Yeah, this is a pretty damn good game, especially if you're familiar with the history of the era. The first hour or so is slow, then it gets going, complete with a plot twist early on that you won't see coming. But the ending… well, I wasn't happy with it. It's too abrupt and clearly designed to lead into another game. I hate that, because those sorts of endings are never, ever well-written or satisfying.
I took Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday off work. I picked it up at the midnight launch and played until about 5 AM. Went to bed, woke up, played the game until I went to bed again. Woke up again, played until I beat it at about 6 PM tonight.
No. Brotherhood or 2 is still the best depending on your tastes. But this is the second best. This would have been the best if they had gone into Connor's character with the sort of depth they did with Ezio in 2, and/or if the ending wasn't so obviously "to be continued". I really feel like the last 2 hours of the game were abbreviated, and things happen a little too quickly and conveniently. I can't explain without spoiling, but there's a little too much "In the interest of time" direction going on there. Also, game is clearly pushing the limits of the PS3 and it suffers. Lots of screen door shadows, foliage that literally rises from the ground in front of you as it's loaded off the disc, low frame rates even though the cities are less densely populated and architected than in any other AC game. I don't know if that's because the PS3 wasn't the target platform or if the 360 also suffers from these problems, but if I decide to play the game again, I'm going to buy the PC version. Basically, the core of the game is awesome but the peripheral stuff is a little bit of a letdown. Still had a blast though, and I hope the DLC fixes my dislike of the ending. There are 12 memory sequences and multiple missions in each. I only played the plot missions and it took me as long as I described. There's a lot of side stuff, especially hunting and trading in the frontier township. If you want to do everything, it'll be more like 6 months.
Assassin's Creed III - Debut Traile That's cool. I like some side stuff, not all but some. It'll keep me busy for a while, which is good cause I love these games. Sent from my iPhone
Assassin's Creed III - Debut Traile I'm playing the "Dangerous Mission" mission, before the regular game. Is that okay, or am I going to spoil some plot lines. Sent from my iPhone
I'm still trying to finish up Revelations. I like these games, but I'm always a game behind. I save money anyway. My plan is to finish Revelations before Black Ops II and Halo 4. Play those games for about 6 months and hopefully grab ACIII at $19.99. Revelations is ok but driving me nuts cuz I'm still kind of worn out on AC stuff after finishing up Brotherhood a couple months ago. Brotherhood and Revelations is just seeming like one big game for me at this point.
The slow start to the game wouldnt bother me, it took ACII a bit to get going also. I guess since both ACB and ACR had an action packed opening thats what most reviewers expected.
The issue isn't whether or not the beginning is action-packed. The issue is that you don't even play as Connor until you're 4 or 5 hours in. You play as... someone else. And when playing as that someone else, there's a sequence about an hour long, maybe a little longer, that seems to drag on.
Assassin's Creed III - Debut Traile Oh, I thought the stuff with Haythan was extra content. Doh Sent from my iPhone
Well, now that you've spoiled it... The Haytham sequences are mandatory. They're the first few hours of the game.
I think Ubisoft is keeping their word when they said there would be more of a moral grey area between the Assassin/Templar conflict. Spoiler Haytham never came across as "evil", he did kill two people that in all likelihood deserved it(a slave trader and a sociopath) Also Connor's mom kicking George Washington's *** was cool.
Solid game, I wouldn't say the best of the series at all. I liked it good game but I felt I wasn't doing much more, the game play felt rushed (just playing it not development wise). I would of been happier to take out some of the video work and give us some more story to what is going on. I felt like I was being pushed through the game something I didn't really feel before playing creed. Overall definitely worth my money but I was disappointed. The ending is eh.. alright I guess.
I definitely agree that it felt like we were being pushed through the story, but I also made the decision to play the story missions only. I think it has to do with the fact that you can't get out of some missions because you're stuck in an area until they're completed.
Assassin's Creed III - Debut Traile I have issues with the bugs n gameplay. One cut scene, Connor is totally invisible. Free running and fighting is unreliable and clumsy. Weird, they need a patch badly.
