Assassin's Creed III
I don't see what's so bad about this game (please no spoilers)
Back To: Board List | Topic List | Topic Archived
Page 1 of 2 | Last
I killed two of the main targets, and I love the game so far. I have no issue with Connor, and I find his hopeless naivety to be endearing. I especially love how the targets have been established, and have motives and true belief in their insanity which reckons back to AC1. I love this because it creates more food for thought, instead of ezio just saying requiescat en pace we have these templars desperately cursing Connor for "ruining" their work. I love the setting, the combat changes,etc. Its not perfect, its glitches and issues stand out more than previous games because of the changes to the engine. But I fail to understand what is so hated about this game so far. I would have wanted at least one more game with connor or colonial america, but IV will still have the period of colonization at least. --- "if gears can be done on the 360, than any game can be done on the 360" (Wisdom_Cube) "I am the content doesn't inst rest me yet"(theroc500) | |
This game was good, I still enjoyed AC2 the most, but this is probably second, only thing it is missing is the glyphs, and it over complicated some things (many side quests and recruiting assassins). | |
The games not a bad game. Its just that it was a bit of a let-down. In my mind i thought the jump from AC2 to AC3 was gonna be as big as the jump from AC1 to AC2 The colonial america setting had alot of potential, but it was poorly executed in my opinion. The game has a few flaws, nothing game breaking, but it urks me because these "Flaws" were executed perfectly in previous AC games like AC:Brotherhood. Its as if this game took 3 steps forward, 4 steps back. Overall its not a bad game....just a bit of a disappointment, to me atleast :\ | |
Sorry for double post (I cant edit my own messages yet) But also everybody was mad because the AC games were originally going to be a trilogy. This game being the finale, we were expecting desmond finally to do something important. Without spoiling the game, i will tell you he really doesnt. | |
Also I would have liked if they fleshed out the side quests. For example in previous games if it was simple as delivering a letter, you would get a brief conversation and a timed escort mission. You could even read the letter to flesh out some of the story. In this game you just go to the letter icon and without any prompts four more icons pop up and you just deliver letters. It seems like it was tacked on at the last minute. Even the assassination missions have no motivation or story behind them. You just kill random targets, not even stealthily. This game just gave me no motivation to do any of the side missions. | |
I think it got the Mass Effect 3 treatment, people didn't like the ending so it's automatically a bad game. There are some disappointing things though. Side quests are meh, Boston and New York are absolutely boring compared to Italy and Rome. The frontier and Homestead make up for this. Then there's the story and main character, not bad at all, but much more contained than previous games. Connor's journey isn't as grand as Ezio's, and I think most people missed that sense of crazy adventure while battling against time. Honestly though, this game does the Assassin/Templar thing far better than the others. With Haytham's prologue giving some backstory and the way the Templars are presented, it's much better. Overall it was a mixed bag, and that's why everyone was so disappointed. The jump from AC2 to AC3 wasn't like AC1 to AC2. --- May the odds be ever in your favor http://i.imgur.com/C41sDRQ.gif | |
AC3 is a great game. After trying AC2 though, like everybodys been saying, yes. I do like AC2 alot more. --- I didn't hit you. I simply highfived your face! | |
ToastyAnakin posted... I killed two of the main targets, and I love the game so far. I loved the game. The major problems I had with it was the modern day ending and character development of non-Templars. Some more minor things were how like the assassination and courier missions didnt have a story behind them like in AC2, no Philly (being from right outside of Philly I was so looking forward to it. Old city and all the historical fights were so cool it was the economic and political capital of the country and most of the major parts of the war (after the earlier events up around Boston) take place around Philly. The gridded excuse was BS. Look at Kingston in AC4. I think it was Kingston at least but I'm pretty sure one of them is gridded), and some plot holes Still an 8.5/10 to me.. | |
Gators2015 posted... ToastyAnakin posted...I killed two of the main targets, and I love the game so far. There were lots of changes from AC1 to AC2, but the story of AC2 was so bland in comparison to AC1 that I was letdown. Everyone keeps saying how AC2 and Brotherhood are so wonderful. They are great games, but their story pales in comparison to AC1. I played AC1 just so I could see the story unravel. It was utterly addicting. AC3 brings a sense of this back, the shades of grey and morality from Templars to Assassins which I enjoy. --- "if gears can be done on the 360, than any game can be done on the 360" (Wisdom_Cube) "I am the content doesn't inst rest me yet"(theroc500) | |
ToastyAnakin posted... Gators2015 posted...ToastyAnakin posted...I killed two of the main targets, and I love the game so far. The thing with AC2 though was that the story flowed better. The pacing and characters plus a decent story made a seemingly boring time period awesome. AC3s problem was that it took an extraordinairy time period and executed it poorly making it seem boring at times. The pacing at times and a few plot holes messed up the story at times. It sounds like I'm bashing the game but I'm not. I didn't even notice some of these issues or get so nitpicky til my second play through. |
Facebook
Twitter
