I want to preface this by saying that I am huge fan of the Assassin's Creed series. I liked AC, and absolutely loved AC II and most of Brotherhood...but for whatever reason, I just couldn't bring myself to play Revelations. I have had it un-opened, sitting in cellophane by my XBOX since it's release. I think I got a little tired of the whole Desmond/Ezio story...maybe?

Anyways, after watching the QL of AC III and hearing people talk about it, I've kinda of gotten that Assassin's Creed itch again. My question is, do you think I should play and finish Revelations before tackling AC III? Is there story elements in it that I should experience first, or is it negligible? Thanks for your input!

It's negligible to the main story. My advice is to play AC 3 now and have Revelations for later if you still need some more stabbin' time.

No, dude. No. You'll be burned out enough by the time you get to AC3. Not that's it's bad, but it's plenty of AC for now.

Also the story is completely negligible. They introduce Desmond's father into the mix, but he doesn't really do anything as a character at all until AC3 anyway.

The game is totally skippable, I did it (after playing half and getting frustrated), and am much happier for it.

I would say if you want to have an enjoyable Assassin's Creed experience play revelations and skip 3.

I already said this in another thread, but watch the Desmond sequences and ending on youtube. Also theres a DLC for revelations that explains what happened at the end of brotherhood which i just discovered. Watch that too. I actually enjoyed Revelations far more than I expected too based upon Ryan's criticisms, but I don't think you can justify spending 12 hours to get a little insight into Desmond and Altair's characters, a couple cool missions, and 2 minutes of plot progression at the end. 90% of the game is Ezio doing unimportant shit, in missions very much like you've seen before.

The consensus seems to be to just skip Revelations all together.

like you my copy of revelations sits unopened somewhere. felt obliged however to spend an hour youtubing its cutscenes, which was barely worth it. the whole lucy thing was given maybe 10 seconds of laughable dialog, explaining nothing. the rest imo was of altair and ezio realizing their parts were simply to help desmond stop solar flares, which i think we knew at the end of brotherhood

I'm just amazed how much fatigue a series can show and all within a span of 2 years.

Having just done Revelations, or I should say, having done half of it last year then did the last half a couple of days before I got AC3, I would say no, not worth it. Go on youtube and look up a video summary of it, there a tidbits of stuff that is cool to see/know, but overall meeeehh... just move on to AC3.

Thanks for the responses guys! I've decided to take your advice and just go ahead and skip Revelations. Although...I guess I could scratch my AC itch by playing Revelations now and waiting for AC3's price to drop to save some money. But then, I just may burn myself out on Assassin's Creed games again. Hmmm, decisions...decisions.

Just watch the cutscenes on YouTube and save yourself the time.

I just started playing AC1 this week...

Aw darn, I just bought Revelations and AC III and thought I'd be able to truck through and play catch-up.

I'm a huuuuge fan of the franchise (one of the few people who actually really enjoyed AC1's gameplay even as it got repetitive) so I'm sure I'll be fine.

Nope.

I'm going to play Revelations and then play ACIII like a year later...whenever I get around to playing Revelations.

Nope, just save your AC craving for AC3, I´m on the same situation as you are and that is what Im doing.

If you're invested in the series as a whole then you must play Revelations, it does a fine job wrapping up Ezio's story and gives a very mystic beginning to where AC3 picks up from.

However to understand AC3 itself then you don't need to play Revelations. Like all previous AC games there's the usual "On last weeks Episode of Assassin's Creed..." reel that plays at the start which helps get new players caught up on where the story is so far.

Personally I treat Revelations as the red-headed-step-child of the series, we all know he's part of the family and tolerate him for it but deep down we sort of resent him.

As most people have said, no, it is not a must play before playing Assassins Creed 3. Revelations offers very little progress in the Desmond/present day story. I still think Revelations is a neat game, but it all depends on what youre expecting. Revelations is pretty much a stand alone adventure for Ezio, peppered with some Altaïr stuff about his life after the events of the original Assassins Creed. Both Ezio and Altaïrs stories are wrapped up in the game, and if you'd be into that, I think you should play it sometime. Ezios stoy has some pretty good new characters including a love interest, and if you, like me, felt the story in Brotherhood got a bit too focused on the Borgias instead of the templars as a whole, Revelations does get back on track in the whole assassins vs. templars stuff. Your mileage on the new mechanics of the game will vary. I found the bombs pretty fun, the tower defense stuff boring, but avoidable (I did 3 matches in the entire game), and the assassins guild domination stuff can be fun, if time consuming as you go along. Bottom line, give it a shot sometime, but it's not necessary before AC3, and you probably dont wanna play them right after each other.

