Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
I actually think Revelations was the worst though AC3 was the biggest letdown of the series.
In terms of story, sure. ACIII had the best gameplay though. If the dev team had taken more time to iron out most of the bugs, and the story had a better ending to Desmond's plotline, I'd rate it above ACII.
^Pretty much that. The only problem with gameplay in III was the lessened emphasis on city-scaping compared to previous titles, but that's remedied for me considering the Frontier is the most dynamic area in the series, and a helluvalot more interesting than Rome, barely 1/3 of which could even be considered "city".
Originally posted by Morridini
Nono, definitely the worst in the series I meant.
No, AC1 remains the worst as it has been since the very introduction of the sequel. The worst offense that III had was simply an overly long tutorial in the same vein as Kingdom Hearts 2.
Originally posted by Demonic Phoenix
In terms of story, sure. ACIII had the best gameplay though. If the dev team had taken more time to iron out most of the bugs, and the story had a better ending to Desmond's plotline, I'd rate it above ACII.
That's what I meant...I probably should've specified story in my initial post. Using a phone to post stuff while working is hard and whatnot.
Though my view of AC3 being a letdown still stands. At least Revelations kind of new it was a cash-in. And though AC3 had a larger map and more stuff to explore, I didn't feel as much of a need to do anything least not like in Brotherhood or 2.
Originally posted by BloodRawEngine
^Pretty much that. The only problem with gameplay in III was the lessened emphasis on city-scaping compared to previous titles, but that's remedied for me considering the Frontier is the most dynamic area in the series, and a helluvalot more interesting than Rome, barely 1/3 of which could even be considered "city".
Indeed. The Frontier is easily the best gameplay area in the AC series.
My only gripe with the Frontier was the map unlocking mechanic. It pissed me off.
Originally posted by wakkawakkawakka
That's what I meant...I probably should've specified story in my initial post. Using a phone to post stuff while working is hard and whatnot.Though my view of AC3 being a letdown still stands. At least Revelations kind of new it was a cash-in. And though AC3 had a larger map and more stuff to explore, I didn't feel as much of a need to do anything least not like in Brotherhood or 2.
I feel your pain. I can't even type a sentence on a new line on my phone, as the stupid enter button acts as a shortcut to submitting the post.
Meh, I thought there was a lot to do. Though some of it was pointless drivel. Delivery requests? WTF. There's a lot of stuff I think could have been done better, but at the end of the day, I liked the game, a lot, and that is not just due to the fact that it has the best gameplay in the series.
Originally posted by BackFire
I don't think I've ever played a game that was simultaneously so impressive and disappointing before.First the good - The world is much more interesting and varied than the prior AC games I've played (just 1 and 2). Running around in the wilderness feels like this game's homage to Skyrim, and it's a lot of fun and offers a nice break from the city atmosphere of Boston and New York.
There's also a ton of content. Almost an overwhelming amount of sidequests and collectibles. The best seem to be the homestead missions. They feel like this game's homage to Mass Effect, in how they're character based and offer character development among your friends living on the homestead. The naval missions are quite good, too.
The setting itself is pretty interesting, though it does have a bit of a Forrest Gump feel to it, as Conner basically just happens to be wherever an important historical battle/event is taking place.
Now the bad. This series is in dire need of a total gameplay revamp. A series of this magnitude, with the budget it has, should not be as clunky as it is. The combat hasn't really improved at all, and seeing as we're in a time where Arkham City has come out and basically perfected this style of combat it just feels stubborn for Assassin's Creed to not adapt and, frankly, copy the parts that Arkham City did better.
Also the stealth aspect is just a joke. Relying almost solely on automatic contextual animations is just not acceptable in this age. Why not have an actual duck/stealth button like every other competent stealth game? The enemy AI doesn't help. At times they're complete idiots, and other times they will see you while their backs are turned. Not acceptable. And since this game sells itself as a stealth game, it's a big blemish.
Desmond sucks. He's just not interesting, and neither is his setting. To be honest I've never been a fan of the whole modern day shit in this series. Feels shoehorned and pointless. Why put effort into making an interesting and historic setting if you're just going to pull me out of it every few missions and force me to play in a much less interesting setting. Also, apparently crazy shit has happened since I last played, as there is some weird Sci Fi stuff going on that just feels ridiculous and laughable. A lazy attempt to make the events going on feel globally important. Not necessary.
Conner's story was passable, though this series has never had great story telling/characters so it's not a shock that aspect isn't top of the line, here.
It was strange how it basically took 5 sequences for the actual game to start, as well. Dunno what they were thinking, but a game taking about 7 hours to really get going is just disrespectful to the player.
Overall, solid game, though deeply flawed, like the whole series. Gets points because there's a lot to do.
Just finished the game. I agree with most of Backfire has said. The setting makes the game. If the took place in another European city, it would be brutal.
The problem I have with the game is that it think it's about stealth but the stealth mechanics are non-existent. Unless the area is designed with a convenient placed wall with holes in it, it's almost impossible to sneak by.
It's glitchy as shit and this series has a tendency to be extremely aggravating. In one section, the game told me to attack this group of people and I did. This increased my notice level. The issue was that the level got so high, if I walked a foot, I was noticed by 30 people. Why 30? Because the guards kept on respawning 10 feet in front of me.
I still enjoyed it. I thought a lot of the story missions were awesome but I would love for this series to take a step back, see what they have and change it. Can we have more interesting missions (like the Capt Kidd ones) where if you finish it, you gett more useful stuff than a rabbits foot? Get rid of all the other shitty side missions that don't do anything and are pointless because you get nothing in return.
Skyrim is great because when you finish a side quest, the loot you get can be very, very useful. You finish a side mission in Assassins Creed, you get 500 bucks.
I'm thinking less is more. Less missions but create longer and more interesting ones. Change the damn controls where your run button doesn't make you vault a two foot post and sit on it like your taking a shit. Learn how to create a more cohesive cinematic. It's brutal. It's like load screen - connor getting into boat - load screen- connor getting of boat - load screen - connor overhearing a convo - very long load screen - and then gameplay. Learn from GTA on how to do cinematics.
Oh. it's a good series but I think it would be best of it if Ubsioft didn't release one every year. The reason why AC2 was awesome because it took two years to do so.