202 of 243 people found the following review helpful
Hold on...accidently ran up a wall again...,
This review is from: Assassin's Creed III (Video Game)
Assassin's Creed 2 restored my faith in open world games. I've played every one of the AC games and each title has it's own strengths and weaknesses. Out of the entire lineup, Assassin's Creed III has some of the best characters and delivers one of the best stories in the series but not enough thought was put into so many important areas of gameplay that Assassin's Creed III turns into a flawed disappointment.
-The characters are memorable. Here's the thing: Connor isn't Ezio, nor should he be. If you're looking for a wild, charismatic guy who flirts with ladies and does whatever he wants, then Connor is the exact opposite of that. In fact, I'd say Connor's personality is very true to his culture. If he acted like Ezio as a young boy, I'd imagine his people would have thought something was seriously wrong with Connor. His quiet and humble nature suits him well. The side characters have their moments as well. The interactions between Charles Lee and Thomas Hickey, as well and Haytham and Connor are very fun and keep the player in guessing what happens next. The characters on your Homestead are also very funny and a delight to help out from time to time.
-The story is also engaging. Seeing what you read as a kid during history class in elementary school brought to life and getting to play in that environment is amazing! Being a part of the Boston Massacre and The Battle of Bunker Hill seriously gave me a special feeling inside. I'm not a history buff or anything, but the amount of research involved with both story and characters is done exceptionally well. For non-Americans, I've noticed a large disconnect with the events that happen in the game. A few of my European friends that played the game have stated this and found the story pretty dull. So a person not familiar with early American history may find the story a bit boring.
-The naval battles are so much fun that it should have been the entire game. Just sayin'.
-Wolfpack mode is perfect for those that don't like the competitive modes in multiplayer. It's pure co-op and it can even be completed on a solo run if you have no one to play with. The player can earn all the multiplayer trophies/achievements strictly playing that mode if they really wanted to. I think it's a wonderful addition to the online portion.
-The Desmond stuff isn't bad this time around and he finally feels like an assassin for once.
-Gameplay is a mess. It's not bad, but it could have been much better. The free-running is the same as it always has been, but Ubisoft has never fixed the issue of running up things you never wanted to climb in the first place. This becomes a hair-pulling experience when it accidentally happens during chase portions of the game. Another problem is sometimes when you walk casually past some Red Coats, they become aware of your presence and will come after you for no reason! It doesn't matter if incognito is your status, sometimes they will go to full alert and chase you for no reason. Sometimes I'll be chased by Red Coats and will run by Blue Coats. Guess what? They start chasing me too! Why?! They're two opposing forces and they should be fighting each other, not acting like buddies and chasing me! Lastly, the guns feel like it takes a lifetime to reload during fights. I know it's more realistic that way, but when you really need to use something other than your fists in a fight, you'll most likely choose other options before picking gun due to the reload speed.
-Tutorials aren't really helpful. The fighting could have used more of an explanation and the gameplay involving the Assassins you recruit by liberating areas of NY and Boston could have been more thorough. The mechanics will be familiar to people that played Brotherhood and Revelations, but individuals that haven't picked up the game since AC2 may feel a bit lost.
-Fight mechanics should have stayed the same. The Batman games by Rocksteady are amazing when it comes to fight mechanics and it's understandable why Ubisoft have stated that the Arkham games were a big inspiration for the overhaul. Honestly, it's not good in AC3. I'm not even sure why the slowdown animation during the failed parry attack exists, because even if Connor doesn't press anything during the animation, he pushes the enemy back automatically so you're able to try your attack again. If your looking for cool Arkham style fight mechanics, go with the game Sleeping Dogs. Otherwise, this just feels dumbed down and makes me miss the fantastic fluid fights I had in the past AC games.
