You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
The article does have a few good points abt the mission layout. But I don't think ubisoft should have delayed the game. I think the game as it stands now is good and the bugs are a minor issue that can be solved w/ some patches. The developers did a great job with the game and achieved what they wanted, but I think fans are disappointed with the story because of their expectations. I personally was disappointed with the story too but I still like the game and series as a whole.
Theres certainly parts of the game that were close to awesome. Though as a whole I feel it absolutely didn't reach it's potential. Especially with story pacing. And the ending, oh god, the ending. I wasn't even mad about the ending, I pretty much just felt nothing. It failed to evoke any emotion. (the Desmond part mostly)
Ok so...the game was rushed because some guy who had unrealistically high expectations for it says it is? And a few glitches, which are present in pretty much every game that comes out, rushed or not, says the same?
No, I don't see anything but some zit faced teenager complaining that the game wasn't as uber awesome as he thought it was going to be, and isn't 100% glitch free, which NO game is nor has ever been.
Really, this should be AC5. Just because Brotherhood and Revelations weren't numbered games doesn't mean anything. We're getting a new AC game every single game on the main consoles, and this isn't counting the side games on portable devices. I bet anything we'll get an AC3 side game in 2013.
Ubisoft is just lucky that the dev team is naturally talented, because the amount of time they're spending on each AC is pretty abysmal.