@Colourful_Hippie said:

Just watch the cutscenes on YouTube and save yourself the time.

This. All you really need is the plot to get the setup on what's going on in AC3. The game itself is passable, and really only worth getting if you have time to kill.

I skipped it, kind of wished I played it just to fill the time waiting for PC release

@zombiebigfoot said:

@Colourful_Hippie said:

Just watch the cutscenes on YouTube and save yourself the time.

This. All you really need is the plot to get the setup on what's going on in AC3. The game itself is passable, and really only worth getting if you have time to kill.

I agree.

I'll additionally say that AC3 on its own is a fairly long game if you partake in the optional quests, and I found myself getting a bit fatigued by it towards the end. If I had just come off of AC: Rev, there's no way I could've gotten through it.

I played about 3 hours and hated bombs and defending my bases so I skipped revelations. I could look up the ending but I don't know how I feel about actually playing AC3, I don't think I want any of the changes they made to it either.

I actually really enjoyed AC Revelations. All of the Desmond story in the game is completely forgettable and boring, but I really liked Constantinople, and the act of stabbing dudes and climbing everywhere was just as great as it was in Brotherhood.

@Hamz said:

If you're invested in the series as a whole then you must play Revelations, it does a fine job wrapping up Ezio's story and gives a very mystic beginning to where AC3 picks up from.

However to understand AC3 itself then you don't need to play Revelations. Like all previous AC games there's the usual "On last weeks Episode of Assassin's Creed..." reel that plays at the start which helps get new players caught up on where the story is so far.

Personally I treat Revelations as the red-headed-step-child of the series, we all know he's part of the family and tolerate him for it but deep down we sort of resent him.

How did it wrap up Ezio's story? My biggest disappointment with Revelations was the fact that Ezio is still alive, unmarried, and he still hasn't passed his memories on to his heir, leaving him wide open for another Animus adventure. The only character I felt like I got some closure on was Altair.

Fuck it! I'mma take Revelations out of the cellophane tonight...I may even open the case and pop it into the ole XBOX. Please pray for me!

@EquitasInvictus said:

Aw darn, I just bought Revelations and AC III and thought I'd be able to truck through and play catch-up. I'm a huuuuge fan of the franchise (one of the few people who actually really enjoyed AC1's gameplay even as it got repetitive) so I'm sure I'll be fine.

@Labman said:

I want to preface this by saying that I am huge fan of the Assassin's Creed series. I liked AC, and absolutely loved AC II and most of Brotherhood...but for whatever reason, I just couldn't bring myself to play Revelations. I have had it un-opened, sitting in cellophane by my XBOX since it's release. I think I got a little tired of the whole Desmond/Ezio story...maybe?

Anyways, after watching the QL of AC III and hearing people talk about it, I've kinda of gotten that Assassin's Creed itch again. My question is, do you think I should play and finish Revelations before tackling AC III? Is there story elements in it that I should experience first, or is it negligible? Thanks for your input!

I would play through Revelations. There are some really interesting story beats that come up and a new character that is introduced that will be in 3 and isn't explained why he's there unless you beat Revelations.

@EquitasInvictus said:

Aw darn, I just bought Revelations and AC III and thought I'd be able to truck through and play catch-up. I'm a huuuuge fan of the franchise (one of the few people who actually really enjoyed AC1's gameplay even as it got repetitive) so I'm sure I'll be fine.

You and me both. I did full sync for all of the missions and I thoroughly enjoyed my time in that game, whether it be exploring the (in retrospect, fairly barren) "wilderness" connecting areas or fully absorbing myself in the role of an assassin. Yes, certainly it was repetitive beating up thugs for info or eavesdropping on people, but I think it's a fairly good representation of what one would have to do in order to obtain information. I will, of course, agree that this doesn't necessarily make for good gameplay and there should've been more variety, but I don't think it was quite as bad as some made it out to be.

That said, Revelations didn't really interest me much upon it's announcement or release (as opposed to II and Brotherhood) so I have also decided to skip it and just read its wiki page instead to kind of get "caught up". I was saddened about how little attention was given to the passing of Lucy though...