-Not enough climbing points in the frontier. Sometimes I'd want to perform a hanging attack using my rope dart, but unfortunately, I would rarely find a climbable tree near an enemy for me to do this with. Like, there are soooo many trees. Some of them are like a puzzle to find the exact beginning climbing point. Then there are other trees that are just there to take up space for design reasons and aren't climbable. It becomes annoying, especially when you're looking for a way to get the upper hand on taking down an animal or enemy from the above position. Finding crevasses to climb in the mountains can become equally frustrating for the same reasons.
-The bugs cripple the experience. Even with all the flaws I've listed, I still would have been able to recommend this game to fans of the franchise. However, there are too many random bugs that make me wonder if Ubisoft were too concerned about making the Fall quarter release date that the Assassin's Creed series is known for, that they also managed to forfeit the quality of their product. I've seen so many random bugs and glitches. I can't tell you how many times I had to restart my checkpoint just to fix some of the issues. Sometimes even markers on the map don't show up like they should, so it makes finding objectives harder. I'm sure over time Ubisoft will patch a lot of the issues that exist in the game, but until that day comes, I'd gladly recommend Brotherhood and Revelations over AC3.
Assassin's Creed III isn't a bad game by design. It's the glitches and bugs that make it a bad game. It also feels like a poor effort was put into some of the gameplay elements. Even though the influences from Batman: Arkham Asylum/City to Red Dead Redemption turnout to be lackluster, the originality found in the naval battles is something completely new and maybe should be looked at in future releases of the franchise. They really have something special going on there. I thought this would be my Game of the Year for 2012. Even after playing a great game as Borderlands 2, I still believed AC3 would take my top spot. Yeah...Assassin's Creed III doesn't even come close to my Top 5 this year. AC3 is an okay game, but it feels like a disappointment over what the past titles did as far as gameplay and it should have been much better.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 22 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 10, 2012 3:43:50 PM PST
True Story says:
Very insightful review. I've brought the game because I enjoy the story, but from what I've seen in 'let's play' vids, AC2 remains the best out of the series.
Posted on Nov 13, 2012 10:25:56 AM PST
I agree completely with all of the issues...especially the running up walls accidentally!
Posted on Nov 13, 2012 12:15:41 PM PST
[Deleted by the author on Nov 18, 2012 12:44:29 PM PST]
Posted on Nov 22, 2012 10:11:53 AM PST
Your review was well stated in most points, but I disagree with you on a few.
I love the naval battles too, but if they were the entire game it wouldn't be Assassin's Creed. It would be more like playing a part in the Assassin's navy instead of as Connor.
As for the random Red Coat attacks, it may be where you are. I know there is one portion of southern New York that's fortified by them and they attack any time you're near. I believe it's the start of the burned out section.
I thought the tutorials were helpful. If they changed mechanics I want to know how to use them. Also, what if someone hasn't played it in a long time? It's a nice refresher too!
The fighting mechanics were beautiful to me. I love love LOVE the Arkham style fighting and was absolutely tired of just standing there waiting to press square as twelve guards surround me waiting to fight me one-on-one. It's faster, more brutal, and you can mow down guards like no other if you know each type of enemy. I don't understand how you think the other four games' fights were fluid.
I'll agree with you on the face that there should be more viewpoints in the Frontier though. At least a few. I understand that they did that to make people go out and explore but one or two more isn't too much to ask for. The tree-running is a fantastic mechanic though! Just because you can't climb EVERY tree EVERYWHERE doesn't mean that it's bad. In real life I'm sure you wouldn't be able to climb every tree everywhere. There are normally at least a few trees you can run though going alongside and/or above and across the road. If you don't want to do that you could also always run up behind the Red Coats and double assassinate them that way. How they don't hear a man running up behind them, I don't know. The drumming maybe?
Bugs do plague the game but I wouldn't say they make it unplayable. Irritating occasionally but not unplayable. As we speak they are fixing it with a Thanksgiving patch that should crush many of those bugs. They don't make it a bad game, just a bugged game.
