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.
Combat was too simplified, the only thing you needed to do was to counter-attack, and it was extremely easy. ACII combat was much more complex, and counters needed to be exact. So yeah, ACII beats ACIII any day, anytime.
PlayStation Network: DarkEmigaru98 Youtube Channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/Emi3280
I feel AC3 is a step up from AC2 in nearly every way imaginable. The arena was more balanced thanks to a combination of better AI (still not great but hey) and more balanced weaponry. I guess a counter to that is heat weapons and stun locking from pistols was a bit much. The environments were a major step up from AC2s barren red deserts and brown industrial cavern-buildings. Also the missions were pretty varied and offered a good balance of challenge with fun. Finally, IMO, the mechs just looked way cooler in that entry.
The Tales of series needs more love in America. Won't change sig until Namco gets wise. Started: 9/8/06
The opposite. It exceeded my expectations in nearly every way, which was no easy feat on its part. The only three complaints I have against the game are:
1. Complete and utter lack of closure in the ending. As far as I can tell, Shaun, Rebecca, and William mean nothing to the series now and probably won't ever be seen again. Lame. 2. Oversimplified combat. 3. The father-son dynamic should have been explored more, IMO. The final scene between Connor and Haytham was very contrived, and it should been in the final chapter, not the penultimate.