually point out the Crown isn't particularly worried about the natives either, but it really does feel as though Connor is shooting himself in the foot the entire game. I get that a game where the Patriots and Washington are the major villains would have gone down like a lead balloon in the US but then why bother writing it into the game if you're going to make the main character so inconsistent (read: stupid) just to maintain the semblance of being 'morally grey'? It just smacks of bad storytelling.
The Borgias were even more pantomime villainesque than the Templars in AC3 but at least then you actually felt like you wanted your revenge against them.
Assassin's Creed wiki:
"Sometime during the French and Indian War, the village was burned down by George Washington and his soldiers in order to diminish possible threat based on the Native Americans working with the French against the British Army. During this burning, Ratonhnhaké:ton's mother, Kaniehtí:io, was killed, leaving a sense of revenge in his heart.
During the American Revolutionary War, George Washington once more planned to destroy the village, based off a lead that the Mohawk people were working with the British in the war. Not far outside of it, he had stationed several soldiers prepared to attack. Ratonhnhaké:ton, who went back and killed the messengers, as well as stop his own people from attacking, stopped the initial plans though."
http://assassinscreed.wikia.com/wiki/Kanatahséton
I just don't understand why Connor hates Lee so much even after he finds that Washington is responsible for burning his village and thus killing his mother. More generally he's basically constantly confronted with the fact that the Patriots don't care about the natives but decides to carry on working with them anyway. Admittedly, as the Templars continually point out the Crown isn't particularly worried about the natives either, but it really does feel as though Connor is shooting himself in the foot the entire game. I get that a game where the Patriots and Washington are the major villains would have gone down like a lead balloon in the US but then why bother writing it into the game if you're going to make the main character so inconsistent (read: stupid) just to maintain the semblance of being 'morally grey'? It just smacks of bad storytelling.
The Borgias were even more pantomime villainesque than the Templars in AC3 but at least then you actually felt like you wanted your revenge against them.
SJRB
Gold Member
Technically Tom Selleck looks like Charles Lee, amirite?
D
Deleted member 13876
Unconfirmed Member
Yes. Yes, you are.
UncleSporky
Member
The wiki's making incorrect assumptions, or you're making incorrect assumptions based upon it. Here's the scene in question. It's never stated what exactly happened during the Seven Years' War, and it's just as easy to assume that he's hinting at atrocities committed on other Native American tribes. That's what I got from it.
Even so, it's still likely that
Lee was responsible for the actual burning, even if Washington may have given the order. This is reason enough.
Haytham doesn't say that Lee wouldn't do it. He says he gave them no such order, and yet there they were, at Connor's village on the day it burned down. That much is obvious. Haytham had told him to quit checking up on the natives, but he was there anyway. It's extremely likely that Lee burned the village, regardless of whose orders it was.
It's obvious he was responsible and the game continues to make that clear up until the end. Haytham is surprised to find out that Lee was responsible but offers no real defense. It's obvious that he already knew about whatever Washington had done during the war but we never see him put two and two together and correct Connor. He doesn't say "I checked into this and discovered that Lee didn't burn your village, it was Washington." And on top of it all Lee never claims he didn't do it or says that Connor's got the wrong guy.
Lee burned the village and killed Connor's mother. Connor doesn't care as much about who gave the order, only the executor, otherwise he would've been hunting Haytham more than Lee, since he was under the impression that the order came from him.
Haytham doesn't say that Lee wouldn't do it. He says he gave them no such order, and yet there they were, at Connor's village on the day it burned down. That much is obvious. Haytham had told him to quit checking up on the natives, but he was there anyway. It's extremely likely that Lee burned the village, regardless of whose orders it was.
It's obvious he was responsible and the game continues to make that clear up until the end. Haytham is surprised to find out that Lee was responsible but offers no real defense. It's obvious that he already knew about whatever Washington had done during the war but we never see him put two and two together and correct Connor. He doesn't say "I checked into this and discovered that Lee didn't burn your village, it was Washington." And on top of it all Lee never claims he didn't do it or says that Connor's got the wrong guy.