Overall I believe the game should be easily considered for GotY. You're focusing on more of the few bad aspects of the game. What other game lets you go through colonial Boston and New York, climb through trees, take part in huge battles with 2,000+ characters onscreen, assassinate people, hunt animals, build a village, sail ships, liberate the colonies, fight Red Coats, interact with many historical figures, and have an excellent story like this one? The curve ball in sequence three? Yea. Not many I would say. Just try to focus on all the awesome aspect of this game!
Posted on Nov 24, 2012 8:16:03 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 27, 2012 8:00:28 AM PST
H. Jones Jr says:
Good review. The main problem I have with this game is that it has the same control issues (running up unintended walls, jumping the wrong way, etc, makes the frequent chases not even enjoyable) that have plagued all of them. For some reason they actually seemed worse. I just finished the game last night, and I can't help but think after three games since AC2 they could have ironed out some of these flaws, like for example I was in a chase using a horse where I couldn't touch the ground and there was a time limit, and I just wanted to scream because the freaking horse is nigh uncontrollable. Then there were the bugs, they were worse than ever.
-PS3 completely froze four times
-Fell through the map and died attempting to scale rocks in the wilderness at least three times
-Numerous times the characters talk sounding like they are in a cave, no way to get rid of this except reload
-Objective markers disappear, show up on the map but not in game
-NPC's randomly appearing/disappearing/replacing themselves all over the place
-Found one of my NPC recruits in a bar drinking from his war axe
These are just what I remember off-hand. The story was decent, the music was awesome, and I'll even disagree with the reviewer that I actually liked the combat system. However, the drop in quality was noticeable even from AC2. This game did not spend nearly enough time in the polishing/quality control phase. This was an OK game, below par for the AC series, and I'm glad that people on Amazon aren't sugarcoating it. I would still recommend it to AC fans, but for newcomers, I'd still point them to good ole AC2.
EDIT: I will also add that the 2012 storyline now officially annoys me. Questions are answered with more questions. Shaun has gone from a cheeky smart-alec, to a frankly insulting, and unimaginative character. Rebecca has become even less interesting. Lucy is dead and a traitor (What? I liked her.). Desmond's father is the most interesting of the 2012 characters (and that's sad). The Templars' motivations are never fully explained (and no lust for power is not an explanation. Simple lust for power would not be enough to hold together a large conspiracy based organization with members who would be willing to give their lives to defend it for centuries (perhaps millenia?)). Also if Abstergo is so big and powerful, how is it that they let one guy (Desmond) infiltrate their headquarters and when he gets in, their guards, rather than unloading their pistols/shotguns/whatever at the first sighting of him, allow Desmond to close to knife-fight range? Even more infuriating, many of these questions are asked by the 2012 characters and then never answered! Maybe I'm being too demanding, but after five (really seven) games I thought we might start to make sense of the greater conflict besides the boilerplate order vs chaos/freedom thing.
Posted on Dec 3, 2012 8:05:10 PM PST
Absolutely spot on review. The game is great but you would think you're playing a Bethesda game it's so buggy and unpolished. It won't let me make the winning move in a game of 9 men's morris. I've fallen though the map twice, game froze 4 times during SP and twice during MP, getting stuck in walls, major story NPC's not showing up, climbing invisible walls..etc. Wait for a few more patches before buying it for a better experience.
Posted on Dec 3, 2012 8:14:41 PM PST
You basically summed up everything I thought about this game. Glitches and gameplay ruined what could have been the best in the AC series.
Posted on Dec 4, 2012 4:45:16 PM PST
Eric DiPier says:
"Found one of my NPC recruits in a bar drinking from his war axe"
Absolutely classic, I have not laughed that hard in a long time.
Posted on Dec 11, 2012 6:45:05 AM PST
In reply to an earlier post on Dec 14, 2012 4:19:13 PM PST
Ton Yanzik says:
Shouldn't Ubisoft learn how to fix their crippled game(s) instead of making players learn to deal with it?