I don't understand...Why don't I enjoy this one as much as the rest?

#1kyler45Posted 3/31/2013 10:13:27 PM
I mean yes it was fun, but I could NOT get in to it as much as I could the others, I mean it just seems so...Bland? Is that the word?


I think the reason a lot of people don't enjoy it to the best it can is relatively simple: It's nearly impossible to continue a story with a new character when the previous character is simply amazing. Is this just me? I mean I REALLY didn't enjoy Connor's character at ALL! However, from the start I absolutely loved Ezio's character and when the Assassin's Creed - Embers video ended, not going to lie I teared up, and I don't normally do that!


Could it also be the time frame? I loved the renaissance, and I thought I was going to enjoy the American revolution, but I hated it! ?There was to much...brown! The previous games (Sans AC1 and revelations) had so much life and color, why would they go to such a bland point in time?


I don't know, but it really doesn't seem to be just me with these feelings, it's just too damn hard to follow in the footsteps of arguably the best written story character in a video game of all time.
---
Xbox Live: Kyler45
AC:CF 0605-3418-4438 Name: Kyler Town: Larova
#2u2rocksbabyPosted 3/31/2013 11:45:56 PM
I'll give my input on this. It's Connor. He's boring. I think Ubisoft shot themselves in the foot by introducing the game with an interesting and three-dimensional protagonist, only to drop him off the face of the earth for Act 2 and replace him with a character who, quite literally, has no personality. Connor is bland because he has no consistency, acting like a naive trainee, a wise Indian archetype, or a cold-hearted Assassin whenever the plot suits it.

The moment when this occurred to me was in two instances of Connor's behavior, not more than three missions apart. In the first, he's wanted in Boston, and asks Samuel Adams why he might not simply explain his plight to an individual to clear his name. Fair enough, a pure-minded native with an earnest heart. Then he goes sailing, and arrives in Massachusetts with Robert Faulkner to hire some cannoneers, at which point he storms up to the two Templars and starts angrily demanding information like a lunatic. It took me right out of the game as I realized there was no consistency to Connor's character.

Also, I think the scenery's pretty ugly compared to other AC games. The Frontier and Homestead feel more like artificially planted parks than forests.
#3SkippyjonJones1Posted 4/1/2013 6:46:51 AM
I agree with you guys, I couldn't get into this one as much as the others either. For me it was the lack of an organized assassin order. It was pretty much just Achilles and Connor. That may be a lame reason not to really get into the story but I can't help it. This game had one lone wolf assassin and that's it. It seemed like Ezio actually had a purpose for the assassin order and Connor just did his own thing for his tribe and for Achilles. I know Achilles told him about the Templars and the Assassins but it just didn't grab me like the other games.
#4aWarlock101Posted 4/1/2013 9:12:37 AM
I agree. Conner was a horrible followup to Ezio. Ezio was a smooth, sly, ladies man, and a great assassin.
Conner was a great assassin but like said above my post her was very boring. To me he also seemed somewhat dumb at times.

I also thought the outfits in AC III were the worst so far. Connors story didn't seem to do much for me either. I suppose they wanted to focus more on Desmond and cleaning him up so to speak before the uhhh....end of the game.

The good thing about this game series is that they have all the time in the world to work with. (Animus)
This gives the option to have a large variety of weapons and armor collectively between all of their games.

I kind of feel like the armor of Brutus was somewhat botched. It looked like he was wearing a dress. So I would love to see some type of daemon armor. It could have some fur but I care more about seeing some horns or bone like spikes coming out of the armor. An awesome mask wouldn't hurt either.
---
"hmmm, a total disaster, like eating a burrito before sex." Alec Baldwin (30 Rock)
#5fuzi11Posted 4/5/2013 8:04:16 AM
I also wasn't that big of a fan of AC3 and there were quite a few things that made it bland.

First you have Ezio (even when I despised his old form in ACR). He is purely amazing and he has true character developement. He started out as a vengeful character but got his act together and became the leader of the Assassin's

Connor has pretty much no development, he acts only out of revenge (that is all that is to him) doesn't live by the credo, and seriously is not an Assassin at all. Stealth is completely useless in that game.

The homebase is really crappy compared to the mansion in AC2, the hideout in ACB and even the hideout in ACR.

Building up Rome was fun as were the Assassin-quests, but the whole convoy/trading crap was utter pointless.

And don't get me started on the boring collecting quests in AC3. Do you even get rewards? in AC2 we get to see Adam and Eve revolt as a reward. And you could relieve Ezio's lovelife. In AC3... whatever, I don't know, why would I even collect the pages and the feathers? Were there even catacombs or something like that in the game? I loved to run around INSIDE the churches Prince of Persia style.

Boston and New York are not even comparable to Venice, Florence, Rome and Istanbul.

I understood the removal of the bomb building crap, but why remove everything else that was extremely fun.

Also the game felt much more linear than AC2.

And did I mention, that their is no reason at all to use stealth?



There were still fun parts around (hunting, tree climbing, in general the parts outside the city, and fast travelling), but in general, it was inferior in pretty much every aspect.