Lee burned the village and killed Connor's mother. Connor doesn't care as much about who gave the order, only the executor, otherwise he would've been hunting Haytham more than Lee, since he was under the impression that the order came from him.
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
I haven't finished it but from what I gather based on what I've seen
Lee still got enjoyment from taunting Connor and carrying out the plan. It seemed personal for Lee where as it was just business with Washington. And perhaps Connor, being in the brotherhood, felt Lee was a greater enemy to the cause compared to GW?
The characters are already highlighted by some sort of watery shading, they don't need a white glow around them too.
His initial childhood trauma lead his desire for revenge; however, as he grew, he saw Lee as a general threat to the freedom of the colonies.
Lee wanted to usurp Washington and give the colonies back to the British.
D
Deleted member 17706
Unconfirmed Member
What?
I'm pretty sure the Templars were fully for independence, but they just wanted to be the ones in control. That's why Haytham was trying to supplant Washington with Lee.
UncleSporky
Member
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
I asked for this era so long ago and even bragged about that when it was announced. All I asked for was a tricorn hat with the eagle beak in front. Where is it?
But seriously, when will I be able to run around freely with the Aquila outfit?
But seriously, when will I be able to run around freely with the Aquila outfit?
When you enter your amazon pre order code....or buy the dlc or get the season pass
MoonsaultSlayer
Member
Oh. Is the dlc for that available on the NA psn?
OK...I don't think it's an incorrect assumption at all. The scene looks pretty obviously, to me, to be pointing the finger
at Washington for burning down the village 14 years earlier.
You see, I thought the entire point was that Connor assumed that Lee was responsible, because he'd seen him on the day his village was burned down, and he is a Templar and jeez those guys are evil! When the scene you linked to happened I was like, 'oh hey wow it was a psyche and they actually made Washington into something resembling a bad guy??? (relative to Connor's views) this might actually go somewhere interesting at last!!'. But then instead Connor supports massive cognitive dissonance in his head and decides to basically carry on helping Washington anyway immediately after he kills his best friend for trying to defend the village which is exactly what Connor had wanted all along and then helping the Patriots even though they had given no evidence at all that they would help the native peoples which was kind of the whole point in the first place, wasn't it? Freedom for everyone and all that???
I dunno, like I say the whole thing's a mess. I'm just playing it to get to the end now. The gameplay's kind of fun but the storyline is a turd.
You see, I thought the entire point was that Connor assumed that Lee was responsible, because he'd seen him on the day his village was burned down, and he is a Templar and jeez those guys are evil! When the scene you linked to happened I was like, 'oh hey wow it was a psyche and they actually made Washington into something resembling a bad guy??? (relative to Connor's views) this might actually go somewhere interesting at last!!'. But then instead Connor supports massive cognitive dissonance in his head and decides to basically carry on helping Washington anyway immediately after he kills his best friend for trying to defend the village which is exactly what Connor had wanted all along and then helping the Patriots even though they had given no evidence at all that they would help the native peoples which was kind of the whole point in the first place, wasn't it? Freedom for everyone and all that???
I dunno, like I say the whole thing's a mess. I'm just playing it to get to the end now. The gameplay's kind of fun but the storyline is a turd.
katsubento
Member
Bought the White Vita bundle from Amazon but, I already have PS3 Assassin's Creed III so, the Amazon $10 off code for anyone who wants PS3 or 360 version:
7SZP-LJKGBB-LQXW83
7SZP-LJKGBB-LQXW83
UncleSporky
Member
So what was Lee doing there when Haytham had ordered him to call off the search? Why didn't anyone in the village ever say anything about the fact that a bunch of Washington's soldiers marched through and burned the place?