I've had Revelations since release, and like many got burned out on it pretty quickly (played the first 3 sequences). Then, I didn't get AC3, but all the AC talk got me itching again, so I jumped back into Revelations a few days ago and finished it today. If you already have it, I'd say go for it, it's well worth your time. It's probably the shortest game in the series too if you just go for the story missions so you can get through it fairly quickly.

If you don't already own it, it's okay to skip it I guess, though I recommend watching some stuff on Youtube at least. I actually got pulled back into the AC fiction in a big way after Revelations and now I can't wait to play 3.

Everyone answering here seems to be assuming that AC3 is an awesome must-play game, but really everything I've been hearing about it just sounds like it's over-hyped and kinda shitty. Way more buggy, main character with much less personality, crummy parts dealing with Desmond, uninteresting/linear gameplay (this is just what I've heard from several different people who's opinion I trust).

I'm in the same boat as the OP, having not played revelations, and what I hear about AC3 makes me think that Revelations might still be the way to go, even if it's not the new hotness or as good as brotherhood.

No. Just YouTube the story bits so you'll know what the hell is going on at the beginning of III, but absolutely no. Assassin's Creed games are so mechanically complex and long that it is super easy to burn out after one. Going from Revelations straight into III is just going to cause you to burn out within a few hours most likely.

Related to the thread topic: should I play Brotherhood? I'm like halfway through, but I put it down so long ago that I will have to restart to know what's going on with the story. Should I just wiki/youtube the story bits in Brotherhood (and Revelations, of course), and skip to 3?

I think by this point you can pretty much skip Revelations but if you want the not-so-revelatory story, just search Youtube for all the cutscenes, I'm sure someone has uploaded them by now.

So, I finally decided to fire up Revelations tonight and played the first sequence...took me about an hour (I like to take my time). First impressions:

• The cutscenes are the best I've seen in an AC game thus far.
• I kinda felt nostalgic running around Altair's old stomping grounds.
• The gameplay is so familiar that, even though I haven't played an AC game since Brotherhood was released, it all came flooding back to me.

@bigstrat2003 said:

Related to the thread topic: should I play Brotherhood? I'm like halfway through, but I put it down so long ago that I will have to restart to know what's going on with the story. Should I just wiki/youtube the story bits in Brotherhood (and Revelations, of course), and skip to 3?

I think Brotherhood is a must play. I really, really liked that game!

Replaying Revelations in preperation for AC 3 ( PC release ), and fucking hell this game's by far the worst entry in the series imho. Gameplay is in tatters, too many menial side objectives to care, banks bug out and deny you money constantly, Desmond storyline's not going anywhere etc.

And level - open world design is just laughably bad, and I'm not just knocking out Istanbul as a setting ( my family's been living in Istanbul for around 10 generations now, so if anything I'm a bit biased), the actual parkour elements in the city don't line up, nor provide any semblance of movement flow aside from a few set piece missions. Even the assassin tomb / book hunt, or whatever they're called this time, being essentially guided parkour runs, never get to the same ingenuity and flow AC 2 provided.

Well, seeing Ezio's journey from start to finish was nice I think, and the ending has some nice "revelations" regarding Altair and Ezio's world views and tribulations. So that's that.

Sorry for the rant. This just disappointed me on so many levels, I never shoulda attempted a replay.

There are some big plot points related to Ezio/Altair but nothing really critical to the overall AC story and nothing in 3 really relates to the Ezio/Altair stuff.

By the end of Revelations I didn't want to play an AC game ever again.

Hell I even really liked that hook thing they give you to get around, and bombs were sometimes fun, but it wasn't enough.

I want to preface this by saying that I am huge fan of the Assassin's Creed series. I liked AC, and absolutely loved AC II and most of Brotherhood...but for whatever reason, I just couldn't bring myself to play Revelations. I have had it un-opened, sitting in cellophane by my XBOX since it's release. I think I got a little tired of the whole Desmond/Ezio story...maybe?

Anyways, after watching the QL of AC III and hearing people talk about it, I've kinda of gotten that Assassin's Creed itch again. My question is, do you think I should play and finish Revelations before tackling AC III? Is there story elements in it that I should experience first, or is it negligible? Thanks for your input!

I say anyone who skips it is retarded with a big R, especially if you enjoyed the first two assassins. You don't have to 100% the game, but the main story is excellent and caps off everything quite well. $@#K the haters!!!