Except the rope. That thing is just amazing and needs to be a staple in the franchise ASAP.

And Desmond's part was bigger and better than ever before. Desmond is awesome, that's why that part is the biggest step forward.

I'm not really looking forward to the pirate stuff. The sailing was nice and all, but I was glad they didn't force it on us, as too much of it would be annoying.
#6HagielPosted 4/5/2013 11:25:21 AM
fuzi11 posted...
I also wasn't that big of a fan of AC3 and there were quite a few things that made it bland.

First you have Ezio (even when I despised his old form in ACR). He is purely amazing and he has true character developement. He started out as a vengeful character but got his act together and became the leader of the Assassin's

Connor has pretty much no development, he acts only out of revenge (that is all that is to him) doesn't live by the credo, and seriously is not an Assassin at all. Stealth is completely useless in that game.


Ezio had three games to develop, Connor only one half game (since the story doesn't start before sequence 6). Ezio also had close to no development in ACII except for the end, and that came totally out of nowhere. When Ezio didn't kill Rodrigo I remember thinking "What? Why? Where does this come from, are you stupid??!!" Connor only lacks development because he had two and a half games less then Ezio.

And why do people so often get it wrong what Connor's main motivation is? It's not revenge, it's saving his people! That's why he went to find Achilles, not because of his mother, this is a side note. And he does live by the creed, even though he doesn't mention it.
I don't think stealth is useless, it's a challenge. Of course you CAN just kill anything, but...

fuzi11 posted...
The homebase is really crappy compared to the mansion in AC2, the hideout in ACB and even the hideout in ACR.

Building up Rome was fun as were the Assassin-quests, but the whole convoy/trading crap was utter pointless.


Well, I liked building up the homestead, and it was filled with actual people with a personality and I loved the Homestead missions.

fuzi11 posted...
And don't get me started on the boring collecting quests in AC3. Do you even get rewards? in AC2 we get to see Adam and Eve revolt as a reward. And you could relieve Ezio's lovelife. In AC3... whatever, I don't know, why would I even collect the pages and the feathers? Were there even catacombs or something like that in the game? I loved to run around INSIDE the churches Prince of Persia style.

Boston and New York are not even comparable to Venice, Florence, Rome and Istanbul.


I agree completely, that was very disappointing

fuzi11 posted...
I understood the removal of the bomb building crap, but why remove everything else that was extremely fun.


They introduced the extremely fun Naval missions so I wouldn't say there was nothing fun in this game. Well most people at least found them very entertaining ;-)
---
It's so much easier to see the world in black and white. Gray? I don't know what to do with gray.
Garrus Vakarian
#7fuzi11Posted 4/5/2013 12:02:10 PM
Hagiel posted...

They introduced the extremely fun Naval missions so I wouldn't say there was nothing fun in this game. Well most people at least found them very entertaining ;-)


I liked that the naval missions weren't obligatory. They were funevery once in a while, but it would have turned me crazy if we had to play one every chapter
#8billygotenPosted 4/5/2013 12:19:53 PM
To me, it's the gameplay. So tired of the same old same old.
---
---The defib is a more useful weapon at range than either T1 shotty. - kenmorr23---
#9aWarlock101Posted 4/7/2013 8:59:40 AM
I am sure with black flag there will be plenty of game play that changes. They would be crazy to devote most of the games theme around water without overhauling the way everything works in that area.

You're going to be swimming underwater. You can also choose to board another ship rather than fight it from your ship if you so wish. I also doubt ship play will be the same as it was in AC III. It's bound to be much better. So until anyone has experienced how the game play works in this fashion I doubt they'll have the slightest clue how fun the actual operation of the vessel is gong to be.

Personally these days I'm getting a little tired of monotonous climbing. That being said I would rather see the fewest amount of viewpoints as possible unless of course they make climbing faster. They have managed to do this with each game thus far so I have high expectations.

Something I would absolutely love to see would be an advanced tailing system. It seems as though they made it worse in AC III. But personally in AC III when following people around waiting for them to get where they are supposed to be for the encyclopedia of common man, I would like my person to automatically follow them upon command. Hands free casual follow if you will. It would be a nice feature as long as they didn't make it a part of crucial gameplay.
---
"hmmm, a total disaster, like eating a burrito before sex." Alec Baldwin (30 Rock)
#10gobuffalo30Posted 4/8/2013 4:22:13 AM
I don't think Ezio has anything to do with us not liking the character. I didn't think about Ezio once playing this game and I thought Connor was boring and was bipolar or had a split personality. "I hate you Achilles!" one moment and the very next time you talk a few seconds later "What can I do for you Achilles?" He didn't care about anything, just wanted to destroy Templars.

Another problem was the cities. Boston and New York looked like the same cities practically. They missed the opportunity of going to other major cities during the Revolution, like Philadelphia and Charleston.

While the naval missions were good, I found them to be dull towards the end because they were pretty much the same each mission.

Plus the glitches were never ending on my game.