You're reading into that one vague cutscene and not offering any logical explanation of the events on that day. Lee was there. Are you claiming he said "eh, screw it, the boy wasn't forthcoming, let's just go home" and walked away?
You're reading into that one vague cutscene and not offering any logical explanation of the events on that day. Lee was there. Are you claiming he said "eh, screw it, the boy wasn't forthcoming, let's just go home" and walked away?
Probably the most important thing, when you think about it:
Haytham knew Washington did something during the Seven Years War and does not specify what it is. Presumably he actually knows what occurred and chose not to say it aloud.
...But if he knew what had happened, if he knew that Washington torched that specific village, why was he surprised that Connor's mother was dead?
...But if he knew what had happened, if he knew that Washington torched that specific village, why was he surprised that Connor's mother was dead?
So, just finished the final showdown, I really loved it actually. However, I didn't like the credits which could have been a short novel, Ubi mentioned everyone from the postman to the guy that scrubs the toilets. The epilogue missions afterwards were a really nice touch though, really summed it up nicely.
I loved the characters in this game, probably more than any other ass creed game. The protagonist (the main one) was serviceable but you can't have everything. The themes were actually great and surprisingly not black and white as I'd thought it would be ie English bad guys Patriots good guys. In fact I think I liked the story of this game more than the others.
I loved the homestead stuff, reminded me a lot of monteriggioni stuff except more organic and fun. The trading, creating recipes and buying pointless crap, however, was not so fun. The sailing minigame was brilliant, and so so much better than the terrible fort/barricade minigame from revelations. Plus, this game is really, really beautiful, I want to see what they can do with next gen hardware, hopefullly without some of the technical issues.
The technical problems do let it down a fair bit, the PS3 version is janky as all crap, and sometimes Connor doesn't quite do what you want him to do. I also found trying to find all of the secret entrances in boston and new york to be highly tedious. And yeah, they need to get rid of the optional stuff in the missions, it really stops the player going about it their own way. Also, not looking forward to finding all those bloody feathers and collectibles in the frontier where there is no quick travel.
Also, is anyone experiencing some sort of glitch with attempting to recruit the assassins in north Boston and North New York? I can't find the missions and the templar control is stuck at about 70%. Really frustrating as I want to finish everything in this game. I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread or if others have encountered similar issues as I haven't read through all the pages.
Also, my uplay code that came with the game is not working which is really pissing me off. Fuck Uplay anyway.
I loved the characters in this game, probably more than any other ass creed game. The protagonist (the main one) was serviceable but you can't have everything. The themes were actually great and surprisingly not black and white as I'd thought it would be ie English bad guys Patriots good guys. In fact I think I liked the story of this game more than the others.
I loved the homestead stuff, reminded me a lot of monteriggioni stuff except more organic and fun. The trading, creating recipes and buying pointless crap, however, was not so fun. The sailing minigame was brilliant, and so so much better than the terrible fort/barricade minigame from revelations. Plus, this game is really, really beautiful, I want to see what they can do with next gen hardware, hopefullly without some of the technical issues.
The technical problems do let it down a fair bit, the PS3 version is janky as all crap, and sometimes Connor doesn't quite do what you want him to do. I also found trying to find all of the secret entrances in boston and new york to be highly tedious. And yeah, they need to get rid of the optional stuff in the missions, it really stops the player going about it their own way. Also, not looking forward to finding all those bloody feathers and collectibles in the frontier where there is no quick travel.
Also, is anyone experiencing some sort of glitch with attempting to recruit the assassins in north Boston and North New York? I can't find the missions and the templar control is stuck at about 70%. Really frustrating as I want to finish everything in this game. I don't know if it's been mentioned in this thread or if others have encountered similar issues as I haven't read through all the pages.