Fighting works differently than in Brotherhood and Revelations, but it's definitely not clumsy or unreliable. It's actually easier to chain than it was in Brotherhood, IMO. The bugs do need to be fixed though.
So I saw that coming, and here's why: Spoiler Every other Assassin throughout the entire series has worn the Assassin Hood. Every one. If Haytham was an established Assassin, he would've worn one. I first thought this in the very first scene in the theater, that he was maybe a Templar because of this and what he said to the man he killed. When Altair or Ezio killed someone, they usually said something prophetic afterwards, like killing was just something they had to do, not something they took joy in. Later, Haytham says something to the Indian girl about killing. Again, he intimates that it's something he is happy to do. Then of course there's the mission where Haytham steals the map, and lo and behold there is George Washington, and of course Washington is in the next Sequence as well when he shoots Haytham off his horse. By this point, I was pretty certain that Haytham and his gang were Templars.
Spoiler Not true. While the primary player characters in AC games do wear beaked hoods, they're the only ones who do. Al-Mualim, Mario Auditore, Niccolo Machiavelli, Yusuf Tazim, etc did not wear beaked hoods. The elderly presumed-assassin that Haytham kills in the beginning (Edward Kenway, perhaps?) also was not wearing a beaked hood. The implication is that changing social mores and fashion is leaving the beaked hood less and less acceptable as a means of clothing--and we see that with Desmond, who almost never puts his hoodie up, though that's more for symbolic "I'm not really an assassin yet" reasons, but still. Also, Haytham is wearing a pointed cap which symbolically substitutes for the beaked hood, just like Connor's tricorner hat when at sea. So you definitely did see it coming, but the lack of a hood is a red herring.
Spoiler Actually, I believe Machiavelli and some of those others did. When Ezio becomes a true Assassin and has his ceremony at the end of AC2, a lot of those characters are there donning their Hoods. I get what you're saying about the social fashion thing though. It makes sense. I'm pretty stoked to play it some more this weekend.
The AC3 development team was on Reddit for a while answering questions. There's apparently another round of bug fixes coming to the consoles soon, and they're trying to improve things like the weapon wheel in future patches.
I'm a sucker. I bought the PC version. And you know what? It's already miles better than the console version, and I only just started the Atlantic crossing.
Spoiler Haytham does have an Eagle motif on his cape, which would make up for his lack of a hood. Aveline doesnt have a hood either actually.
I had to put AC3 aside for now to play some Hitman. Been waiting years for this, and after tweaking with the difficulty options it really does feel true to the series...Between AC3 and Hitman...there's a lot of marks to take down.
So I'm playing through the PC version. They fixed a lot of technical problems—or at least my PC is powerful enough to disguise them. I'm having much more fun with this run than I did with the PS3 version. Also, am I the only one who feels like an evil bastard when killing beavers?
Just beat the game. About the ending: [video=youtube;7n6REP8cLZA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n6REP8cLZA[/video]
I wouldn't go THAT far. Though I'll admit I'm pretty pissed that The Tyranny of George Washington is a. a three-part DLC b. that occurs in an alternate universe where Connor didn't become an Assassin c. when they could have used the DLC to wrap up Desmond and Connor. I'll play it, but I doubt I'm going to like it. Speaking of new things, Ubisoft confirmed that Assassin's Creed 4 has a new development team, new protagonist, new time period, and will come out in 2014. This sounds like a franchise reboot to me in the way that Halo 4 was a franchise reboot; a new developer will use the slate-wipe ending of the previous game to do their own thing. New time period and new protagonist rule out the possibility of an older Connor in the French Revolution, which is a big disappointment to me. But it seems like they won't go with ancient Egypt, feudal Japan, or World War 2. So what are the really big, important flashpoints in history that are familiar to most people? I doubt they'd go with the Civil War. Victorian London—with the new character being the assassin eventually referred to as Jack the Ripper? Admit it, you'd play that. Or maybe it's all present day.
WW1? Russian Revolution would be pretty good...but I feel like most people don't know much about it lol