Also, my uplay code that came with the game is not working which is really pissing me off. Fuck Uplay anyway.
xXBetter Off DadXx
Member
Here's what happens for me. I enter the ship, *stagger* as debris falls, climb to the right, jump across to the landing, more debris falls and fire blocks way, turn slightly to the left and jump forward, then half the time as I go to jump forward to the next plank I fall. If I don't fall I make it to the edge where you turn left, and then he's too far gone......
Are you talking about when you make it up top and the pieces od wood fall/fire comes up so you can't proceed where you were going?
Also, tried multiplayer tonight, does anyone know how to make sure you and friends are on the same team? I had myself and two friends in a "group" and when we would start games it would put two of us on one team, and one on the other almost every time. Then when one of our friends left it kept splitting up my friend and I over and over.....
Okay, I've been playing ACIII for about 5 hours on PC and it's time to spill my guts. I just need to get it out. 
- First of, this game starts slow. REAL slow. I'm all for slow starts, as they are a good way to get you more invested in the world and its characters. In ACIII? It's just kinda boring. I appreciated the opening, the journey aboard the ship and the lead up to the
. But once I took control of Ratonhnhaké:ton, dear lord, that's when the boredom struck me.
I get it, this is a dense game with a lot of mechanics and it's a lot to take in, but the tutorials are hampered by, what I call, open world blues. Go there and character X will teach you how to do this, go there and character Y will teach you how to do that. In this scenario, you will learn how to do this. In theory, that's ok. It's a great way to teach you mechanics while playing the game AND advancing the story. Problem I have with ACIII is that there are too many mechanics that need to be explained before the game actually kicks off. That means you have to go from point A to B to C just to learn how to use the Underground (for example). I have NO CLUE how Ubisoft could have done this differently, but it's a mayor gripe for me.
- Secondly, the long winded "opening" serves another, storytelling purpose.
Granted I have not finished the game yet, so I might still get my answer. But as of now, it seems really jarring.
- The controls. I get the impression everything about them falls just short of working like they should. The traversal feels off, because your movement is so "automated". I get why it is that way, but it gets rid of the precision I so desperatly need in some situations in this game. "No, I don't want to stick to this wall right now! That guard is about to see me!". It has also happened that I my character just did not want to jump into a haystack. Rather he just moved up against the edge and the dropped down again, instead of jumping in.
The fighting is easy, but the combo system does not seem to work like it should. It appears not to respond to my button presses half of the time. Picking up weapons is an uneccessary exercise in precision.
I play with a 360 controller on PC btw.
- It's just not fun to play! Disregard the necessary tutorials, what I've played so far is just not fun. Eavesdropping? Yeah, ok, that's cool right? No, it's not. Especially when you combine it with the issues the imprecise controls have given me. "YES, a horse! This will make my journey go faster". Too bad it got fucking stuck on it's feeding-throug and started flipping out. "Aha, a battle with about 10 redcoats! Time for some brutal combo action". Tried comboing, never got one combo, killed 10 men in a dull way.
Even the environnement seems less interesting in comparison to the ACII era games. It's just not as fun to climb that towering church anymore. Probably because it's architecture is far less interesting.
It's just too bad you know? The previous games had their fair share of annoyances, but ACIII seems to throw one in my face just as I start to enjoy an aspect of the game. And still, I want to continue my game, because I'm certain this game will get better. It fucking has to.
- First of, this game starts slow. REAL slow. I'm all for slow starts, as they are a good way to get you more invested in the world and its characters. In ACIII? It's just kinda boring. I appreciated the opening, the journey aboard the ship and the lead up to the
reveal that Haytam and his crew are Templars (which was incredibly predictable, btw)
I get it, this is a dense game with a lot of mechanics and it's a lot to take in, but the tutorials are hampered by, what I call, open world blues. Go there and character X will teach you how to do this, go there and character Y will teach you how to do that. In this scenario, you will learn how to do this. In theory, that's ok. It's a great way to teach you mechanics while playing the game AND advancing the story. Problem I have with ACIII is that there are too many mechanics that need to be explained before the game actually kicks off. That means you have to go from point A to B to C just to learn how to use the Underground (for example). I have NO CLUE how Ubisoft could have done this differently, but it's a mayor gripe for me.
- Secondly, the long winded "opening" serves another, storytelling purpose.
It's meant to make you like and care for Haytam and his comrades, right? And that works. I like(ed) Haytam and his friends. Then why the fuck do they change into pure evil bastards once you take control of Connor? I liked Charles Lee. Loyal, brave, righteous. When he first meets Connor he is the complete opposite. Did they become murdering bastards in those petty years? I thought Ubisoft would explore the perspective of who's good and who's evil? Maybe the Order of the Assassins aren't such good guys after all?
- The controls. I get the impression everything about them falls just short of working like they should. The traversal feels off, because your movement is so "automated". I get why it is that way, but it gets rid of the precision I so desperatly need in some situations in this game. "No, I don't want to stick to this wall right now! That guard is about to see me!". It has also happened that I my character just did not want to jump into a haystack. Rather he just moved up against the edge and the dropped down again, instead of jumping in.
The fighting is easy, but the combo system does not seem to work like it should. It appears not to respond to my button presses half of the time. Picking up weapons is an uneccessary exercise in precision.
I play with a 360 controller on PC btw.
- It's just not fun to play! Disregard the necessary tutorials, what I've played so far is just not fun. Eavesdropping? Yeah, ok, that's cool right? No, it's not. Especially when you combine it with the issues the imprecise controls have given me. "YES, a horse! This will make my journey go faster". Too bad it got fucking stuck on it's feeding-throug and started flipping out. "Aha, a battle with about 10 redcoats! Time for some brutal combo action". Tried comboing, never got one combo, killed 10 men in a dull way.
Even the environnement seems less interesting in comparison to the ACII era games. It's just not as fun to climb that towering church anymore. Probably because it's architecture is far less interesting.
It's just too bad you know? The previous games had their fair share of annoyances, but ACIII seems to throw one in my face just as I start to enjoy an aspect of the game. And still, I want to continue my game, because I'm certain this game will get better. It fucking has to.
UncleSporky
Member
The rest of the icons are in map fogged areas. They don't all show up right away. Run around and explore some more.
matrix-cat
Member
Yeah, I had the same thing in New York. The missions are there, but the icons don't show up on the map for some reason. If you look through your logbook (in the map menu) you can see which particular missions you're missing, and then you just have to jog around the city looking for them. I don't know if it's a glitch or whether it was intentional, but since this game is still telling me about the Shard of Eden I acquired every time I enter a new area I'm going to go with glitch.
I'm on Sequence... 11, I think, and I think all the Homestead missions have dried up, so it's looking like a straight shot to the end. It's a shame, because I really enjoyed just existing in the world of Assassin's Creed 3. I did all the Homestead stuff as soon as it became available, cleared every side mission off the map, crafted and traded until it became pointless and even went and collected the pages and feathers while listening to some podcasts. Now all that's left is story missions, which have been the worst part of the game by far. I've struggled with so many instant-fail stealth missions and awful, awful tailing and eavesdropping bullshit, and from what I've read the game's final missions don't get any better.
Ugh, I just don't know what to say. There's so much bizarre fixing of what wasn't broken in this game, and the mission design feels like they were trying to evoke my memories of yelling at my TV during Assassin's Creed 1. Everything in Assassin's Creed 3 is either automated to the point that I feel like I don't even need to be there playing it, or so frustratingly terrible I can't believe it was ever tested. It's a complete trifle or hard-as-nails, no points in between. I would never hold up the old AC games as paragons of good controls in video games, but at least Revelations introduced a level of skill to the platforming with certain hookblade moves. AC3 finally lets you run around the streets without worrying about falling over like an asshole, but all you do is hold the trigger down and the stick forward. That's literally it. The jump and grab move they introduced in AC2 is still there, but Connor will just do it automatically. I only found out by accident that the grab you used to do by holding B while falling is still in the game, but now you just point with the analogue stick and hope for the best. If I hadn't played the old AC games I never would have known that feature was in the game.
I don't know what it's going to take to actually get some good combat into these games. It's been so clunky until now, but it did at least take some skill to time your combo button presses and learn the timings on when to counter with certain weapons. Again, AC3 simplifies it all to the point where you barely feel necessary as a player. Now you just hammer on the X button to attack, and it seems like you've got about a three second window in which to hit B for a counter move with, what, five more seconds of stopped time to decide what to do afterwards? They want you to chain kills, but they still haven't given you a move to close distance quickly so you just have to hope everyone's really close together.
I don't know if Ubisoft's designers are aware of all this and they just deliberately hold back features so they have something new for next year's game or what, because some of the stuff you can't do in AC3 is just so glaring in its absence. Connor actually has a rolling animation for combat that would be great for dodging attacks or closing distance, it's just that you can't trigger it manually. You can pick up weapons when you're just walking around, but once you go into your fighting stance you can't do it anymore. You can't manually crouch, only steer Connor into some grass and hope he'll take the hint. You still have to wait for the whole animation of Connor climbing back onto a ledge when you just wanted him to drop off but accidentally nudged the analogue stick. Etc, etc.
I'm at Sequence 7 right now.
Random thoughts:
+ Amazing graphics (at least on PC).
+ some of the best animations i've seen.
+ Connor can be a goddamn badass, during gameplay.
+ The Frontier is the best wilderness open world rendition i've seen in a game, complex yet natural geometries, that are also very fun and quick to go through- better than RDR's, even.
+ Really enjoyed the
, got the chills speedrunning through it.
+ First part of the story was pretty neat, up until sequence 6(excluded).
+ the little i've seen of the naval stuff seemed amazing.
+ it's a little unpolished, but i think i like the new parkour better, i found myself falling to my death for a dumb jump, far less and it's not like the old method required any skill.
- jank and bugs everywhere.
- still have yet to understand how the hell the combat works, properly.
- Story from sequence 6 on, is pretty dull so far, Connor became a shadow in the background, while others talk and the historical events really don't impact him as much as in AC2, where you were literally buddy with the big names; here, it seems a bit more like they do some name dropping and that's it.
- I don't know about New York, but Boston is dull as fuuuuuuck, the worries some of us had ended up being true, imo, not a good setting for an AC game, level design wise (and yes, the Frontier is awesome, but you could've had that anywhere on the planet).
- Guards. Guards everyfuckingwhere, Jesus Christ especially in Boston is unbearable; if you have some notoriety it's a torture to simply be in a city.
-Some of the "don't get detected" missions with Kenway were pure shit (though the
made up for them, great opening).
- The soundtrack is not terrible, but i can't remember a single memorable track, so far (though the ambient sounds in The Frontier make up for it).
- Homestead: What? What the fuck do i have to do? Is somebody ever gonna tell me something? For a game with a 5 hours long tutorial, they sure leave a LOT out for you to "figure out" (i mean it in a bad way).
- Horrible, horrible invasive Ubisoft HUD.
- QTE to kill animals.. what a shite.
- The French "no taxation" psychopath idiot with a cleaver.
I'm having a blast so far, but i admit that after Sequence 6, i'm a bit worried as even though the first half was great (if slow burning, but i like that), it's starting to lose steam fast now, since they basically pushed Connor to the side to shove in their checklist of historical events, in which Connor seem to just be the "guy in the background", holding the candle.. i hope it picks up again.
Also:
, much more dynamic and agile looking and a better costume.
Random thoughts:
+ Amazing graphics (at least on PC).
+ some of the best animations i've seen.
+ Connor can be a goddamn badass, during gameplay.
+ The Frontier is the best wilderness open world rendition i've seen in a game, complex yet natural geometries, that are also very fun and quick to go through- better than RDR's, even.
+ Really enjoyed the
Manhattan ride with Desmond
+ First part of the story was pretty neat, up until sequence 6(excluded).
+ the little i've seen of the naval stuff seemed amazing.
+ it's a little unpolished, but i think i like the new parkour better, i found myself falling to my death for a dumb jump, far less and it's not like the old method required any skill.
- jank and bugs everywhere.
- still have yet to understand how the hell the combat works, properly.
- Story from sequence 6 on, is pretty dull so far, Connor became a shadow in the background, while others talk and the historical events really don't impact him as much as in AC2, where you were literally buddy with the big names; here, it seems a bit more like they do some name dropping and that's it.
- I don't know about New York, but Boston is dull as fuuuuuuck, the worries some of us had ended up being true, imo, not a good setting for an AC game, level design wise (and yes, the Frontier is awesome, but you could've had that anywhere on the planet).
- Guards. Guards everyfuckingwhere, Jesus Christ especially in Boston is unbearable; if you have some notoriety it's a torture to simply be in a city.
-Some of the "don't get detected" missions with Kenway were pure shit (though the
Opera House
- The soundtrack is not terrible, but i can't remember a single memorable track, so far (though the ambient sounds in The Frontier make up for it).
- Homestead: What? What the fuck do i have to do? Is somebody ever gonna tell me something? For a game with a 5 hours long tutorial, they sure leave a LOT out for you to "figure out" (i mean it in a bad way).
- Horrible, horrible invasive Ubisoft HUD.
- QTE to kill animals.. what a shite.
- The French "no taxation" psychopath idiot with a cleaver.
I'm having a blast so far, but i admit that after Sequence 6, i'm a bit worried as even though the first half was great (if slow burning, but i like that), it's starting to lose steam fast now, since they basically pushed Connor to the side to shove in their checklist of historical events, in which Connor seem to just be the "guy in the background", holding the candle.. i hope it picks up again.
Also:
Adolescent Connor > Adult Connor
I always played without the HUD in the prior games. Made a huge difference in how I played them and how I appreciated them. But you can't play without the HUD in AC3 (even though they still give you the option to remove it all). Take it away, and you also lose the necessary button prompts to start missions, enter doors, and do those stupid QTEs.
They seriously skimped on their QA time and budget. Either that, or they didn't give themselves time to make adjustments based on their QA feedback. They were easily another 6 months to a year out from when this game would have been ready for market. Iteration must be a real bitch for a game with this many studios working independently on compartmentalized systems. But they chose to develop that way, so they're stuck with it.
Achilles explained everything you need to know. You want to grow the homestead so you do missions to get people to move there.
What you do with people once they move there, other than more quests for them, isn't that important. You can buy stuff from them to ship through convoys, or craft things with them.
^^, I played without the HUD, only kept map and life. Buttons to start missions and stuff appear in the game, not just on the HUD. For the most part, B does everything anyways, or O on PS3 controller I guess. Maybe you lose that stuff if you turn off entire HUD, but you don't the way I did it.
Finished
Storyline was bad. Ending was awful. Setting didn't interest me as much as previous ACs. Gameplay was pretty good though. Whole thing was not as good as Brohood. I'd say ACB>AC2>AC:Rev=AC3>AC1.
Game set in Revolutionary France next please Ubi, but without the 'AND SECRETLY THE ASSASSINS DID IT ALL' angle please.
Game set in Revolutionary France next please Ubi, but without the 'AND SECRETLY THE ASSASSINS DID IT ALL
' angle please.I think it's the enemy awareness icon system (whatever acronym they use for it) that also takes away the button prompts. Makes no sense why they would put both overlays together in the same layer (probably just as simple as both being made by the same team and no one ever thought to separate them). So there's no way to get rid of those annoying waypoint markers without also getting rid of the necessary button prompts.